What parts of the bible do you perceive to be literally true?

PDN · 13-04-2010 1:37am

Memnoch wrote: »

1. It is disingenuous and misleading to compare changes in interpretation based on empirical evidence to changes in interpretation that is based on faith.

No it is not. I am demonstrating the principle that we may change our interpretation of X based on new knowledge or information that we receive, without thereby affecting or changing the truthfulness of X.

That principle is true whether we are talking about empirical evidence, the Bible, or whether your girlfriend is cheating on you or not.

I am applying the same logical principle because logic does not change it's nature based on whether we are discussing faith or empirical evidence.

Unless you're suggesting that we shouldn't apply logic to the study and interpretation of the Bible?

That is the difference between religious dogma and science. Science doesn't HAVE to be right all the time. We accept the best POSSIBLE theory, based on the evidence that we have. When new evidence comes to light that suggests previous conclusions as erroneous or new avenues for thought open up, we have no problem embracing them. Because that is the scientific method. It is based on EVIDENCE.

And religion doesn't have to be right all the time. We're quite capable of turning round and saying, "You know what, I've thought about this a bit more and I've come to the conclusion that how we've been interpreting this is wrong." Guess what? That's what much of theology is doing!

Tbh, the only people I see around here insisting that they are definitely right are the atheists who keep posting in this forum to tell us Christians how wrong we all are.

The bible however is not. Unless I'm missing something, there is zero empirical evidence to back up its claims. It's all about faith and choosing to believe what it says because... well... you want to. There is no best possible theory with the bible, it's the word of god. But now modern christians are cleverly hiding behind the cloak of "interpretation," because what they claimed was the word of god has been shown to be wrong on so many occasions. The thing is, you don't need to interpret the bible.

Yes, you're definitely missing something there.

Christians have been interpreting the Bible from the earliest days of the Church. Heck, much of the New Testament is a record of people like Paul or Peter interpreting the Old Testament in the light of the new information and insight they've seen in Jesus Christ. The history of theology and the history of Christianity are the history of people interpreting the bible.

Here's a hypothesis. If we take the bible, FOR A MOMENT, as a creation of man, 2000 years or so ago. Then there are NONE of the scientific contradictions we have today. The bible is literally true, there are no errors and therefore no need for interpretation.

Sorry, I've read that paragraph several times, and it still makes no sense to me whatsoever. It doesn't matter if a text is inspired by God or not. It still needs interpretation.

The Constitution needs interpretation. The message my wife left me about not forgetting to pick up a loaf of bread needs interpretation. All communication needs interpretation.

Please don't tell me I'm not thinking logically, that is a personal insult, and an attack on the poster and not the post.

My apologies. I will correct my statement.

You may have been thinking logically, but there was little evidence of such thinking displayed in your post. Your argument (in your post, not necessarily in your head) was pretty bad logic.

Okay, lets ignore everything else I've said up to now and just focus on this one little point

God, I wish I'd seen this instruction before I went to the bother of answering all the stuff you're now telling me to forget!

Let's take X as the bible. I will now add another variable, which you seem to have ignored. Organisation Y, which is the church.

So lets talk about the inherent truthfulness of X, or the bible? How do we accept things to be inherently truthful? Because we have evidence. Empirical, testable evidence. Like the theory of gravity which allows us to land spacecraft on the moon or mars. Or the theory of evolution which is the basis for much of modern biology and much else.

So now answer me this... where is the evidence for the truthfulness of X, i.e. the bible?

That's an entirely different matter to interpretation, but if you want to start a new thread on it you are free to do so.

I have no wish to be dragged off on another rabbit trail on this thread just because you're making a bit of a bags of arguing about interpretation.

But let's just focus on Organisation Y for now, the Church/

Hey, I learned from last time. I didn't bother answering the last lot of stuff because I peeked further down the page and saw you really wanted to focus on Y rather than X. We make a good team!

The FACT is, we have nothing other than THEIR word for the "truthfulness," of the bible. Or for the "truthfulness," of the claim that it is the word of god, since the CHURCH delivered this word.

Unfortunately it's not a fact (and liberal over-use of upper case letters doesn't make it so. But if you want to start a thread about that I will do my best to discuss with you my reasons for believing the Bible to be truthful.

And yet the Church has been shown to be wrong, repeatedly and consistantly. On what basis and credability does it word count for anything then?

Churches are made up of people, and as such they make mistakes all the time. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong.

Let's return to scientific principle. We once believed that the Earth was flat, which had many implications, such as you could not keep sailing in a certain direction as you would fall off the edge, etc.

Less of the 'we'. I never believed the earth was flat. and if you did I don't think it's fair to blame the Church or the Bible.

Since the organisation that gave us the bible and that CLAIMED the bible to be the word of god has been wrong about it's own claims, time and time again, it stands to reason that we do not simply continue to accept their word. That the bible IS the word of god.

I don't simply accept their claims. I have other reasons for believing the Bible to be true. Like I said, start a thread on that if you're really interested in discussing it, but I think I'll ask you to promise not to change the subject half way through if your arguments don't prove to be as convincing as you thought they would.

Are we ever going to get back to the subject of interpretation?

Again, if you take the bible as written by man 2000 years ago, then none of these problems occur.

If I stick my head in the sand I can make all kinds of problems disappear.

But sometimes it makes more sense to follow what you believe to be true and work through the problems (this is the voice of 25 years experience of marriage speaking).

Or to put it another way. EVEN if we accept that it is ALL about interpretation. Since those who've been doing the interpretation have been shown to be so utterly useless at it, why should we continue to put our FAITH in them?

I don't. I do my own interpreting thank you very much. And, in the past, I've given up my home, my job and my career prospects rather than just go along with the interpretations of the denomination to which I belonged.

The opposite isn't happening. It's the same pattern. First there was no doubt what the Church or Christianity's stance on homosexuality was. This battle will continue to be waged but as homosexuality becomes more and more accepted around the world, homophobic views will become more marginalised and on the fringes of society and eventually the church will abandon it's current stance entirely. Just a matter of time, as it was with every other example of Church doctrine that has been discussed thus far.

Now who's making a statement of faith in the teeth of empirical evidence.

Statistical evidence is clear and unambiguous. Those churches that are growing worldwide are those that hold to a conservative view of Scripture, and affirm the biblical standpoint as regards homosexual acts.

You might not like that, but the facts are abundantly clear. Those denominations that try to say homosexual acts are OK for Christians are in numerical decline - your faith statements to the contrary not withstanding.

Now, as there growing acceptable of homosexuality around the world, there are calls for tolerance and a VISIBLE softening in the stance of the church.

Now you're talking about two different things. Tolerance is very different from affirming or not affirming biblical teaching.

This battle will continue to be waged but as homosexuality becomes more and more accepted around the world, homophobic views will become more marginalised and on the fringes of society and eventually the church will abandon it's current stance entirely. Just a matter of time, as it was with every other example of Church doctrine that has been discussed thus far.

I tell you what, if you want to discuss homosexuality then resurrect one of the existing threads or start a new one. But let's cut out these weasel-words like homophobia. I don't fear homosexuals, nor do I hate them.

Memnoch · 13-04-2010 7:45am

PDN wrote: »

No it is not. I am demonstrating the principle that we may change our interpretation of X based on new knowledge or information that we receive, without thereby affecting or changing the truthfulness of X.

That principle is true whether we are talking about empirical evidence, the Bible, or whether your girlfriend is cheating on you or not.

I am applying the same logical principle because logic does not change it's nature based on whether we are discussing faith or empirical evidence.

Unless you're suggesting that we shouldn't apply logic to the study and interpretation of the Bible?

Interpretation isn't the issue, it is what LEADS from interpretation that is the issue.

Here's how I see the logic....

Religious organisation says ---->>> Here is the bible, it contains the words of god

>>> God is omniscient and omnipotent, so smarter, better, stronger than you in every way, the creator of the universe and of you

>>>> you should listen to the word of god

>>>> since we are interpreting the word of god

>>>> you should listen to us.

We are being asked to accept religion not on the strength of evidence but on the logic that God is inherently superior to us, and so we should accept everything he says, even if it doesn't make sense to us.

This is not the same logic as science or from a scientist. Scientist --->> hey, I have a theory ---->>> here is the evidence I have to support my theory --->> you can examine this evidence, in fact, anyone can ---->>> here is the experiment I conducted to test this theory ---->>> anyone can conduct and repeat this experiment and their results will be the same as mine ---->>> now we can apply this theory to real world applications ---->>> the applications we created based on this theory seem to work which suggests that we are close to understanding how things work in this area of science ---->>>> oh, some new better evidence has come along ---->>> we can now reass and change our theory.

But the whole thing rests on Bible ---->>> is the word of god. And the same people saying this are the ones telling us that we should let them rule our lives based on this. This is one thing that hasn't changed, from the interpretors of 2000 years ago to today.

People were asked to do horrible things based on religion, and still are. They were told to accept these things because it was the word of God and still are.

Today, discrimination against homosexuals is encouraged again based on this word of god.

And religion doesn't have to be right all the time. We're quite capable of turning round and saying, "You know what, I've thought about this a bit more and I've come to the conclusion that how we've been interpreting this is wrong." Guess what? That's what much of theology is doing!

Sure it does. If we are being told to accept religious teaching on the basis of the infallible word of god, then that word really needs to be infallible. Here there is no real difference between the word and the interpretation of that word. Because if religious institutions interpreted it wrong before, then how do we know they are interpreting it correctly now? It's not like they have more evidence to support their claims regarding the bible now than a few hundred years ago. I certainly don't see any reason to take their word for it.

Tbh, the only people I see around here insisting that they are definitely right are the atheists who keep posting in this forum to tell us Christians how wrong we all are.

Nonsense. Firstly, I'm an agnostic, not an atheist. I have no problem with the existence of a god. I do have a problem with MEN who claim to have communicated with god and are bringing me his message. As for claiming right and wrong. Aethism by definition makes no claims. It is the LACK of a claim, a-theism. i.e. the claim that the Bible is the teaching of God, and this god is the creator of the universe etc. etc. This is the CLAIM made by Christianity. All atheists are saying, is that they don't see the evidence for this. The onus to provide the evidence is on the ones making the claim.

Yes, you're definitely missing something there.

Christians have been interpreting the Bible from the earliest days of the Church. Heck, much of the New Testament is a record of people like Paul or Peter interpreting the Old Testament in the light of the new information and insight they've seen in Jesus Christ. The history of theology and the history of Christianity are the history of people interpreting the bible.

I don't care how long they've been interpreting it. That doesn't prove it's true or that any part of it's true. Not any more than the works of ancient greek authors that have been read and interpreted for a very long time.

The fact that this interpretation repeatedly changes shows to me that I cannot rely on this interpretation, because they said...

Hey, here is the word of god. You must accept what I'm saying because it's the word of god.

200 years later... no no no, now THIS is actually the word of god, what was said before based on this logic was mistaken....

fast forward to today... no no no no, now THIS is the REAL interpretation.. it just goes on and on and on.

Why should I put ANY stock in your interpretation TODAY, unless you've got some strong evidence that previous interpreters didn't have, when the pattern is clear and there's no reason it won't continue ad infinatum.

Sorry, I've read that paragraph several times, and it still makes no sense to me whatsoever. It doesn't matter if a text is inspired by God or not. It still needs interpretation.

I love this. This is both brilliant and devious. "Inspired by god." Great softening language. Christianity can no longer claim infallibility and they know it. The paragraph in question makes perfect sense. Many things that were claimed about the bible as the infallible word of god 2000 years ago were actually infallible at the time because they were based on the science of that time and not on the word of god. They have since been demonstrated as false as our knowledge of science has improved.

The Constitution needs interpretation. The message my wife left me about not forgetting to pick up a loaf of bread needs interpretation. All communication needs interpretation.

Right, and you get to decide what parts should be interpreted and what parts are literarally true, like the part that says it is the word of god.

You may have been thinking logically, but there was little evidence of such thinking displayed in your post. Your argument (in your post, not necessarily in your head) was pretty bad logic.

You may be thinking logically in your head but there is little evidence of such displayed in your post. Your argument is pretty horrendous logic and based on nothing more than blind faith and your desire to believe it to suit your own agendas.

God, I wish I'd seen this instruction before I went to the bother of answering all the stuff you're now telling me to forget!

That's an entirely different matter to interpretation, but if you want to start a new thread on it you are free to do so.

I have no wish to be dragged off on another rabbit trail on this thread just because you're making a bit of a bags of arguing about interpretation.

Firstly, YOU we're the one who introduced the issue of the truthfulness of the bible, so to some claim that I'm dragging this off topic is ridiculous, since you brought it up. This thread's topic is about what parts of the bible are taken as literally true, well I see the truthfulness of the bible as a core part of that argument.

I mean, to consider ANY part of a document to be true, you have to first decide whether there is any truth to said document to begin it.

Unfortunately it's not a fact (and liberal over-use of upper case letters doesn't make it so. But if you want to start a thread about that I will do my best to discuss with you my reasons for believing the Bible to be truthful.

Okay... here's the thing, there are so many interpretations of the bible. But I don't see the reason why we should put any stock in it as a document of fact to begin with? Since it's ALL down to interpretation, it doesn't seem like there is any inherent truth at all.

Churches are made up of people, and as such they make mistakes all the time. Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they get it wrong.

But they said that it didn't matter that they were people because they were relating the word of GOD. And it seems to me that that is still what they AND you are saying. You're not asking me to listen to your beliefs because you have some astounding scientific evidence to support it. You're relying on the very same things as those you claim "misinterpreted," the bible in the past. Same foundation, same house of cards.

Less of the 'we'. I never believed the earth was flat. and if you did I don't think it's fair to blame the Church or the Bible.

The 'we' references humanity, or christianity or people in general of the time who held that belief.

It is absolutely fair to blame the Church AND the bible. Since they were the ones who burnt heretics at the stake. The church and or the bible aren't independent entities. The Chruch/christianity draws it's power entirely on the basis that the bible is the word of god. And this assumption is spread and maintained by the church/christianity.

I don't simply accept their claims. I have other reasons for believing the Bible to be true. Like I said, start a thread on that if you're really interested in discussing it, but I think I'll ask you to promise not to change the subject half way through if your arguments don't prove to be as convincing as you thought they would.

I'll be happy to look at your evidence. I didn't change the subject, you did. You brought up the truthfulness of the bible.

Are we ever going to get back to the subject of interpretation?

I've attempted to address your points on this above. However, the underlying assumption of the truthfulness of the bible does seem to be key. If there is no proof to this truthfulness, then interpretation is moot.

If I stick my head in the sand I can make all kinds of problems disappear.

Baiting, I'll ignore this.

But sometimes it makes more sense to follow what you believe to be true and work through the problems (this is the voice of 25 years experience of marriage speaking).

It seems more like you are picking and chosing and interpreting not to establish fact or truth, but simply to continue to cling on to cherished beliefs.

I don't. I do my own interpreting thank you very much. And, in the past, I've given up my home, my job and my career prospects rather than just go along with the interpretations of the denomination to which I belonged.

Your interpreting doesn't seem to be based on any more evidence than anyone else's interpreting. We've heard this straw man a million times before from the Church, there's no reason your version is any more substantive than theirs other than you claim it to be.

Now who's making a statement of faith in the teeth of empirical evidence.

Statistical evidence is clear and unambiguous. Those churches that are growing worldwide are those that hold to a conservative view of Scripture, and affirm the biblical standpoint as regards homosexual acts.

You might not like that, but the facts are abundantly clear. Those denominations that try to say homosexual acts are OK for Christians are in numerical decline - your faith statements to the contrary not withstanding.

I'm making an observation based on a pattern. Look at the 60/ 70s and the "christian" attitude to homosexuality. You can't tell me there hasn't been a softening in the stance in line with public sentiment. It doesn't matter what the hardliners cling too. In fact I hope they cling to it, because it will drag them over the edge in the end. Even poor David Cameron is rushing to backtrack and talk about equal rights for homosexual couples.

Now you're talking about two different things. Tolerance is very different from affirming or not affirming biblical teaching.

I tell you what, if you want to discuss homosexuality then resurrect one of the existing threads or start a new one. But let's cut out these weasel-words like homophobia. I don't fear homosexuals, nor do I hate them.

I'm not really interested in homosexuality. The only reason I bring it up is that it is one of the key hot topics right now in terms of things that religion is trying to tell us what to think about. A subject about which there is a lot of disagreement. To me, the issue of homosexuality is the "flat earth/earth centre of the universe," argument of our times.

As for homophobia. Claiming that homosexuality is wrong/against the word of god/sinful is the first step to demonising homosexuals. To classify them as different/worse than "us." It is this demonising that encourages, incites, facilitates and justifies discrimination and ultimately violence. So I will call it exactly what it is, which is homophobia. You may not like the implication, but that doesn't change what it is.

PDN · 13-04-2010 1:21pm

Memnoch wrote: »

IAs for homophobia. Claiming that homosexuality is wrong/against the word of god/sinful is the first step to demonising homosexuals. To classify them as different/worse than "us." It is this demonising that encourages, incites, facilitates and justifies discrimination and ultimately violence. So I will call it exactly what it is, which is homophobia. You may not like the implication, but that doesn't change what it is.

So you insist on your right to use pejorative language and weasel words?

That's up to you - but I don't have to interact with you if you do so.

janeeen · 13-04-2010 11:28pm

The bible tells us that the earth was created in six days. What we call a thousand years, God calls one day.
Still that only adds up to six thousand years.

I know six thousand years is still not a lot of time to create the earth and all that fills it but, it has to be better than six days as some perceive it.
Also who knows maybe God took a couple of days off during the week or worked every second day for some reason.
First day God created heavens and earth, (day and night).
Two or three thousand years later God separates water from water and calls the expanse sky, the second day and so forth.

Psams 4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

2 peter 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Fanny Cradock · 13-04-2010 11:49pm

janeeen wrote: »

The bible tells us that the earth was created in six days. What we call a thousand years, God calls one day.
Still that only adds up to six thousand years.
I know six thousand years is still not a lot of time to create the earth and all that fills it but, it has to be better than six days as some perceive it.
Also who knows maybe God took a couple of days off during the week or worked every second day for some reason.
First day God created heavens and earth, (day and night).
Two or three thousand years later God separates water from water and calls the expanse sky, the second day and so forth.

Psams 4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

2 peter 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Why would you think that a 1000 years is anything but a figure of speech? Unless you believe that time has some meaning to an atemporal being, I think the only way to view the mention of 1000 years is as an attempt by the author's to show that there is a gap between us and God.

antiskeptic · 14-04-2010 12:08pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

antiskeptic, I would be interested in hearing what you think of the talk I linked to above. While Wolfsbane was unimpressed, I was quite enthused by the whole thing.

Hi Fanny,

I didn't get through the whole link but saw enough to get the basic flavour of approach.

The first thing to note is that I have no particular axe to grind on the issue of when creation. My interest however is how the Bible story fits together internally - not whether/how it can be reconciled with science. In other words, if it requires that scripture be shoehorned (and I use that word advisedly) into scientific observations then it is scientific observations that must move.

A couple of observations on your link

1) The point is made that not all scripture is straight prose. Which is something we can all agree on - Jesus is not a literal gate afterall. The question is how do we decide what is and isn't prose or what is or isn't to be taken as a literal account. Whilst the point itself is well made, a specific case for reading the creation account as figurative isn't particularily.

That an account be given in terms that people can understand doesn't mean the account hasn't occurred in precisely the terms given. He supposes, for example, God working for 6 days and resting on the 7th to mirror the manner in which man operates - and so the story is brought to life for man in a way that "Abracadabra Alacazam - and the world was made" wouldn't. But to assume that this is the case (the creation account mirroring mans way - for the reason give) - simply because it can be the case sidesteps showing this is the case.

2) He makes the point that this creation story was assembled to counter other creation stories around at the time. Which begs the question. If this account is a literal account then all other creation stories weren't actually around but are derivative of this story - just as the flood stories of other civilisations would be derivative of the Flood, just as the similar-to-Tabernacle design of other civilisations temples would be derivative of the Tabernacle design. It is not unusual to see folk use this argument: the existance of other accounts in other civilisations dilutes the factuality of the biblical account - but it seems to me that there is no way to exclude the derivative alternative argument without presuming what it is you are trying to demonstrate.

The trouble with a non-literal creation account is the need to carry the figurative forward into later texts which don't at all seem to read figuratively. And the only reason one need jump through those later hoops is to ensure that the Bible be reconciled with science. To my mind, it's better to follow where the biblical evidence seems to lead - unencumbered by such considerations.

What parts of the bible do you perceive to be literally true?

Comments