Results 1 - 12 of 12
|
|
|||||
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 | Morant61 | 15107 | ||
Hi EdB! I forgot to answer you last set of questions. What about bringing in outside knowledge? Let us start with the easiest example. The NT is made up of Greek words. Some of those words are only used once in all of the Bible. Suppose that we have no idea what that word means and the context does not tell us! Where do we go to find out what that word means? Obviously, we will have to search out other Greek writtings to see if we can determine what that word means. We constantly refer to outside sources of history, definitions, grammar, ect... My opinion on the subject is this: 1) The Bible should always be primary. If a word is defined in Scripture in a way that differs from traditional usage, we should use Scripture's defintion. If a culture view is described in Scripture that differs from the "experts" understanding, we should abide by what Scripture says. 2) Outside knowledge should have "authority" only when Scripture is silent or unclear. For instance, a word that is only used once in Scripture may need to be defined from other sources in connection with Scripture. 3) Outside knowledge can be used to illustrate what Scripture says. For instance, Paul calls the Law a tutor in Galatians. That word was used in Greek to describe a person who was given the responsiblity to make sure a young charge made it to class and did his homework. It would be appropriate to dig into history and find out more about such tutors to fill out our understanding of what Paul meant. 4) At no time, should outside knowledge override clear Biblical teaching. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 15137 | ||
Tim Let's get philosophical for a moment. Notice I addressed this to Tim before anyone complains about speculation or philosophy on the forum. Let’s say Paul wrote a letter we will call “letter to drivers” and said within it, “drive on the left side of the street.” Let’s also say at the time Paul wrote this letter many have ‘speculated’ or maybe even ‘proven’ that there was a problem with drivers driving on either side of the side of the road. There is further ‘speculation’ that the only reason Paul wrote, drive on the left side of the street, was an attempt to set things in order, and to keep everyone on one side of the road. However in Paul’s letter he did not say pick one side of the street and make it a law to drive on that side. He point blankly stated drive on the left side of the street. The question that comes to my mind is if Paul is writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit should it not be assumed the God didn’t allow us the choice but stated drive on left side of the street for His own reason. And by explaining away what Paul wrote, we miss what God wanted. We justify ourselves by saying that we don’t have the problem, since everyone here drives of the right side and all Paul was doing was trying to insure continuity not establishing doctrine. |
||||||
3 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15141 | ||
Hi EdB! This one is easy! Assuming all of the facts as you have layed them out, I would say, "Only drive on the left side of the street." Since, Scripture clearly gave a command here. However, let's make it a little more difficult. Let's say that the word "left" could mean either "left" or "correct" side of the street. Research indicates that the word "left" was usually used to refer to the "legal or correct side" not the "left" side. Furthermore, only the people at Ephesus had cars. So, was the command addressed to all believers or only the drivers at Ephesus? Which way would you interpret it then? This is an example of what I have been trying to say. Always take Scripture as our authority, first! However, words can mean different things in different contexts. Commands may or may not be universal. Here is where interpetation and application takes place. It would be easier to deal with a real example from Scripture though! :-) p.s. - For your information, you are basically preaching to the choir. I am an inerrantist when it comes to the text of Scripture. So I am fully committed to obeying what the text says. The only question comes in difficult passages where one or more interpretations are possible. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 15148 | ||
Tim I'm not preaching here I'm bouncing things off you and the others first to satisfy myself and also because of a class I'm involved with. In your examples I understand perfectly what your saying and I understand the need for study and outside references in many case. I'm seeing terrible liberties taken with the Bible as of late and more I see the more I'm convinced that God's hand was more involved in writing the Bible than most imagine. I think it may have even came down to the actual word the author used in many cases. |
||||||
5 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15149 | ||
Greetings EdB! I understand what you mean. I am concerned about the way we ignore what Scripture says. I just don't want to go to the opposite extreme and imagine that we can understand the meaning apart from the words! Good luck with your class! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 15151 | ||
Fortunately for me the author of the text we are using basically has the same thoughts I do. This class is a lift of Kay Arthur's teaching and of course she advocates inducive reasoning to determine what the text is stating. | ||||||
7 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15156 | ||
Greetings EdB, I am not real familiar with Kay Arthur, but most things I have read from her seem sound! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
8 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 15168 | ||
For the most part she is very sound. Her idea in inductive Bible study is to let the word of God speak for itself. Only after you have concluded what the passage says are you to consult a commentary or outside source. Then only to insure you haven't arrived in left field. | ||||||
9 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 15175 | ||
"after you have concluded what the passage says . . . consult a commentary or outside source . . . to insure you haven't arrived in left field." Consult a commentary to insure you haven't arrived in left field! That's the best idea I've read all day. Could that be what various posters have repeatedly tried to get across for the last six months? Yes. |
||||||
10 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 15186 | ||
Radioman your obviously very enthusiastic over this subject, which is good. However I think most of the debate over the “experts” focused more on conflicting experts. Some people seem to think since you author a book you’re an “expert”, however I think we have all read some pure trash at one time or another written by an “expert”. | ||||||
11 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman | 15302 | ||
EdB: As has been said before, the fact that the 'experts' don't agree on every last little point is proof that they are not hatching one giant conspiracy for the purpose of deceiving and defrauding the reading public. The fact that evangelical authors of Bible reference books generally agree on the essentials is proof that each of them is not off on a separate planet doing his own thing. Ed, I honestly do not mean you when I say this: I agree that some seem to think that anyone who gets a book published is an expert. It is also true that: 1) None of these publishers is infallible, but Zondervan, Nelson, Moody Press, Foundation Publications, etc. do not publish books written by fools, ignoramuses, kooks, crackpots, cultists, etc. None of us will agree with every last word published by the above named publishers. But, the publishers have a reputation for sound doctrine and reliability to uphold. When they publish a book, they don't intentionally publish trash. 2) There are also some people who seem to think that since you author a book, the book is automatically trash and its author subject to suspicion. 3) I think that with some, and again, Ed, please believe me, I do NOT mean you when I say this. But, some of our chronic expert bashers are motivated by envy, a contrary and excessively critical spirit, or just plain ego -- arrogance and ignorance wherein they are wiser in their own eyes than 100 recognized authors and teachers. Take no personal offense, Ed, for none was intended. While I may not always agree with everything you write, I most certainly do believe you are a decent and honorable man, one deserving of my respect. Radioman |
||||||
12 | Should the Bible be taken literally? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 15385 | ||
Radioman I took no offense at all. Your right in everything you said and I agree with it. However there are two things we must remember. Most books are written to make money and some authors have found that political correctness, popular subjects, and controversial subjects have a tendency to make more money. They therefore write about these subjects and in some cases ill treat the truth. The other point is religious books are written by men trying to explain God, they do this with their preconceived opinions, biases and prejudices. Also anytime the created tries to explain the creator it is found lacking at best and often laughable. I have many favorite experts, men that I trust and rely on to provide sound and Biblically correct answers. However even they are discounted when they attempt to put words in God’s mouth. As is the case so often when men try to reason a passage that seems to be unjust or prejudicial when viewed from a human perspective. I think it is these passages that are most disputed here in the forum. Therefore many times people seem to be in “conflict” with the experts when in fact they are merely offering another opinion. |
||||||