The Bible

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]See what you think of some thing like this: The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days | Answers in Genesis Regardless of anybody’s views he does spell out what was the vast majority one in the church for a very long time and for very good biblical reasons. Of course this will have no effect on most even church people nowadays, but just to throw it out there. Still lookin for that answer on probability btw.
[/quote]

If we accept that a 24-hour day is what’s described by the text, it seems to me that the true believer has little choice but acceptance. Obvious problems arise when a foundational narrative is presented as fact and then found not to be–“perhaps the virgin birth was metaphorical, perhaps the resurrection was metaphorical.” [/quote]

Half the problem is discerning what constitutes a “foundational” narrative, however. Is the virgin birth a foundational narrative outside of Catholic theology and those overwrought Protestant systems wherein Jesus’ virgin birth is used to explain his freedom from the influence of original sin? The New Testament authors really don’t DO much with it. Matthew mentions it as proof that Jesus’ rise, life, and death all fell within the prophetic framework of the OT; for Luke it seems to play even less of a significant role except as a historical fact. So, while not denying the truth of the virgin birth narrative, I certainly don’t see it as foundational (unless, of course, you are Roman Catholic).

[quote]
It was noted above that metaphor plays a role in the Bible as evidenced by Jesus’ parables. But Jesus makes it explicitly clear to his disciples that he finds metaphor effective. No such meta-description accompanies Genesis.[/quote]

This is an argument from silence.

143

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]See what you think of some thing like this: The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days | Answers in Genesis Regardless of anybody’s views he does spell out what was the vast majority one in the church for a very long time and for very good biblical reasons. Of course this will have no effect on most even church people nowadays, but just to throw it out there. Still lookin for that answer on probability btw.
[/quote]

If we accept that a 24-hour day is what’s described by the text, it seems to me that the true believer has little choice but acceptance. Obvious problems arise when a foundational narrative is presented as fact and then found not to be–“perhaps the virgin birth was metaphorical, perhaps the resurrection was metaphorical.” [/quote]

Half the problem is discerning what constitutes a “foundational” narrative, however. Is the virgin birth a foundational narrative outside of Catholic theology and those overwrought Protestant systems wherein Jesus’ virgin birth is used to explain his freedom from the influence of original sin? The New Testament authors really don’t DO much with it. Matthew mentions it as proof that Jesus’ rise, life, and death all fell within the prophetic framework of the OT; for Luke it seems to play even less of a significant role except as a historical fact. So, while not denying the truth of the virgin birth narrative, I certainly don’t see it as foundational (unless, of course, you are Roman Catholic).
[/quote]

A Christian has to be believe that God created all. So, yes, I would say that the account of creation is foundational.

145

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Questions for the christian believers in this thread: How many of you believe the bible to be an accurate historical document? How many believe the bible and it’s stories in a literal sense? Do you believe it to be interpreted for it’s root meanings and not to be interpreted literally?

Thanks.[/quote]The bible is literally historical and accurate everywhere it so intends, which is not everywhere. Not even the most strident dispensational fundamentalist believes that every statement of the bible is to be taken literally. How one determines what is what is far too large a topic for an internet thread. What view of God and scripture one starts with makes a huge difference, but no Christian believes when the bible says the sun “rises”, that it is making a statement about astronomy for instance. I am VERY conservative and I don’t believe that. Pretty much, what it meant to the original hearers is the foundation for everything. However even then, revelation IS progressive throughout the bible. The book of Hebrews and Pauline theology report far more content to pretty much the entire old testament than the old testament saints themselves understood. Like I say. HYOOOJ discussion. Always good to see my ol pal Sparky pop in for a spell.
[/quote]

There are a lot of erroneous assumptions behind your question, bigflamer. I’m not getting on your case - I want to answer your questions sincerely, but you’ve inadvertently set the terms of the discussion inappropriately. Tirib’s response hints at this but doesn’t go far enough.

" [/i] an [/i] accurate historical record" - “the Bible” is a collection of texts written over many centuries at widely different times and places in a variety of literary genres. Thus, to read them all these texts as a single “historical record” is to mischaracterize many of them. Is the Song of Songs a historical record, or is it poetry? Moreover, the genre you refer to as “historical record” has analogues in the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman worlds, but it is a distinctively modern concept. In other words, no one wrote “disinterested” or “objective” history in antiquity. That doesn’t mean that certain events discussed in the texts didn’t happen or were simply made up. It just means that historians always chronicled events with a particular purpose in mind - Greco-Roman authors wrote Bioi (Lives) of famous people often for political propaganda or moral instruction, not because they simply wanted to make sure posterity had an accurate knowledge of how events unfolded.

In short, even historical analogues in the OT and NT are written for a purpose; in so far as their intended purpose to give a true account of events (like the birth of Jesus or the events of his life), I wholeheartedly affirm that they do.

“in a literal sense” - the term “literal” is virtually meaningless and wholly inadequate to characterize the exegesis of any Protestant. I’m not getting on your case; it’s just that distinguishing “literal” from “figurative” is extremely tricky business, because it presupposes that there is such a thing as “literal” language, a very questionable assumption. Many linguists and cultural theorists would argue that language is inherently metaphorical, that language we consider “literal” is really just dead metaphor.

In any case, though Brother Chris attacks Protestants in this thread for “literalistic” reading, he is as guilty as many Protestants of the same erroneous reading strategy - i.e., attempting to apply an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all interpretive schema to the text. For some Protestants, that means taking the imagery of books like Revelation as eyewitness descriptions of actual entities; for Catholics like Brother Chris, it means reading biblical texts allegorically (or tropologically or anagogically). Both schemas reflect an insensitivity to the genres of the various biblical books and how those genres are meant to be interpreted. Apocalyptic texts like Revelation (and there are many of them) were never intended as eyewitness accounts nor as point-by-point predictions of particular historical events, so when Protestants read Revelation that way, they are mischaracterizing the genre. The same goes for allegorical readings (though allegory is also a convoluted term) - certain texts are intended to be interpreted allegorically (like Jesus’ parables), but on what grounds do we read Song of Songs as an allegory of Christ’s relation to the church when we have ample examples of similar love poetry from the ancient Near East and NO indication that such texts were ever meant to be read allegorically?

Thus, I would argue that proper interpretation always requires applying the interpretive framework demanded by the text’s genre, not trying to use a single framework (whether “literalizing” or “allegorizing”) for the variety of texts out there.

146

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]See what you think of some thing like this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n1/six-days Regardless of anybody’s views he does spell out what was the vast majority one in the church for a very long time and for very good biblical reasons. Of course this will have no effect on most even church people nowadays, but just to throw it out there. Still lookin for that answer on probability btw.
[/quote]

If we accept that a 24-hour day is what’s described by the text, it seems to me that the true believer has little choice but acceptance. Obvious problems arise when a foundational narrative is presented as fact and then found not to be–“perhaps the virgin birth was metaphorical, perhaps the resurrection was metaphorical.” [/quote]

Half the problem is discerning what constitutes a “foundational” narrative, however. Is the virgin birth a foundational narrative outside of Catholic theology and those overwrought Protestant systems wherein Jesus’ virgin birth is used to explain his freedom from the influence of original sin? The New Testament authors really don’t DO much with it. Matthew mentions it as proof that Jesus’ rise, life, and death all fell within the prophetic framework of the OT; for Luke it seems to play even less of a significant role except as a historical fact. So, while not denying the truth of the virgin birth narrative, I certainly don’t see it as foundational (unless, of course, you are Roman Catholic).
[/quote]

A Christian has to be believe that God created all. So, yes, I would say that the account of creation is foundational.[/quote]

Agreed.

147

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

Ditto.

But for a more…“muscular”…version, try:

Modern translation is a thing of…interesting mixed with a lot of head scratching. Why I prefer the Latin.[/quote]

Yeah because Latin is so much easier for the lay person to understand, and the Catholic Church to manipulate and control the people. This is why the reformation started. The Lay person had access to the Bible in their common tongue and they could see that the Roman Catholic Church was lying to them.

148

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

A Christian has to be believe that God created all. So, yes, I would say that the account of creation is foundational.[/quote]

Here ^ is a guy who is not a believer and he “gets it” better than most.[/quote]

I agree. God created all, I am just trying to wrap my head around the days of creation. Are they 24 hour periods, or just counted as a day because there was day and night. Another foundation is that Jesus Christ is both human and God. Another foundation is that Jesus Christ died on a cross to pay for our sins and rose from the dead in 3 days. Days are not counted as 24 hour periods here in the bible, so this is why I struggle with the creation story being 24 hour days and maybe not 1,000,000 hour days because the Earth may not have spun quickly, I don’t know.

152

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
As finding myself to be orthodox in most things the Bible has four senses: literal and spiritual (which breaks into three senses: Allegorical, Tropological, and Anagogical)… You’re welcome. And, this is all brought to you, not by my efforts, by the Early Church Fathers.

All scripture has a literal sense to it (whoever says there isn’t doesn’t know the ECFs) but there is sometimes a “metaphoric sense” (if anyone says there isn’t, then explain Jesus parables) or parabolical sense (I’m not sure if all scripture does have a parabolical sense).

I said that all of the Bible has a literal sense and some (possibly all) of scripture has a metaphorical sense (think 100% literal, 90% metaphoric (I don’t know what the percentages are, it could be 100% and 100%, but I used that for demonstrative purposes)). [/quote]

LOL Chris it never ceases to amaze me how unreservedly you claim that the early church fathers spoke with unanimity on anything. Do you actually read them, or do you just have a series of proof texts from ECF literature on various topics that you glance at when you make these claims? Do you even have that much to go on?

First of all, the four-fold schema isn’t found until the fourth-fifth centuries in Augustine and John Cassian, and it was really just a summary of the different ways later Christian authors thought previous church fathers had read the Scriptures. So talking about this schema as if its some sort of badge of “orthodoxy” is borderline disingenuous; the apostles knew of NO such distinction, though they applied a variety of different interpretive methods.

Secondly, YOU don’t know the ECF’s - Origen plainly stated, “with regard to divine Scripture as a whole, we are of the view that all of it has a spiritual sense, but not all of it has a bodily (literal) sense. In fact, in many cases, the bodily sense proves to be impossible.” Thats from Book 4 of First Principles, by the way. And before we get into a conversation about Origen’s supposed heretical status, the fact is (1) that status was given posthumously after considerable doctrinal development in Christology, (2) he was representative of an interpretive school of thought (i.e., Alexandrian allegorical exegesis) going back centuries and encompassing figures like Clement of Alexandria, and (3) that interpretive school, along with Origen’s hermeneutical influence, continued in figures like Augustine. In short, Origen wasn’t the only one who thought this way; we see it in Clement before him and other church fathers after him. They were all influenced by the Greek philosophical schools, wherein the works of Homer had been interpreted allegorically for centuries as veiling the teachings of Plato and other philosophers, both to give the philosophies more cultural clout and to keep the Homeric epics relevant at a time when the populace considered them morally bankrupt.

Why won’t you do thorough analysis of your church’s historical claims? THE EVIDENCE IS THERE. It’s not like we have to trust her witness; we can actually see the texts, texts which many of her members (like yourself) continue to reference as authorities! If you did some historical research, you would plainly see that the reason why Augustine, Origen, Clement, and others interpreted certain texts figuratively was because the “literal” senses of the texts did not jibe with the moral frameworks and “scientific understanding” of late antiquity. Simple as that. They had cultural prejudices and these prejudices were reflected in their exegesis, because the early church fathers, like pretty much everyone in antiquity, were not sufficiently sensitive to their rootedness in particular contexts and the influence of those contexts on their thought. A great example is Augustine, who applauds Ambrose for asserting, in the face of Platonists who claimed that Jeremiah stole his wisdom from Plato, that the path of transmission went in the opposite direction! Neither Ambrose nor Augustine questioned the legitimacy of allegorical reading (which Philo had used on the OT); they simply said that Plato’s teachings could be found in Jeremiah!

153

[quote]pushharder wrote:

The three days of the crucifixion/resurrection are to be understood within the framework of Jewish timekeeping of that day. Study that and you’ll understand what I mean.
[/quote]

That is my point. The Jews time based on sun down to sun down. Jesus died before sun down Friday so that was day one, then there was Saturday sun down Friday to sun down Saturday, day two, and then Sunday sun down Saturday to morning when the tomb was empty, day three. Maybe only 35-40 hours from death to resurrection.

This is why I still wrestle with the Creation day being 24 hours. I wrestle with it, but being 24 hours does not have to be foundational, but God creating everything out of nothing is and it took 6 days to create and then he rested for one.

154

[quote] Brother Chris wrote:
Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)
[/quote]

This isn’t right either. I don’t know if you made this up or if someone told it to you, but the four-fold sense is MUCH more ridiculous than this example suggests. The schema does not, as you have depicted it, simply emphasize different aspects that are already apparent in the text itself, and you can’t just apply it across the entire book of Genesis; you have to use it on select passages.

Rather, John Cassian (5th century) gave the classical example with reference to the use of the term “Jerusalem” in the Scriptures…

Literally, Jerusalem refers to the city of the Jews.
Allegorically, Jerusalem refers to the church.
Tropologically/ Ethically, Jerusalem refers to the soul.
Anagogically (i.e., looking to the future), Jerusalem refers to our heavenly home.

Thus, proponents of the four-fold schema would take a passage like Psalm 46:5 (“There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy dwelling-place of the Most High”) and argue that ALL of the following interpretations are LEGITIMATE interpretations of this Old Testament passage (i.e., that all of these interpretations accurately reflect the divine intent)…

“Literally”, this passage states that God functioned for Jerusalem like a life-giving stream in her midst (see Psalm 46:6).
Allegorically, this passage refers to the Spirit’s function in the church, which it nurtures and protects.
Tropologically, this passage refers to Spirit’s function in the individual, as it sanctifies and guards them.
Anagogically, this passage depicts the final situation in our heavenly abode, where the stream of living water flows from the divine throne in the heavenly city (Revelation 22:1-2).

156

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

The three days of the crucifixion/resurrection are to be understood within the framework of Jewish timekeeping of that day. Study that and you’ll understand what I mean.
[/quote]

That is my point. The Jews time based on sun down to sun down. Jesus died before sun down Friday so that was day one, then there was Saturday sun down Friday to sun down Saturday, day two, and then Sunday sun down Saturday to morning when the tomb was empty, day three. Maybe only 35-40 hours from death to resurrection.

[/quote]

I don’t get it. What’s the problem?

Luke 18:33 says “on the third day he will rise again.” He did.

There is no problem. I am just saying that Jews do not look at a day as being 24 hrs as is in the example of the resurrection story. Taking that Jews do not look at a day as 24 hrs I wrestle with the creation story being 24 hr days. A day to a early Jew just meant sun down to sun down so if the earth rotated slowly during creation then it was not 24 hrs, but maybe 1,000,000 hrs in one day. I am not saying you are wrong either. I am just saying I don’t know and I wrestle with it. Israel wrestled with God, why can’t I. I might get a bad bone spur in my hip for it. It is totally normal as I am human, and I live by only the Grace my Father in Heaven gives me. I don’t have all the answers about the Bible.

157

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Questions for the christian believers in this thread: How many of you believe the bible to be an accurate historical document? How many believe the bible and it’s stories in a literal sense? Do you believe it to be interpreted for it’s root meanings and not to be interpreted literally?

Thanks.[/quote]

It depends on which book you are talking about, and more specifically which parts of which book. Some switch their reference midway. The Bible is actually a collection of documents. Some are historical, some are allegorical, some are poetic, some are prophetic and many have a mixture of various things.
There are many pieces but it’s one puzzle.

158

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I lived Job for a few years… It sucked.[/quote]

You don’t get to “live Job for a few years” unless you had a Bentley, a Ferrari, a Lamborghini and a Porsche 911 and had been left to go by only with a 2002 Kia Spectra.

Sorry.
[/quote]

I had a Porsche 914 1.8 :), Am I Job :)?
[/quote]

No, but you are pitiable.

160

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

The three days of the crucifixion/resurrection are to be understood within the framework of Jewish timekeeping of that day. Study that and you’ll understand what I mean.
[/quote]

That is my point. The Jews time based on sun down to sun down. Jesus died before sun down Friday so that was day one, then there was Saturday sun down Friday to sun down Saturday, day two, and then Sunday sun down Saturday to morning when the tomb was empty, day three. Maybe only 35-40 hours from death to resurrection.

[/quote]

I don’t get it. What’s the problem?

Luke 18:33 says “on the third day he will rise again.” He did.

There is no problem. I am just saying that Jews do not look at a day as being 24 hrs as is in the example of the resurrection story. Taking that Jews do not look at a day as 24 hrs I wrestle with the creation story being 24 hr days. A day to a early Jew just meant sun down to sun down so if the earth rotated slowly during creation then it was not 24 hrs, but maybe 1,000,000 hrs in one day. I am not saying you are wrong either. I am just saying I don’t know and I wrestle with it. Israel wrestled with God, why can’t I. I might get a bad bone spur in my hip for it. It is totally normal as I am human, and I live by only the Grace my Father in Heaven gives me. I don’t have all the answers about the Bible.[/quote]

You are unnecessarily complicating this. Luke didn’t say Christ would rise after 48 hours; he said “on the third day” – the third 24 hour day. I don’t understand your confusion.[/quote]

I don’t understand why you are complicating this. I am using the example of the resurrection not being 3, 24 hour days to understand why I am wrestling with the creation story being 7, 24 hour days. That is it. There is nothing behind it. If the resurrection story is not 3, 24 hour days then why does the creation story have to be 7, 24 hour days?