Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 15040 | ||
"Should the Bible be taken literally" is akin to asking, "Should all medication be taken in the same way?" The obvious answer to both questions is, "Of course not. Not always, in every instance, without exception. It depends on which medication and on which passage of the Bible you're talking about."...... The better question by far, and the one that at least makes sense, is "Should the Bible be taken as the truth of God?" To that question, as a believer, I'd answer with a resounding Yes......Lionstrong, with your observations I have no quarrel. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 15095 | ||
Hank I realize there are Books, chapters and verses within the Bible that are metaphor or symbolic and should not be taken literally. However I think you realize too that there are passages that are explained away as not pertaining to us today. These are primarily Paul’s letters. While I understand Paul was dealing with problems within the church the letter was addressed to, shouldn’t the issues he brought up still pertain today? I have heard a lot of preachers justify many things in conflict with Paul’s teaching and when asked, they explain it as Paul was correcting problems that pertains to that church or culture. Since we live in a different place time we need to apply today’s social and politically correctness to the issues and that may in fact go against Paul’s teachings. I think we have all noticed the liberties that are taken with the scriptures. Men rip verses out of context and by adding other verse can and do justify/teach just about anything they want. While this is done many times to promote heresy it is also done to promote true doctrine. In my example of the radio preacher used it to form a foundation of a great message and the end could be said to have justified the means. However is this the way to handle scripture or not? |
||||||
3 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 15121 | ||
Ed, needless to say we have an enormous burden in our undertaking of "accurately handling the word of truth" as Paul told Timothy to do. But literalness is hardly the only issue. "Literal" as it pertains to Scripture means "according with the letter of Scriptures" (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) and the Pharisees were experts in keeping the letter of the law, but Jesus rebuked them soundly. It is not a blind, mechanical adherence to the letter of Scripture that is at issue; it is diligent application to dig for meaning and proper interpretation that is, in the final analysis, the proper object of our study of Scripture..... I'm not talking about looking for loopholes that would seem to negate sound doctrine and support heresies of one kind or another. Improper handling of the word of truth can lead us down any number of dark paths. Taking passages out of context to "prove" some unorthodox fantasy or to "disprove" clearly orthodox teaching is not the proper way to study Scripture..... There are some few passages in Paul's letters that were meant to be "literal" for the people of his time and circumstance, such as the custom of women using head cover in worship or the eating of meats by Christians. It is highly arguable whether these proscriptions have any force or meaning in our society. But issues that pertain to Christian ethics and morals, to the organization of the church, to prayer, to theology -- these constitue eternal truths and are just as binding today as they were in the initial days of the church. Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality, bearig false witness, stealing, idolatry, murder, profanity, gossip -- the list goes on -- were condemned then and they are condemned still. There is a vast difference between condoning a woman's lack of headgear in a worship service and condoning homosexual leaders in a church. There is a real difference between permitting Chrisitians to eat meat and permitting children to be murdered in the womb...... I'm keenly aware, Ed, of the problems of which you speak, the problems inherent with some liberal teachers or preachers who seemingly go out of their way in their attempt to explain away some hard saying of Jesus or Paul with which they feel uncomfortable. I've heard far too many watered-down sermons that had about as much oomph and punch as a wet dish rag. I admire two things in a preacher most of all: (1) His careful and accurate handling of the word of truth and (2) His boldness in proclaiming it in its fullness without fear or favor...... I think we should do a better job to approach Scripture humbly and prayerfully; put aside our obsession about categories like literal, symbolic, figurative, fact or illustrative parable; keep uppermost in our hearts and minds that whatever Scripture says is the eternal truth of God; and seek first, last, and always to learn the meaning of what God's will for our lives and the church really is, thus to accurately handle the word of truth..... It's a large order but with God's help not an insurmountable task. It requires the best that is in us. It demands our all. But then when Jesus said to take up our cross and follow Him, He never meant that we should assign Him to the role of second fiddle in our orchestra. --Hank | ||||||
4 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 15143 | ||
Hank, I'm not putting you down in any way nor am I dismissing what you said. But is there a vast difference between headgear women wear and homosexuality? God often went out of His way to specify minute details, and yes your right we can and do major in minors. However I see the church today lacking, I often wonder why, then it seems the Holy Spirit reminds me of some of these seemingly minor ordinances that are explained away and not followed. | ||||||