| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1363
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject: A new thread as requested. |
 |
|
On the now locked Creationism thread Elaine invited me to open a new thread. (So that the creationism one was not derailed?) Here it is.
I don't think anyone will argue with the notion that six day creationism is believed primarily because its advocates lay claim to a literal belief in the bible. This approach can be summed up as, "That's what the bible says and that's what I believe." My question though, is are literalists consistent in applying this approach? The passage I specifically asked about was Psalm 23. Is the Lord literally a shepherd? Does he prepare a table in the sight of my (our) enemies? Are his rod and staff a comfort? Previously Jesus' own words about cutting off a hand or plucking out an eye have been mentioned as passage that are not to be taken literally. Could any of the literalists/fundamentalists on this forum explain how they decide which parts of the bible are to be read/interpreted literally and which are not?
P.S.
Since the creationism thread has now been locked I am having to answer Elaine here.
| Quote: | You have now answered my question as to what you actually believe.
Did you read it in a book or did you make it up yourself. |
I read a book. It's called the bible. You interpreted the same book differently though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Elaine
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 1712
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's cheating Bobby 
The quote you have posted has nothing to do with psalm 23 and you know it
(I feel a song coming on.........Hold your hand out you naughty boy  )
As I said in the other thread, the best way to read anything, but especially scripture, is in context. Therefore, I don't see what your getting at.
Some of the bible is pure history. Genesis is history. Some is song/poetry/hymns etc. Psalms is in this catagory.
Psalms can be history, prophecy, symbolic, allegory, and literal.
You cannot use comparison between the 2 to defend a non-literal stance.
If you want to compare Genesis with anything, then compare it with the other books that are history.
Now let me think, how long did Joshua march around the walls of Jerico 
_________________
God put me on this earth to do a number of things.
Right now I'm so far behind I'll live forever!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Surely Genesis was not written by the hand of eye witnesses unlike the other History (sometimes called Law) books of the Old Testament?
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maria
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 527
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
So the evening and the morning were the first day Genesis 1
Exodus 20 :11
Luke 6 Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1451
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Surely Genesis was not written by the hand of eye witnesses unlike the other History (sometimes called Law) books of the Old Testament? |
They aren't all eye witnesses either. See how many times we read "and it is still there today" presumably written some time after.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's true JtheB. Much of the Tradition we have today was preserved through oral teaching before being written down. I think it is important to realize tha this is the case, i.e. prophecies were "dictated" to the authors by God directly, as the icon of St. John the Evangelist on Patamos shows:
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greece/Religion/Revelation1.jpg
However, I don't think it is sensible to see the Gospels or OT history* books written in the same way. They were not dictated to the authors by God directly, but were passed on through Jewish, then Christian, Tradition (both being preserved by the Holy Spirit).
*history is a word that's changed in meaning since the time of the OT. A quick read of Heredotus' histories demonstrates this.
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1451
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had never believed that any was "dictated" by God.
Rather that God put into their minds the material and enabled them to write it in their own style with His infalibility.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1363
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elaine wrote: | That's cheating Bobby
The quote you have posted has nothing to do with psalm 23 and you know it
(I feel a song coming on.........Hold your hand out you naughty boy )
As I said in the other thread, the best way to read anything, but especially scripture, is in context. Therefore, I don't see what your getting at.
Some of the bible is pure history. Genesis is history. Some is song/poetry/hymns etc. Psalms is in this catagory.
Psalms can be history, prophecy, symbolic, allegory, and literal.
You cannot use comparison between the 2 to defend a non-literal stance.
If you want to compare Genesis with anything, then compare it with the other books that are history.
Now let me think, how long did Joshua march around the walls of Jerico |
Why do you believe that all of Genesis is history? How do you know?
Which particular psalms are historical, prophetic, symbolic, allegorical, literal? How do you know?
I am not comparing Psalms and Genesis. I am simply pointing out (as you are now agreeing) that the bible consists of various literary genres. What I am "getting at" is still how do you (as a literalist) know which parts of the bible are literal and which are symbolic? I don't think that's too hard a question. You cite context but don't explain that thoroughly enough for it to be an adequate answer. Please elucidate.
I cited Psalm 23 as purely one example off the top of my head. I also cited the previously referred to passage from the Sermon on the Mount about chopping off a hand and plucking out an eye. Are the parables literal? Was there a real Prodigal Son or an actual Good Samaritan? If not then why is the one about Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16) commonly seen as a 'real' story with real people? Are the numbers given in Revelation (ten days, 144,000 saints etc.) real ones? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elaine
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 1712
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Face........Bovered..........Whatever
_________________
God put me on this earth to do a number of things.
Right now I'm so far behind I'll live forever!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1451
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One thought does occur to me that picking which parts to accept on whether they suit one or not is unsatisfactory.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bobbyc
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1363
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So no discussion then Elaine? How very worthwhile. 
John, is anyone selecting literal/non-literal passages for their own convenience or satisfaction? I know I'm not.
Last edited by bobbyc on Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elaine
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 1712
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
God put me on this earth to do a number of things.
Right now I'm so far behind I'll live forever!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtheb
Joined: 21 Jun 2006
Posts: 1451
Location: second childhood
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | John, is anyone selecting literal/non-literal passages for their own convenience or satisfaction? I know I'm not. |
Oh! That's OK then.
_________________
The effectiveness of a posting is inversely proportional to its length.
C.S.Craig |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crystal
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 308
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Why do you believe that all of Genesis is history? How do you know? |
bobby the same could be said to you but of course it would be Why do you NOT believe that all of Genesis is history? How do you know?
That is why it is pointless to debate this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-theophilus-
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 562
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jtheb wrote: | | I had never believed that any was "dictated" by God. |
I mentioned this because I know some do, and that some on this thread had said this.
| Quote: | | Rather that God put into their minds the material and enabled them to write it in their own style with His infalibility. |
Yes, and of course the "style" of the Gospel writers would have included more details, they being either eye-witnesses (Matthew, John, maybe Mark) or close to eye-witnesses (Luke, maybe Mark). The details of the Creation would have been more likely to have been "lost" (or better to say "not preserved"). The reason being that they are not important in any salvific manner.
It also occurs to me, that even had the story of Creation been preserved orally from Adam until the time it was written, there would still be no human eye-witness to the greater part of creation, rendering talk of literal days ambiguous to say the least.
_________________
ICXC NIKA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
