Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9823 | ||
I am somewhat disappointed by the rhetoric that has been flying back and forth here. Some of the responders need to take a step back and remember that Christian charity and courtesy go hand in hand. That said, I'm going to try to respond to what legitimate comment I could filter out. 1. In regard to II Timothy 3:16, please read the verse carefully. Nowhere does it state, suggest, or imply that all Scripture is literally true. It says that Scripture is "inspired". That does not have to mean factual. It's just not there, folks. If it's not there, don't put it there. It is inspired. I believe that. It's not all literally true. 2. In many areas of the Bible,it's accepted by almost everyone that literal fact is not being served up. Examples: a. Mat. 1:17 - there were 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus. Really? That doesn't jive with what we know of Jewish history. But it does jive with the commonly-held practice at the time of adjusting geneoligies of prominent persons so they worked out to a multiple of 7 and/or 3 - significant numbers in Jewish numerology. b. Luke 3:23-38. 73 generations from Jesus to Adam. Really? Only 73 generations from CREATION to 27 A.D.?! Hmm, but there's that 3 and 7 again. c. Song of Solomon. Are we really supposed to take that book literally? Really? Or is it as some believe an allegory of Gods' love for His Church? Or is is simply one of the most beautiful erotic love poems ever written? d. Job 1:2. 7 sons and 3 daughters. Hmm, there are those numbers again. Did he really have 10 children? e. Matt 3:5-6 "Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea, and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins." Really? Everyone in Jerusalem and all of Judea? All of them? Approximately 2,000,000 people baptized by John? Or just literary license by the narrator? f. Psalms. What about Psalms? Hymns of praise, stories of grief, lamentations,and joy. Written to specific meter, and sometimes to fit acrostic patterns in the original language. Are they all literally true? Did God really make David lie down by still waters, and set up a table for him in the presence of his enemies? Did David really write all the Psalms that "tradition" assigns to him? Or are they the incredibly beautiful "praise and worship" songs of pre-Christianity. g. Revelation. Literally true? OK, first tell me what it MEANS, and then perhaps we could have a discussion about literal truth. Recognize, of course, that you'll be the first person in 2,000 years who will successfully make that claim. Or is Revelation apocalypic literature, and should be treated as such? I'm sorry, but before anyone stands up and defends the Bible as 100 percent "literally" true, they need to take a good look at everything they're defending. Did not Jesus Himself used the time-honored form of parable to deliver His messages? Or do you really believe that there was a man who built his house on a foundation of sand? I'm appending here a quotation from a good friend of mine, who is a pastor and holds a doctorate in New Testament Studies. He is one of the most solid, Biblically founded Christians I know: "Are the gospels first century history? Biography? Novels? All kinds of possibilities crop up with no certain answers. And all this resides in the realm of answering the question of "what the Bible meant." It's a whole new ballgame when we start talking about "what the Bible *means*. It's one thing to say this book is historical. But it's another thing to attribute theological truth to it because of it. Or, on the other hand, it's one thing to deny a books historicity and ipso facto say that there is no theological truth! One of the standard arguments about some of the so-called problems with the Bible is that these books are religious literary works. They are not meant to be scientific. (A concept that would have certainly been foreign to the original writers and readers. It seem a bit cultural-centric to say that all previous generations could not relate to the scriptures so that we could.) As a corollary to this, that means that each of the gospel writers may have said something not merely because "it was so," or because it made a better book, but rather, they said it this way because it strengthened their theological rhetoric. What all Bible readers (even non-believing ones)would agree with is that the gospel writers wanted to convince their readers that Jesus Christ is Lord. And we know, historically, that just about anyone who could write was trained in rhetoric." I simply don't see the conflict. Read intelligently, the Bible is a rich collection of history, parable, allegory, poetry, hymn, and wisdom literature. It is all inspired. It is all of the things outlined in II Timothy 3:16. It is the only source for theological truth. That doesn't make it all literally true. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
2 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 9859 | ||
I think when you use literal, you have to look at the authors intent. Let me give you an example that you could apply to many of your examples above. Gospels (as a whole) were never meant to be a blow-by-blow, step-by-step chronology of Jesus' life. Does it mean he is not literal because, like in Matthew's case, he chose to re-arrange some of the events in Jesus' life to shape the perception of Jesus to his readers? Because he did re-arrange some of the historical events, does that mean they never happened? Or, what if Matthew leaves out a piece of informaiton, does that mean we have to discard his testimony or doubt that the event even happened? If all the above were true, we would have to throw out every single history text book ever written! I speak as a history major. Every author takes their own slant or focus when writing history. In fact, every history book on World War 2 contains details about events that will not be in most history books. Does that mean we should discard the book. Of Course not. I think we would go a long way in this dialogue by first determining the purpose of the authors. Was the purpose in Matt's geneology meant to be a complete accurate tree of Jesus? No. Neither do I beleive he made up Jesus' lineage to prove his Messiahship. So, your might be right on your first, point and way off base on your second. Just because someone is using parables does not mean they are not speaking a factual truth. Every day individuals use stories to illustrate truth and sometimes those stories are not even true! I could take a Stephen King Novel and use it to illustrate truth. Does that mean I am not factual? Of course not. The second issue I would address is Jesus' and the writers use of Hyperbole. My son hit a ball and ran very fast to first base. When he finally got back to the dug-out I said, "Son, you ran as fast as a rabbit." Am I lying or trying to make people believe my son could actually keep pace with a rabbit? Of course not. Lets allow Jesus to use the same tactis that we use on a day-to-day basis and not accuse him or the gospel writers of lying. Or accuse them of speaking falsehood. There is a really good book entitled the Hermenutical Spiral that would greatly help you tackle some of these issues. I see where you are going and agree with some of what you are said, but I do not believe that the Bible is full of errors. I guess what I am saying is the Bible is literature and shouldn't be judged by a different standard. It seems like the Bible is held to a very high, hypocritical standard and nitpicked more than any other book in existance. |
||||||
3 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9862 | ||
Greetings Schwartzkm! You posted an excellent and well thought out arugment! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||