# Biblical interpretation



## Six million dollar ham (May 10, 2011)

How literally do you interpret the Bible?  

For instance, I was recently told that Goliath's height is irrelevant.  This, despite the measurement provided in the Old Testament, because the bible is not to be taken literally.  

Do you take it literally?  I would think for a defined measure like his height, that seems pretty indisputable.  What's debatable, numerically?

-6 days to create the earth?
-12 disciples?
-3 crosses?
-5 loaves of bread and 2 fish?  (Jew fish {ironically}? Bluefin tuna?  Whale shark? I guess the species ID could be another thread...)
-40 days & 40 nights on the ark?

Are such measures to be glossed over?


----------



## dawg2 (May 11, 2011)

There are protions of the Bible that are metaphorical, poetic, and some parts that are more historical.  You have to read each section as it was intended.

Read this :  http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0076.html


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 11, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> How literally do you interpret the Bible?
> 
> For instance, I was recently told that Goliath's height is irrelevant.  This, despite the measurement provided in the Old Testament, because the bible is not to be taken literally.
> 
> ...


 There are many "literalist"who claim to take everything literally but they actually don't. They pick and choose and ignore. I know many who say it is the word of God and I believe every word of it. Many in their zeal joke about even believing the maps. But, they ignore stuff like the women covering their head. But they say, That was for that time period. How about Pauls verse "time is short, those with wives should live as they had none".  Kind of contridicts all the better husband whitewash we hear in churches today. They can't or will not concede that although God may have motivated the writings we call the bible, it is still a very man made book, writen by men, influenced by his own surroundings, trying to establish his own points of view. Another problem, is that within the NT are all kind of "phrases" meant to call attention back to something in the OT. This is not understood by 95% of bible readers. Such as this; "A man has his fathers wife". By this, the socalled in the know, have reverse engineered that the Corintian city was a wild city and that the church had a pastor who had taken his fathers wife. All the comentarys say this. Just proof that they are in the blind. This is pointing back to Absolomon trying to still the hearts of his fathers followers. Six, since you are not influenced by religious tradition, you will be able to see what I am saying, the others won't.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> There are protions of the Bible that are metaphorical, poetic, and some parts that are more historical.  You have to read each section as it was intended.
> 
> Read this :  http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0076.html



Is the creation story historical it metaphorical? How about the flood? Jonah? Unicorns in Job? Tower of Babel? The bible doesn't specify what is and isn't literal.

1gr8bldr I agree with you. There are no longer any Christians that take and follow the entire bible literally. Everyone picks and chooses.


----------



## gtparts (May 11, 2011)

What dawg2 said.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 11, 2011)

Jesus thought many different aspects of God's will via parables or ( stories). There was no picking and choosing what their meanings were, as is the case with most of scripure.

The parable meanings were specific. People who were spiritually inclined got with the program relatively quickly. The stories of Jonah, David, Mooses and Jesus et al are  alos spiritual stories with specific spiritual meaning.

Just as we know the world about us from our physical interactions within it, we also know this world from the stories of the past, the news of the present and projections into the future. From these we pick and choose. But from scripture, there is little to pick and choose. Meanings are super specific, ( The ministry of Christ for example). What seems to be picking and choosing is not on account of scripture, but the great spirit of protest and rebelion ever present in man. 

The dismissive idea that scripture is man-made and from which people pick and choose is simply naked protest and envy of the faith God has in man and man in Him. From a comunications perspective it disregards how God would go about and comminicate with man-- since man is a type A story teller. Man does not only tell stories to others he communicates with, but he is constantly telling stories to himself, internally. Parables and other spirtual narratives are great means at reaching this internal story world---which is the platform for our individual and communal worlds--which are at first glance--- often unseen realities, but the perceivers of reality themselves. It is from here where our moral compasses operate, our ideas of fairness, justice, peace, and war, for examples.

We are all from somewhere---and that somewhere is probably a story. I might be the story our family history. It might be the story of our family's spiritual history. I might be the stories that have build up our patriotism. It might be the stories of some political or economic philosophy. It might be the stories of many people interacting in a society. It might be stories from economic history or our work history etc.  In many ways we can pick and chose from these stories. We can take a little bit here and some there...etc...we can chose to leave or go and so on...

However, if one has faith in God there is no picking or choosing. One has faith or not.  One has a relationship or not... Scipture is one of the family albums of this relationship. There is no choosing or picking. Warts and all, sinner and saints, I am is all.


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2011)

Gordon that answer is like a marshmallow, more volume than substance. Several paragraphs of asserting the answer is clear while dancing all around it. Are the previously mentioned stories real historical events or not?


----------



## gordon 2 (May 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Gordon that answer is like a marshmallow, more volume than substance. Several paragraphs of asserting the answer is clear while dancing all around it. Are the previously mentioned stories real historical events or not?



I bet you have a few little stories for you ideas on volumes and substance. Your question is a marshmallow question. It melts on the hot bedrock of spirituality.

What previously mentioned stories are you talking about? --so we can be hard candy specific and less puffy.

It is no crime to be ignorant of spirituality... But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on spiritual subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. gordo


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2011)

See post number 4 Gordon.


----------



## Huntinfool (May 11, 2011)

Is there some requirement that I'm not aware of that says it has to be taken 100% literally or 100% figuratively in order to be allowed to be the divinely inspired and true Word of God?

I didn't read that in the bi-laws.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 11, 2011)

Looks like another thread where it will be easy to say things that a person doesn't really mean to say.
A thread of confusion.
I'm gonna try to stay out of this one.
The Bible is God's Holy Word.  I try my best to use it as God would have me.


----------



## formula1 (May 11, 2011)

*Re:*

I trust my God to lead me to truth by the gift of the Spirit of God within me. It is in fact the promise of the Comforter, Teacher, and Advocate which Jesus Himself promised to every believer.  For the record, Belief=Trust!

If by my human failings, I read something and wrongly interpret, it is the Spirit who corrects as well, as He has on many occasions.

Again, Belief=Trust!  I believe, therefore I trust! 

So is it 6 days that the earth was created? Perhaps!

But the point is, 'In the beginning God'! (Ref Genesis 1:1).  Days are irrelevant to the central theme.  What difference will 6 days make if you do not believe the central theme?

Unbelief looks for the flaws in the writing, belief looks for Jesus!  And that is the difference!


----------



## Michael F. Gray (May 11, 2011)

One seeking TRUTH can find it. One seeking attention will usually manage that in one fashion or another.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> See post number 4 Gordon.



Both.

There was a flood and the reporting is in poetic-epic form.


There was a Jonas and the telling of it is in poetic-epic form.

There was a Tower of Babel and the telling of it is in the form of methaphorical device.

There were unicorn, matter of fact I might have the last one mounted in my studio. But I doubt it. Gee!

The bible does indicate what is litteral and not litteral by its forms, just like you can tell when a police officer in a uniform is doing "small talk" with you and when you have to reply to him as, "Yes Sir", "No Officer". In both cases same man, same voice, same uniform, but different "form".

I hope this is not too sweet or soft for your taste... But really you don't need to dance all around with questions--if you are already sure of the answers you have for them. Questions are for learning on a spiritual level. In a court of Law though we can learn from questions, but chances are the lawyers are trying to slam the other side. Their motive is not discovery. And I suspect your's ain't either....


----------



## dawg2 (May 11, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> Both.
> 
> There was a flood and the reporting is in poetic-epic form.
> 
> ...



...now there's some rock candy<---Metaphor BTW


----------



## gordon 2 (May 11, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Looks like another thread where it will be easy to say things that a person doesn't really mean to say.
> A thread of confusion.
> I'm gonna try to stay out of this one.
> The Bible is God's Holy Word.  I try my best to use it as God would have me.



I'll tell you what. Go to the spiritual help forum and ask for prayers...so that when you open your mouth or type sentences on spiritual topics... that the will of God will cover your words--and that you will mean every word you say.

After this get back to his tread. I expect to see your tonsils and the leaves to quake three thousand miles away from the trust of your lungs. I also expect at least a camp weekend and perhaps weekly meetings to pray for you....


----------



## gordon 2 (May 11, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> ...now there's some rock candy<---Metaphor BTW



Metaphor it is.... thanks... Good thing a Methaphore is not a seed, cause goodness knows what I be getting from the seed company. Someone should name a potato variety Metaphor... That way it wouldn't be foreign to so many plates. Peace bros..


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> Both.
> 
> There was a flood and the reporting is in poetic-epic form.
> 
> ...



I have my own views. I'm asking for yours. What I gather from your answer is that you think biblical stories are both historical and metaphorical at the same time. Doesn't make any sense but I guess it covers all possibilities in your mind. The biblical account of a world wide flood and Noah's ark either really did happen as described or it didn't happen as described. If you want to say certain parts of it aren't historical but some parts are then you'll need to do better than saying we just know which is historically accurate and which isn't.


----------



## rjcruiser (May 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I have my own views. I'm asking for yours. What I gather from your answer is that you think biblical stories are both historical and metaphorical at the same time. Doesn't make any sense but I guess it covers all possibilities in your mind. The biblical account of a world wide flood and Noah's ark either really did happen as described or it didn't happen as described. If you want to say certain parts of it aren't historical but some parts are then you'll need to do better than saying we just know which is historically accurate and which isn't.



I Cor 1

18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 

19For it is written,

    "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
   and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."

20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 

21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 

22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 

23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 

24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 

25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 11, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I have my own views. I'm asking for yours. What I gather from your answer is that you think biblical stories are both historical and metaphorical at the same time. Doesn't make any sense but I guess it covers all possibilities in your mind. The biblical account of a world wide flood and Noah's ark either really did happen as described or it didn't happen as described. If you want to say certain parts of it aren't historical but some parts are then you'll need to do better than saying we just know which is historically accurate and which isn't.[/QUOTE]
> 
> Atlashunter. I really don't understand what you are saying here... can you please explain your two points a little more? Perhaps you could use simili, metaphor or comparison or even poetry to help me out...
> 
> ...


----------



## crackerdave (May 11, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> I bet you have a few little stories for you ideas on volumes and substance. Your question is a marshmallow question. It melts on the hot bedrock of spirituality.
> 
> What previously mentioned stories are you talking about? --so we can be hard candy specific and less puffy.
> 
> It is no crime to be ignorant of spirituality... But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on spiritual subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. gordo


Very well said,brother! It amazes me that so many with _no_ knowledge of spirituality come to a spiritual discussion forum with no intention but to try to instill doubt in both believers and non-believers.


formula1 said:


> I trust my God to lead me to truth by the gift of the Spirit of God within me. It is in fact the promise of the Comforter, Teacher, and Advocate which Jesus Himself promised to every believer.  For the record, Belief=Trust!
> 
> If by my human failings, I read something and wrongly interpret, it is the Spirit who corrects as well, as He has on many occasions.
> 
> ...


Exactly!


Be right back - I'm going to th' feed store for another bag of Purina Troll Chow!


----------



## gordon 2 (May 11, 2011)

crackerdave said:


> Very well said,brother! It amazes me that so many with _no_ knowledge of spirituality come to a spiritual discussion forum with no intention but to try to instill doubt in both believers and non-believers.
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> ...



Dear brother Catfish, I stand on the shoulders of many. For example if u look at the bottom of Atlashunter's window...you will see a bit about economics...attributed to some smart guy....

Here have a look: It is no crime to be ignorant of economics... But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. ~Murray Rothbard 

I just changed a few words from it....like changing a fly pattern for rainbow and was hoping the catfish wouldn't bite... but you did.... Rainbows are always full of doubt and don't bite that easy...I guess.... How much do you weigh before I decide to keep you or not... Wait I'm keeping you.


----------



## The Foreigner (May 11, 2011)

Different genres of literature require a different approach to them. You don't read a newspaper like you read a nursery rhyme - so why would you approach biblical interpretation in that way. Biblical genres arenot monolithic. For example:  Genesis 1 bears all the hallmarks of Jewish historical writing (I won't bore you with the technical aspects of it) as does 1 Samuel 1. They should thus be read accordingly. When I read "the Lord is my rock ... my fortress" I'm reading poetry. Now the Lord is not a literal rock or fortress, it is picture language used to convey a reality of God's strength and protection of his people.

Pretty simple really. This is not picking and choosing as some have suggested - (I'm not saying there is not inconsistency in the church) but rather accepting God's revelation of himself in the manner in which he intended.  Does He communicate monolithicaly? No - His self-revelation is varied.  

A piece of Scripture can not be both historical and metaphorical - the two are mutually exclusive forms of communication. God is not the God of confusion (I know that's hard for some of you to believe).

Peace.


----------



## crackerdave (May 11, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> Dear brother Catfish, I stand on the shoulders of many. For example if u look at the bottom of Atlashunter's window...you will see a bit about economics...attributed to some smart guy....
> 
> Here have a look: It is no crime to be ignorant of economics... But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. ~Murray Rothbard
> 
> I just changed a few words from it....like changing a fly pattern for rainbow and was hoping the catfish wouldn't bite... but you did.... Rainbows are always full of doubt and don't bite that easy...I guess.... How much do you weigh before I decide to keep you or not... Wait I'm keeping you.



6'3" and 245 pounds - a little too big fer th' _skillet!_


----------



## gordon 2 (May 11, 2011)

crackerdave said:


> 6'3" and 245 pounds - a little too big fer th' _skillet!_



lol


----------



## gordon 2 (May 11, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> Different genres of literature require a different approach to them. You don't read a newspaper like you read a nursery rhyme - so why would you approach biblical interpretation in that way. Biblical genres arenot monolithic. For example:  Genesis 1 bears all the hallmarks of Jewish historical writing (I won't bore you with the technical aspects of it) as does 1 Samuel 1. They should thus be read accordingly. When I read "the Lord is my rock ... my fortress" I'm reading poetry. Now the Lord is not a literal rock or fortress, it is picture language used to convey a reality of God's strength and protection of his people.
> 
> Pretty simple really. This is not picking and choosing as some have suggested - (I'm not saying there is not inconsistency in the church) but rather accepting God's revelation of himself in the manner in which he intended.  Does He communicate monolithicaly? No - His self-revelation is varied.
> 
> A piece of Scripture can not be both historical and metaphorical - the two are mutually exclusive forms of communication. God is not the God of confusion (I know that's hard for some of you to believe).Peace.



  Dry british humor.... to think that hardness is someway a synonym of difficult... is a comment of how we communicate.... eh Tommy?


----------



## Ronnie T (May 11, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> I'll tell you what. Go to the spiritual help forum and ask for prayers...so that when you open your mouth or type sentences on spiritual topics... that the will of God will cover your words--and that you will mean every word you say.
> 
> After this get back to his tread. I expect to see your tonsils and the leaves to quake three thousand miles away from the trust of your lungs. I also expect at least a camp weekend and perhaps weekly meetings to pray for you....



Okay?????????????
I think.


----------



## The Foreigner (May 11, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> Dry british humor.... to think that hardness is someway a synonym of difficult... is a comment of how we communicate.... eh Tommy?



Not sure I follow you here... humour (british spelling) is too dry for me maybe?  

i'll rephrase ... "I know that is difficult for some of you to believe". 

Will that do? 

Peace


----------



## atlashunter (May 11, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> Atlashunter. I really don't understand what you are saying here... can you please explain your two points a little more?



Readily apparent. I'll try again.

If the story of the flood and Noah's ark really happened as described in Genesis then we can say it is historically accurate. If it didn't happen as described, then perhaps you can claim that certain parts were true in general but the added details that are not historically accurate were simply added for poetic effect or whatever reason you want to conjure. Or... you can say none of it is historically accurate and the whole thing is just a myth made up to teach a lesson. Two questions for you:

1. Do you consider the flood story completely historically accurate in every detail given?

2. If not, and you are claiming that certain parts are metaphor, what method are you using to distinguish history from myth in the bible?

The same questions could be applied to the other biblical stories I mentioned.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (May 11, 2011)

Hey Atlas, I admit it. I PICK and CHOOSE. That was not so hard.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Readily apparent. I'll try again.
> 
> If the story of the flood and Noah's ark really happened as described in Genesis then we can say it is historically accurate. If it didn't happen as described, then perhaps you can claim that certain parts were true in general but the added details that are not historically accurate were simply added for poetic effect or whatever reason you want to conjure. Or... you can say none of it is historically accurate and the whole thing is just a myth made up to teach a lesson. Two questions for you:
> 
> ...



  Question 1. No I don't in every detail. But I also don't believe the evening news in all details, nor the history of the American Revolution in every detail,  nor the Civil War, nor the discovery of the light bulb...etc... 

Question 2. I can distinguish myth from history because both are different forms of story telling. Both can have components of the other in their narrative. A simple knowledge of myths and history is sufficient to make distinctions.

Myths and history have predictable patterns.... Please note that myths don't mean the the narrative is fiction. Rather it is a "form" or "style" for transmitting the appreciation of reality. For spiritual purposes these are spiritual realities....but they can also serve other purposes, such as right of passage, esprit de corps...etc...

People do not communicate in simple algorythms. They live surounded by and inside of stories... and logic is just one of their stories....

Do you think that logic must be suspended...in myths, in histories...???


The Arabian horse is different from the Tennesse Walker....

Since everyone learns differently. I'll give you an example of how one might understand how to differenciate between myth reality and "history".... A study of cultural differences in how people communicate differently is a very productive way to do this. Buy comparing myth communications and history communication it will become evident.... It is very easy to assume that all cultural communications are as per Northern European patterns.... Of course they are not.... A study of arabic or semitic patterns of expression versus  American english patterns is very rewarding...  Most if not all of the spiritual scriptures christians read are from semitic sources...from root to top (Myth) or from beginning to the end ( history).


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

Thanks for the answer gordon. Can you provide an example from the flood story that you don't think is historically accurate and the "form" or "style" that tells you that?


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Atlas, I admit it. I PICK and CHOOSE. That was not so hard.



Hard for some apparently.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 12, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Thanks for the answer gordon. Can you provide an example from the flood story that you don't think is historically accurate and the "form" or "style" that tells you that?



For now simply, from the reputation of the subject, knowing that the flood is a creation myth ( and de-creation myth) one knows that political or social history is not the main topic or purpose of the narrative.

Who was Attorney General of Ninivah and his hospital stay, reports of it in the local rags, who was in charge of the Republican Guard, commodity prices, at the time of the flood is of no consequence....to the narrative... Simply there was a flood...and Noah knew it was coming...so he build an ark for himself and his family.... And a few game animals he was fond of hunting....

 Ok... example...: I don't think this is historically accurate....7:8 Of clean animals and animals that are not clean and birds and everything that creeps on the ground,
7:9 there went into the ark to Noah by twos, male and female, as God had commanded Noah.  

Simply there is journalistic bias in the bit, "clean and not clean"... this indicates to me that the narrative was written by someone intimate with Hebrew culture. The story was most likely written from oral tradition... ...which would be a bit after the fact of the flood ( quite a bit after...)

****( And besides I've been trying to get a decent buck for 50 yrs, just one! and Noah somehow got  bucks and does like it was netting mullet...and this was before game cameras and Stink 69! Gee... Also... you got to be a wisperer in the league of a Shakespeare to deal with skunks, scorpions and sasquatch.) 

"Now it came about, when men began to multiply..." and for the most part the story is in list form until the middle of the narrative.... It is not unlike a poetic list, if you know about them? ^^^Alan Ginsberg's Howl would be an example.^^^ Generally this a litterary device, "form" or "style" or a story telling device which is meant to captivate an audience and create tension in the reader or in the audience...so that people will what to know the outcome or will what to listen or read on till the ending. 

We know that the important facts  of the narrative are not about social or political history but for the list they are spiritual, moral, good vs bad, right vs wrong.... which was the spiritual reality of Noah's day. It is therefore a correct spiritual history. The story is true or truthful. The facts have integrity with the subject of the narrative and spiritual history.

A list for social historical purposes would look like an inventory list of weights and scales...etc...

In many ways the story of Noah is the story of what happened with people after they struck-out on their own (spiritually) from the fall or the Garden of Eden...in condensed "form"....


----------



## Huntinfool (May 12, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> I Cor 1
> 
> 18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
> 
> ...



I have to remind myself of these things often.  It begs the question....why am I compelled to bother?


----------



## gordon 2 (May 12, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I have to remind myself of these things often.  It begs the question....why am I compelled to bother?



There are many Pauls out there...and though they are trying to corner christians as humanity's heretics, there is no telling when their blindness will save them by breaking them and in turn they turn and mininster for the cross to save many. Have faith. God is no pushover--he loves strong headed, stubborn and contrary individuals. Jonah first comes to mind, Job second, Peter and Paul, and my grand mother Deliah.


----------



## The Foreigner (May 12, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> For now simply, from the reputation of the subject, knowing that the flood is a creation myth ( and de-creation myth) one knows that political or social history is not the main topic or purpose of the narrative.
> 
> Who was Attorney General of Ninivah and his hospital stay, reports of it in the local rags, who was in charge of the Republican Guard, commodity prices, at the time of the flood is of no consequence....to the narrative... Simply there was a flood...and Noah knew it was coming...so he build an ark for himself and his family.... And a few game animals he was fond of hunting....
> 
> ...



No, no!  That's simply begging the question - you've proven your assertion by asserting it. That's not proof. The questions atlashunter asked (which I think were outstanding questions btw) were how you determine whether something is historical or not? You simply asserted that it was a creation myth!

Now the fact false religions have creation myths does not mean we have to take the Genesis account in that way. That's simply the fallacy of composition - because it is true of some creation accounts that they are myth, all must be! That's simply wrong. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is nothing in the lingusitics (and yes I read Hebrew, so I'm not making this up) - the grammar or the style - of the accounts themselves of Gen 1-2 or the flood account to suggest they are anything other than historical accounts. Even the best Hebrew scholars can not bring themselves to say the linguistics of the accounts are anything other than predominantly historical.  (the very idea the we can reduce scripture to the level of base and pagan documents bemuses me anyway!)

So in answer to atlashunter's question - we must determine how to approach SCripture by examining Scripture itself. If there is merit within the text to treat something historical or poetically we should do so, not because of our tradition or because extra biblical, uninspired writings tells us otherwise.

Peace


----------



## gordon 2 (May 12, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> No, no!  That's simply begging the question - you've proven your assertion by asserting it. That's not proof. The questions atlashunter asked (which I think were outstanding questions btw) were how you determine whether something is historical or not? You simply asserted that it was a creation myth!
> 
> Now the fact false religions have creation myths does not mean we have to take the Genesis account in that way. That's simply the fallacy of composition - because it is true of some creation accounts that they are myth, all must be! That's simply wrong. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is nothing in the lingusitics (and yes I read Hebrew, so I'm not making this up) - the grammar or the style - of the accounts themselves of Gen 1-2 or the flood account to suggest they are anything other than historical accounts. Even the best Hebrew scholars can not bring themselves to say the linguistics of the accounts are anything other than predominantly historical.  (the very idea the we can reduce scripture to the level of base and pagan documents bemuses me anyway!)
> 
> ...



Good point. If you have time, go for it. I don't. Your point makes alot of sense. I'm hoping that the "merits within" as determinates for what is historical and what is poetical is what Atlashunter is after....and someone can clear this up for him.

In my case I don't find scripture or God for that matter, to be foreign to the minds and hands of man.


----------



## The Foreigner (May 12, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> Good point. If you have time, go for it. I don't. Your point makes alot of sense. I'm hoping that the "merits within" as determinates for what is historical and what is poetical is what Atlashunter is after....and someone can clear this up for him.
> 
> In my case I don't find scripture or God for that matter, to be foreign to the minds and hands of man.



Gordon 2

I don't know if we are talking at cross purposes. But here goes...

I'm arguing for taking Scripture as it's own authority. The Bible is self-authenticating and needs no other authority (2 Tim 3:16). My church has a confession of faith which is subordinate to Scripture - it speaks of the "only infallible" rule for interpreting Scripture is Scripture itself. I agree.

Therefore - to interpret Scripture in light of any other inspired text (the Gilgamesh or any other ancient and near eastern text) is to do it a disservice. That is where the language of "myth" and "epic" stems from  - the idea that because we find mythical and epical myths in the ANE world, Scripture must be like that as well. It's a fallacy and also denies the sufficiency of Scripture.

However, looking at individual texts of Scripture, allowing for the above statements, does not mean that I have to interpret them all rigidly.  Some examples:

"The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want, he makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside still waters..." Psalm 23 is a poetical piece originally set to music: it speaks in metaphors of God, of man, and of God's provision for man. I am therefore required to look behind the words for their meaning - God is a shepherd - he cares, nurtures, feeds and protects me. That is the meaning of the text.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...". Here, I do not have a poetical form of writing. The persistent use of the Hebrew Vav consecutive construction (translated  by the words "AND God said"  "AND there was evening and morning..."as well as a whole host of other grammatical factors tells me I am to read this in a different way to Psalm 23. It is a historical piece - a narrative of events. What is written is the fundamental meaning of the text. Now is there greater theological significance to these words? - by all means. But whereas God is not literally a shepherd, God did literally create the heavens and earth - at least according to the standards of the literature/genre we are reading.

So I'm not arguing that we slavishly adhere to tradition on the flood or days of creation (simply because I was told it was this way!), but neither are we to pick and choose, pressured into conformity by unbelief or by unbelieving science. The ONLY infallible rule for interpreting Scripture is Scripture itself. I am required to determine what kind of literature I am reading, before I try and determine it's meaning. Failure to do that will lead me to employing incorrect hermeneutical (interpretive) principles - applying a rigid, literalistic approach to Psalm 23 will leave me as ignorant as applying a mythical or metaphorical approach to Gen 1-2.

Am I making any sense?

Peace.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 12, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> Gordon 2
> 
> I don't know if we are talking at cross purposes. But here goes...
> 
> ...



I am glad that works for you... it does for myself as well,( however infalability of anything other than God, is a bad word for this RC.

You are making sense yes...but how can a person asking how to deferenciate from non-fiction narative to peotry be aclimatized to a maridian he is hesitant to go?


----------



## The Foreigner (May 12, 2011)

"You are making sense yes...but how can a person asking how to deferenciate from non-fiction narative to peotry be aclimatized to a maridian he is hesitant to go?"

Sorry not following your meaning here?  An infallibility is anything God tells us is infallible. I'm fine with that.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 12, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> "You are making sense yes...but how can a person asking how to deferenciate from non-fiction narative to peotry be aclimatized to a maridian he is hesitant to go?"
> 
> Sorry not following your meaning here?  An infallibility is anything God tells us is infallible. I'm fine with that.


 No I am sorry... my sentence is quite fractured.


We can make scriptural facts back up many doctrines. I tend to shy away from doctrines, for this reason. I try to take people where they are... Trying to explain how narratives from many traditions might work in order to explain how to go about understanding ultimately the Good News is not a problem for me. But I understand that this, it is in part for you, and that is ok....( and perhaps this is just a false assumption I have.) 

Quickly I think we owe a great respect for the Word of God, but we also are called to minister with equal understanding  by listening to the words of men and women and to their stories and their concerns and to hear them with respect...and to meet with them outside the halls of scripture. If a man is not comfortable with scripture, I shall meet him where he is comfortable. If he dines at the tables of logic, I shall try my best to be there.

When Paul ministered to the Greeks and the Romans he talked to them about their Gods and His God. A man's spiritual nature is not a shameful thing. When He comes to me I go to Him and when he comes to me, I go to him.

I am not ashamed to call parts of Scripture myths... or mountains, or arks...for some men and women are made to row, others to climb and others to contemplate God in loving adoration. 

If atlashunter has not his answers from me, let him move to other men much better than I. There are many.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 12, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> How literally do you interpret the Bible?
> 
> For instance, I was recently told that Goliath's height is irrelevant.  This, despite the measurement provided in the Old Testament, because the bible is not to be taken literally.
> 
> ...



I take it as literally as I can.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 12, 2011)

*Twin Trolls*

Ham and Ambush!


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 12, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I take it as literally as I can.



So nothing that is enumerated in the bible is up for debate.  Thanks for the answer.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 12, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Ham and Ambush!



....and there's ted_BSR doing what he does best - not contributing to the discussion.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 12, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> There are protions of the Bible that are metaphorical, poetic, and some parts that are more historical.  You have to read each section as it was intended.
> 
> Read this :  http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0076.html



Interesting.  I can see how this would be confusing to be a Christian.  You must not interpret the bible literally, but in a sense you should.  

So is it fair to say that some of the above scenarios are in no way to be taken literally (as would a fundamentalist)?  If you could label them each as literal or metaphorical, that would help me understand your answer.


----------



## Ronnie T (May 12, 2011)

And Ted, in this thread Six is curious as to how Christian's interprete God's Holy Word.
(Reference back to the Goliath thread).


----------



## atlashunter (May 12, 2011)

Foreigner,

I suppose your approach works if you're approaching scripture as a matter of theology. It all boils down to a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that inevitably differ from individual to individual and ultimately depend on faith and personal experience. In that case it doesn't really matter if you start with the presupposition that the bible is infallible and self authenticating.

If however you are interested in historical or scientific accuracy of the claims and you begin with that presupposition you are doing exactly what you pointed out Gordon was doing, making a proof by assertion.

I do appreciate your honesty in sticking with the historical view of stories that have long been considered historical by believers rather than flipping to a metaphorical translation to save face.


----------



## gtparts (May 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Foreigner,
> 
> I suppose your approach works if you're approaching scripture as a matter of theology. It all boils down to a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that inevitably differ from individual to individual and ultimately depend on faith and personal experience. In that case it doesn't really matter if you start with the presupposition that the bible is infallible and self authenticating.
> 
> ...



Does this mean that you are willing to concede that a theological document does not need to be consistent with the contemporary levels of scientific knowledge,..... that a work that is the revelation of God and intended to communicate spiritual truths and provide a guide for living at the highest level possible, does not have to be 100% accurate in every historical detail to accomplish its intended purpose?

What I see here is a lot of gagging on gnats and the effortless swallowing of camels.


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Does this mean that you are willing to concede that a theological document does not need to be consistent with the contemporary levels of scientific knowledge,..... that a work that is the revelation of God and intended to communicate spiritual truths and provide a guide for living at the highest level possible, does not have to be 100% accurate in every historical detail to accomplish its intended purpose?
> 
> What I see here is a lot of gagging on gnats and the effortless swallowing of camels.



If you're strictly concerned with theological claims, yes.


----------



## ted_BSR (May 13, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> ....and there's ted_BSR doing what he does best - not contributing to the discussion.



I was just pokin' a little fun Six. Except I meant to name your twin as Atlas and not Ambush. Sorry Ambush.

In my previous thread, I said I interpret it as best I can. There is always room for debate, but this topic is a little general to debate.

I just read it, and let it speak to my heart.


----------



## The Foreigner (May 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Foreigner,
> 
> I suppose your approach works if you're approaching scripture as a matter of theology. It all boils down to a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that inevitably differ from individual to individual and ultimately depend on faith and personal experience. In that case it doesn't really matter if you start with the presupposition that the bible is infallible and self authenticating.
> 
> ...



Appreciate your kind words Atlashunter.

However ... you ask the question about the historical or scientific authority of the historicity of such texts. My simple answer is God said so. You will doubtless reply "circular reasoning" to which I will reply "all reasoning is circular, I'm just prepared to admit it, and I start with the right presuppositions". Let me explain...

You essentially want proof of God's existence - how will you prove (or rather how will I!!). It is not like proving my car is in the garage - but then not all proving works like that anyway - grammarian prove things differently to astrophysicists. You want empirical evidence, reason to be the norm of determining God (I assume). Such a claim is posits that the only manner to determine claims is through logic and reason. 

In which case - I ask "prove that statement" to which you can only reply  "it's true by logic or reason" then you too are engaged in circular reasoning. It's true because... well it's true. We must use this method (logic and reason) because ... well... we must.

So you are committed to a system of measuring God which has a presupposition behind it - you have not measured God's existence neutrally or independently - you've brought a whole host of presuppositions (one of them that God does not exist) to the table. And your argumentation in favor of logic is simply circular.

You want evidence however - and I can give it to you. God's creation is all around you - it testifies of God's creative power. The Scriptures speak of God's deliverance of his people, in and through CHrist Jesus. It speaks of Christ, who died, was buried and raised again. All evidence. But not for you - you deny the supernatural and forbid it as evidence. But your commitment to logic / reason undoes you here - because you have not proven that these "laws" are the only method of determining fact.

So you have your presuppostions, and I have mine. The question is "does God exist?".  I argue that for us to be able to have this conversation - he must exist - indeed it is predicated upon his existence. 

Your worldview is utterly irrational which is ironic, because you believe faith to be irrational. No it is unbelief that is irrational for it discounts the source of ratioanlity as it seeks to be rational. It's like a fish trying to walk around out of water (wait ... I know there are some that do that). Better example it's like a fish trying to smoke a cigar while playing a round of golf.  It's like you denying that oxygen exists, while your lungs and blood are full of it.

This post is getting long... let me know if you want to continue. Just to recap, Atlatshunter - I appreaciate the conversation. Neither of us can duck presuppositions and method issues - the question is who has the right one.

Peace


----------



## atlashunter (May 13, 2011)

Actually that isn't the question that I've asked here ("Does God exist?"). My question surrounds the historicity of the biblical stories. There is a truth pertaining to those stories. They either really did happen as described or they didn't. Logic and reason isn't circular can be verified and repeatedly demonstrated. I can test a mathematical equation to verify that it is true. And we know that it works. We use it in our every day lives and that includes you.

Yet in this one case you make an exception to rationality by presupposing a religious text is true. My question is why? If I were in your camp, and I once was, it would seriously bother me if I had to just assume the bible was everything claimed. Because if the historical and scientific claims it makes really are true then no presupposition is needed. If you say that there is an invisible being that cares about who I sleep with and in what position and I'll be punished for it after I die, well that is something that is unfalsifiable and unprovable. That's a theological claim. You either assume it's truth and take it on faith or you don't. I'd say doing so places you on no firmer ground than assuming any other claim of that nature but to each his own.

If on the other hand you say that there was a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago that killed all animals except for a few breeding pairs each and one human family you're now making a scientific and historical claim. You're making a claim that has the potential to be verified or falsified and as such logic comes into play. If you simply presuppose the story is true... 1. Why would you ever need to presuppose something that could be verified by rational means? and 2. What do you do when rational means shows your presupposition to be false?

Even when I was a believer I never feared questioning the truth of the claims of the bible. The truth has nothing to fear from questioning. But a lie does.

There are certain claims the bible makes which we can test for truth. We can ask, if the creation story is true as described or the flood story is true as described, what could we expect to see? What would the fossil record look like? What would DNA evidence show? What would the geological record show?

I suspect the lack of curiosity in many believers, the reason to just presuppose the truth of these claims, is because deep down they fear or maybe even already know where that pursuit will lead them and they don't want to face it. If I really believed the flood story were true and really cared that it was true I would be looking for ways to confirm it. For example, you might look for DNA evidence showing a MRCA going back to that time frame for most if not all animals species around the globe. The fact that Christians aren't looking for that evidence tells me far more about what they believe than anything that comes out of their mouth.


----------



## JFS (May 13, 2011)

The Foreigner said:


> We must use this method (logic and reason) because ... well... we must.



I'm down with that.  If people want to sacrifice chickens, consult a Ouiji board, calculate their astrological sign, draw pentagrams, hold hands at a seance, have relationships with unseen dead people, hope for reincarnation, wait for space ships behind Haley's comet, pray toward Mecca, read the bible, or go down in flames with David Koresh, l guess that's their own business.  I'll stick with logic and reason myself.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 14, 2011)

Quote"I suspect the lack of curiosity in many believers, the reason to just presuppose the truth of these claims, is because deep down they fear or maybe even already know where that pursuit will lead them and they don't want to face it. If I really believed the flood story were true and really cared that it was true I would be looking for ways to confirm it. For example, you might look for DNA evidence showing a MRCA going back to that time frame for most if not all animals species around the globe. The fact that Christians aren't looking for that evidence tells me far more about what they believe than anything that comes out of their mouth."Quote ( atlashunter)
--------------------------------------------------

I might be wrong, but most christians believe that narratives like Genesis are not slam dunk factual accounts of the actual events they are based on and once more it is not their major purpose to do so. They are in part based on events which did happened yes--but their recounting is from the angle of their spiritual dimension. ( Not all christian traditions believe this, some don't.)

Once upon a time North America and South America was not a part of the known world--to europeans or asians for example. It would be "foolish to look for the evidence" of a flood in Peru that happened in a valley south of Lake Baikal 100,000 yrs ago. Any valley farmer that ever pulled milk in a bucket... is not going to happily pay taxes so someone can research DNA that goes back to Noah.

Atlashunter your "question"is ever changing in this tread? Or, at least to my feable mind it is.  I assumed that your question was "How does one tell when something in scripture is methaphore or poetry and when it is historical fact?" I tried to explain how this worked for me--although it was short and perhaps not very effective...

It seems to me that the platform from which you wish to view reality, is a black-white, this or not this, world. I might be wrong. But I think I'm right for now....and the spiritual world is the very item that seeks to get away purposely from a this or not that, right or wrong, true and not true, rigid-flexible, the laws of men vs grace in our universe. This is what you are banging your head against...

 For you it is a serious mountain that makes you question the items of faith, but to the faithful you are on a mattress bothered by a pea.


----------



## gtparts (May 14, 2011)

Quote"I suspect the lack of curiosity in many believers, the reason to just presuppose the truth of these claims, is because deep down they fear or maybe even already know where that pursuit will lead them and they don't want to face it. If I really believed the flood story were true and really cared that it was true I would be looking for ways to confirm it. For example, you might look for DNA evidence showing a MRCA going back to that time frame for most if not all animals species around the globe. The fact that Christians aren't looking for that evidence tells me far more about what they believe than anything that comes out of their mouth."Quote ( atlashunter)
----------------------------------------------------

I think  that the idea of confirmation is an excellent idea.

The Bible repeatedly tells us to  "taste and see that the Lord is good", to "be still an know that I am God", "test and see if I will not open the flood gates of heaven", and many others. God has given us many conditional promises whereby we can verify His being worthy of our trust.

For the vast majority of Christians, as they mature in the faith, their requirement for "proof" becomes less and less. 
The child left in daycare or with a babysitter may squall initially from a sense of abandonment, but over time will come to trust that Mom and Dad will return and, eventually, the child will warm to the situation.

Similarly, as Christian trust God in His promises, they learn that God is good for His word. When we place everything of ourselves under His control and care, we find that when we need reassurance He "has us covered".

So, it is not that we don't confirm the truth of His word. We have and we do, and with each confirmation our trust grows while doubt shrinks to nothing. There are a lot of things in this world that need confirmation, but for me, God and His word are no longer among them.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (May 14, 2011)

gtparts said:


> There are a lot of things in this world that need confirmation, but for me, God and His word are no longer among them.



I don't know what you do for a living, but are there other aspects of your life for which you have a similar approach?


----------



## dawg2 (May 14, 2011)

gordon 2 said:


> ...
> 
> Atlashunter your "question"is ever changing in this tread? Or, at least to my feable mind it is. ....



It is not your feeble mind.  It is an accurate assessment.  It also happens to be his standard operating procedure.  Continuously obscure or change the original question, debate with circular logic, constant redirection and misdirection, etc. ad nauseam.  The point is, you are not supposed to succeed in anwering "the" question.  Even if you do get close, the field changes and you begin anew...enjoy


----------



## atlashunter (May 14, 2011)

It's funny that I would be accused of moving the goal posts because that seems to be what I consistently encounter here. Gordon seemed to be dancing around the question until The Foreigner came along and gave a straight forward answer. But since I'm the one in the hot seat let me set the goal post firm here and now.

My question is, how does one differentiate the fact from the fiction in reading the bible or any other religious text?

I've already agreed with many of you who simply say that the distinction doesn't really matter in terms of the spiritual lessons you are taking away from the stories. I can think of one particular exception to this in the story of the resurrection but that can be saved for another thread.

I can, for example, take moral lessons from Aesop's Fables even though the stories are fictional and were written and have always been understood to be fictional. They don't need to be actual events to convey their lesson.

But believers in the bible almost universally believe the stories of the bible to be fact. When you do that, you're crossing the line into making historical and scientific claims.


----------



## atlashunter (May 14, 2011)

Gordon,

I'm not suggesting that a farmer be taxed to pay for this research. I'm suggesting that Ken Ham and his fellow creationists pay for this research with the support of the many tens of millions of believers. They obviously have an interest in claiming the biblical account of world events is scientifically accurate. Scientific advances in molecular biology now offer them the opportunity to provide good evidence supporting the flood story.

Why would they not pursue that opportunity if they really believe they are right?


----------



## gtparts (May 14, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *gtparts*
> 
> 
> _There are a lot of things in this world that need confirmation, but for me, God and His word are no longer among them._






Six million dollar ham said:


> I don't know what you do for a living, but are there other aspects of your life for which you have a similar approach?



Absolutely! After 39 years of marriage (it really didn't take that long), the level of trust I have in my wife is an area that no longer needs confirmation, yet I sure do receive it on a regular basis. I have every indication that she feels the same. Makes perfect sense when one understands that marriage is best when it is modeled on the love of God.

Here is another area in which I tend to be trusting. In the matter of employment, on several occasions I have not negotiated starting pay, but accepted what was offered. Why? Because I knew the character of the head of the dept. that was doing the interview and hiring. As long as they held that position, I knew I would be treated fairly. When the mgt. changed, often the situation changed and moving on became desirable. I'd still go to work for six of the men who have been my immediate superiors on that basis. They are/were men of honesty and integrity.


----------



## gtparts (May 14, 2011)

> Originall Posted by atlashunter
> 
> "My question is, how does one differentiate the fact from the fiction in reading the bible or any other religious text?"




Really can't speak for any other religious texts, but I will say this about the Bible.  It is truth. Not, "It contains truth." or, "It points to truth."


Sometimes being factual has no value. To be of value, facts must have some useful application. 

Fiction, while a fabrication, can convey truth, so fiction is not necessarily intrinsically false. 

The bottom line on the Bible is not whether some portion is fact or fiction. The bottom line is whether it is truth; does it convey absolute, immutable truth?

Now, anyone can pick and choose the verse or verses to criticize for a myriad of reasons, but understanding the Bible is not a matter of picking apart the pieces, analyzing and sorting, and then reassembling whatever might be left over. It is to be considered as a whole, from the beginning to the end. 

Too many people look at it as 66 books from a double handful of writers, the individual pieces compiled at a later date. That is just erroneous thinking. It is one book, that over centuries God has revealed to many different chroniclers. Every word of the Bible was written in the mind of God before the first brush stroke was made. 

It is not a science book. It is not a philosophy book. It is not a history book. It is not a historical novel. It is not fiction. It is not poetry. 

It does have elements of these literary genres, but it has one purpose, to reveal the Light of the World, Jesus.

Jesus is the subject of the entire Bible, Genesis through Revelation!

It really isn't about creation, the Jews, agriculture and husbandry in the Middle East; it's not about navigating the desert or reading the stars; it isn't about miracles or crucifixion. It isn't about wars or nations. It isn't about famines or droughts, milk and honey, chariots of fire, or bronze statues and temples.

If Jesus isn't the sole central character of the entire book, none of the rest of the book matters. 

The God of all creation, heaven and earth, is bragging on His Son and some still are stuck on how the sun could move backwards in the firmament and want to argue as though God is not capable of such a simple matter.


----------



## atlashunter (May 14, 2011)

So you're saying it's all fact and no fiction?


----------



## The Foreigner (May 14, 2011)

Atlashunter, quite right... I was diverting the topic somewhat. You determine the fact from the metaphor (not fiction) with several principles:

1. This is the inspired word of God (2 Tim 3:16) and is infallible (God being who he is can not communicate error)
2. The Spirit of God works in believers to determine the truth (as per Christ's prayer in Jn 17)
3. Then you work hard ... under the Spirit's illumination, acknowledging that as God is God and I am a finite man, I don't know everything (humility).
4. Study the text - examine it's qualities and characteristics. Determine the genre -poetry, history, apocalyptic, prophetic. 
5. Then you are in a position to determine historicty or facts.

If that is all you are asking, it's a relatively simple task.

I don't think that is what you are asking though - behind the question is the idea that most Christians simply presume biblical historical facts to be true. I accept historicity on two accounts: first if the text demands it (we can debate that) and second because reality with God is irrational and self-contradictory. it is impossible to live without God as your presupposition for everything - you, even now in your unbelief and denial are on borrowed ground - my ground, rather the Bible's ground. To engage in the scientific method, to write, to breathe, discuss - all have God at the back of them. The fact you are unaware, or even as Scripture says, you suppress that God is at back of everything in no way denies the reality of it. 

I'll need to post again - to follow up. But that's a start.

Appreciate the conversation.

Foreigner.


----------



## gtparts (May 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> So you're saying it's all fact and no fiction?



Didn't say that at all, but since you asked, there is the possibility of fiction in that we have stories without sufficient detail to know whether a point is being made for teaching or correction purposes from a fictional account. For instance, when Jesus told a parable, was it from actual people and events or was it a fictional story to illustrate a principle? 

And, yes, there are indicators of which ones may or may not be fictional, but I'll not go into that now.

Another would certainly be the dreams interpreted by Joseph or Daniel, for example. Now, the narratives include the events that support the prophetic nature of the dreams, but there is no attempt to pass the seven skinny cows being consumed by seven fat cows off as a real event. It is a dream with symbolic meaning.
And, no, there is no reason to believe that the king of Egypt did not actually dream such a bizarre dream. May be it was initiated by a bad Nile oyster. God can even use a mollusk to serve His purpose.


----------



## atlashunter (May 14, 2011)

Foreigner,

For me your process hit a wall at step 1 and continued going downhill from there.

The book could contain false historical claims and the steps you laid out would fail to identify them as false. So at least for me, it's not a particularly good answer to the question.


----------



## gordon 2 (May 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Foreigner,
> 
> For me your process hit a wall at step 1 and continued going downhill from there.
> 
> The book could contain false historical claims and the steps you laid out would fail to identify them as false. So at least for me, it's not a particularly good answer to the question.


-----------------------
Get off of it. Your assumption that most of christianity believes that scripture is historically accurate is false. This is the real wall...in your thinking perhaps?

All histories have false claims or "interpretations" and you know this as well as most christians. Historical accounts can never be complete. They can have emphasis or not where "fact" would not or would warrant it, but for the purposes of the writer(s), --commissions, editors and the like. They (Historrical Accounts) will always be inadaquate. 

The above is why scripture's historical integrity is not a  litmus test for veracity. The subjects of scripture are spiritual ones, first and foremost--of course these are set within the framework of time and place. 

Scripture does not have spiritually false claims. Otherwise, many would save us all by proving the spiritual claims false. I'm not talking dogma here, or the cultural habits that chalenge the church. I'm talking about the spiritual reality of scripture...which have and can be tested and which in some cases have been from corroborated evidence regards events.

Christians test what reality is in scripture from the reality of their lives. The differences in understanding or interpretations within are accounted for in the degrees of faith, the trust in that faith and the varied individual and communal walks in faith.


----------



## Gabassmaster (May 19, 2011)

The bible is for no private interpritation


----------



## rjcruiser (May 19, 2011)

Gabassmaster said:


> The bible is for no private interpritation



Welcome back


----------



## stringmusic (May 19, 2011)

rjcruiser said:


> Welcome back



X2, havent seen you in a while


----------



## atlashunter (May 19, 2011)

Gabassmaster said:


> The bible is for no private interpritation



Translation please?


----------



## Gabassmaster (May 27, 2011)

Gabassmaster said:


> The bible is for no private interpritation





rjcruiser said:


> Welcome back





stringmusic said:


> X2, havent seen you in a while



thanks guys i forgot my password and i still dont remember what it is but somehow i finally got my comp. to log back on Gon forum


----------

