Literal Interpretation of the Bible

Great Debates
221

I completely agree, Meatros.

I see absolutely no point in attempting to have an intelligent discussion with someone who is insistent on misconstruing my words to “prove” that I am being hypocritical.

I think he has some definite points that I’d welcome the opportunity to address – but I won’t do it in the context of a dialogue in which I’m repeatedly insulted in every response. I’d given up on this thread, but based on the comments of another of our members decided to give it one more try.

If there are loose ends left for persons other than badchad in this discussion, I for one will be happy to continue the discussion in a different thread.

222

Once again my coding is all off :o

For reference, the italized comments coming before badchad’s qoutes are my comments.

Also, there should be a ) on the other side of Jodi’s name.

223

Polycarp:

I think he has some definite points that I’d welcome the opportunity to address – but I won’t do it in the context of a dialogue in which I’m repeatedly insulted in every response. I’d given up on this thread, but based on the comments of another of our members decided to give it one more try.

Your problem on this thread is that you won’t answer the questions I am asking you. Show some courage.

If there are loose ends left for persons other than badchad in this discussion, I for one will be happy to continue the discussion in a different thread.

As it is, I as a fellow poster reserve the right (and, obviously, exercise the right) to participate in whatever discussions I choose. And if I manage to refute your thesis and my refutation is ignored, do not be surprised if people take your refusal to respond to be an inability to respond. Because that’s what selective replying looks like to a lot of people. Including me.

Oops, I didn’t say that. Jodi did:).

224

You still aren’t getting it. Polycarp has shown time and time again that he is more than willing to discuss issues of faith (in countless threads), what you have shown is an inability to discuss things without resorting to insults. I think if you withdraw your insults, quit with the condescending behavior, and give Polycarp an apology for misrepresenting his views, he might reconsider and address your questions.

225

BADCHAD –

You dismiss me, but then accuse Polycarp of lacking courage? Pot-kettle-black, dahling. Not to mention that the assertion that POLYCARP, of all people, lacks the courage of his convictions, is laughable to anyone who knows him. You might as well accuse me of being nice.

And for future reference: Pissing off your opponent so thoroughly that he or she refuses to engage you in argument, does not count as “winning” the argument – not around here, anyway.

226

Just for the record, you have in no way refuted my thesis. There are grounds for reading Scripture with an eye to the totality of the book, as opposed to the particular single verse or short passage under specific examination. (See His4Ever’s first link for documentation of this under a literalist viewpoint – and it’s ironic that I’m using material furnished by her to make my point here! :slight_smile: Thanks, His!!! Second, the Bible does not exist in a vacuum but in a world created by the God it purports to describe, and it is in no way incorrect to bring matters from that world to the study of it. Third, you have repeatedly misrepresented my views; to refute your own spin on your opposition’s views is no great trick for a debater – “badchad has said that everything must be either black or white. Examination of the world around him will show any reader that there exist things neither black or white. Therefore badchad is in error.”

Do feel free to go on arguing, badchad, but I believe this will be my last word here. I merely did not want anyone to think that I conceded that you had “won” anything by my refusal to continue trying patiently to explain something to someone who refuses to listen and who insists on twisting concepts into his own private spin.

227

Polycarp

  • Just for the record, you have in no way refuted my thesis.*

Not completely, as I was unable to get you to fully state your thesis. That is why I was asking you questions. I think you did not answer because you saw the refutation coming. Your indignant response is just a smoke screen. Of course by directly answering the questions I asked, you could show me where I am mistaken.

There are grounds for reading Scripture with an eye to the totality of the book, as opposed to the particular single verse or short passage under specific examination.

This is in part what I was asking you about.

Second, the Bible does not exist in a vacuum but in a world created by the God it purports to describe, and it is in no way incorrect to bring matters from that world to the study of it.

I don’t recall saying you couldn’t, however part of my point is that if the overwhelming majority of objective evidence around you refutes what’s written in the bible, then I think the bible would lose crediblity. As such all supernatural events in said book performed by said god should be a little more suspect. As for the world being created by a christain god…

Third, you have repeatedly misrepresented my views;

You say so but I don’t agree. I think I was trying to further clarify your views, and yes I was trying to see if you would use a less favorable sounding synonym to describe why you don’t beleive in various biblical miracles.

  • to refute your own spin on your opposition’s views is no great trick for a debater – “badchad has said that everything must be either black or white. Examination of the world around him will show any reader that there exist things neither black or white. Therefore badchad is in error.”*

That’s fine for you to say. Notice how I don’t get angry, how I follow the words of Jesus better than you:). I would just correct you and say that I don’t think everything is black or white though I do think some things are. If someone tells a story with the intention to decieve they are telling a lie. If they are mistaken, then they may only be gullible. I don’t think I brought up the idea of the various miracles being being lies as they may have been mistaken, heck Jesus may really have walked on water though I think it is highly improbable. You, however, were the one who said “The story of Jesus walking on the water was one-upsmanship…”

In order to one-up the other gods sounds a lot to be like someone made up stories to show that Jesus had supernatural powers too. You now say that your comments on Matthew was “a bit of hyperbole,” well how much.

Again I ask, regarding the miracles of Jesus, which ones do you believe actually happened? How do you distinguish. Why do you doubt any? If you don’t think he did any miracles why do you think he is any different than many other people who were charismatic enough to gather a following?

I think my biggest error in this debate was I linked the above questions together such that you know where it’s going. I don’t think you want to go there. This is what I think has you angry, not anything you see as misrepresentation.

Do feel free to go on arguing, badchad, but I believe this will be my last word here.

Isn’t this the 3rd time you have said that? It would’t surprise me in the least to see you post here again. It would suprise me if you addressed the questions I brought up.

I merely did not want anyone to think that I conceded that you had “won” anything…

What does the bible say about pride:)

228

tomndebb

quote:

If he made up stories about Jesus that he knew weren’t true then he lied.

Thus badchad, you demonstrate, (in one of multiple examples) the crime of measuring one event totally out of historical context of its occurrence. As noted earlier in the thread, the notion of creating a historical document that had to be verifiable as to historical accuracy was not even a consideration for writers of the period.

I did not say anything about these documents having to be historically documented, rather about the motivations of the writer. As you quoted me:

“If he made up stories about Jesus that he knew weren’t true then he lied.”

Is you problem that I failed in this quote to imply the motive of deception? If so then I think you have a fair argument, as the writers of the bible could have just been writing stories they never thought anyone would actually follow. Or some of the parables could have been mistaken in translation for statements of fact. If you understand that I had previously stated that the definition of a lie requires the intent to decieve and you are trying to get across to me that this was the standard in the day, then I don’t agree with you. Lies are lies regardless of the standard of the day. Lying is accepted to a degree today in marketing but that does not change the definition of a lie. So which is it?

  • your repeated assertion that any author who did not stick to journalistic reporting was “lying” is simply a demonstration that you are historically ignorant.*

Ohh, an ad hominen. I’m so offended, I won’t ever post here again, or at least not until tomorrow. Just kidding:)

229

Jodi:

You dismiss me, but then accuse Polycarp of lacking courage? Pot-kettle-black, dahling.

Fine Jodi. I’ll respond to you if can I state up front that I’m too busy to respond to the next Jeser that comes around here. Interpretations of the bible are nearly infinate and putting on a different hat to address every one of them would take more time than I can spare.

Is that fair?

230

You are claiming an intent to deceive. The evidence from the majority of ancient documents in biography, history, and hagiography indicates that both the authors and the audience understood that the story was intended to exemplify qualities of the subject and that our current methods of examination did not apply. There was no intent to deceive, because the audience expected to see a principles and qualities displayed through the depictions of lives or events of the subjects; there was no expectation of a journal of recorded events.

You may, of course, choose to interpret the actions of those people according to your worldview, ignoring their actual intentions and beliefs, however, that would tend to indicate that you are ignorant of their worldviews (which is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem) or that you choose to believe that their world view was the same as yours, in which case you again demonstrate ignorance (a descriptive statement, not an ad hominem). There is also the possiblitiy that you are quite aware of the differences between the ancient approach to those subjects and ours and that you are simply trying to jerk our chains by ignoring those differences. That would be the behavior of a jerk but I have not accused you of that (which would be an ad hominem attack).

231

Yeah, you didn’t get angry :rolleyes:. That’s why you had to dig at Poly immediately after stating you weren’t angry.

You think a lot of yourself don’t you? I’m just curious, do you think that Christians are lacking in knowledge?

I think you can’t see the forrest for the trees. You don’t believe that people could get upset with your arrogant attituded coupled with your tendancy for misrepresentation?

:rolleyes: I think the point you have consistently missed is that you’ve been very insulting, and very arrogant, and you’ve misrepresented Poly. I don’t think it’s out of line for him to assume you would claim some sort of “victory”, without having actually debated anything. You attitude alone suggests you would be the sort who would act like that, your online appearance is that of an upset teenager.

232

badchad - I see you registered back in October. I must conclude from the content of your posts that you have not done much lurking in Great Debates? If you had you would know that posters like Polycarp are reasonable, intelligent, honest, and open to dialog with persons-of-opposing-views. I urge you to rethink your position.

The other possibility is that you have been lurking, in which case you are simply trolling - and we have proven remedies around here for such critters.

MH

233

I think I see the problem between us in what you’ve said in this post, badchad. Assuming you won’t object, I’ll start a new thread, trying to set forth my thinking clearly, rather than responding specifically to you point-by-point, as my taking offense at what I saw as trolling and was apparently just you flagging what you saw as inconsistency and “cherry-picking” and objecting to them (but doing so in a tone that triggered hostility in me), has turned this one into a trainwreck. I will of course keep in mind what you’ve flagged and try to respond adequately to your points. I sincerely hope you’ll participate in it, and perhaps we can resolve the questions you raise. I may be a few hours dealing with IRL needs and getting my thoughts together before I start it, though.

234

You can state up front anything you like. Or in the middle, or at the end. That’s the beauty of a message board. Interpretations of the Bible are indeed myriad (if nowhere near infinite), but in this case the only interpretation under scrutiny (at least by me) is yours. You selectively read the Bible and you interpret its passages in ways that are not intellectually honest. (Cf: John 16, where you represent Jesus as talking about something happening contemporaneously, when any fool reading the passage can see He is talking about things yet to come.) In short, your scholarship is faulty and your premise hypocritical, and thus you are guilty of the very failings you accuse your opponents of. That is the point – and the only point – I am trying to make.

Your dealings with “Jeezers” and their various interpretations of Biblical passages are of no interest to me, because I am not asking you to attack anyone else’s interpretation of the Bible; I am asking you to defend your own. But I’m certainly willing to drop it and allow you to focus on your discussion with POLYCARP, though I may follow the subject over the the new thread as well.

235

Jodi:

  • in this case the only interpretation under scrutiny (at least by me) is yours.*

Good then maybe we can keep this short. I’ll splice in questions you seem most interested in from your first response.

You selectively read the Bible and you interpret its passages in ways that are not intellectually honest.

No, you do.

Obviously you have not read your Bible. John 14:09-14 has Jesus responding directly to Philip, and telling him – not you, Gentle Reader – that he, as one of the apostles, will be able to call upon Jesus after Jesus has left them (been put to death).

Yes, he is talking to Peter. Certainly he is not talking to me because I myself don’t have any faith. But you do right?

He also promises that “anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing [and] even greater things than these,” but this requires absolute faith in Jesus

I’m not sure how you distinguish faith from absolute faith. Though the “absolute” part is what you added, not Jesus. And in this instance he is clearly making the general statement that “anyone” who has faith in Jesus can not only do his works (heal sick, walk on water, rise from the dead) but do greater works.

– which few if any Christians can claim to have

Jesus said faith was necessary to get into heaven right? So is there a lesser level of faith need to get into heaven than to heal a sick person? I don’t recall Jesus making any distinguishing comments on this. To which I must ask, if few if any christians have enough faith to walk on water or heal a sick person what makes them think they will make it to heaven? Overconfidence?

Oh, let’s be intellectually rigorous enough to quote in the entirety, shall we? Since you appear to prefer King James (myself, I like the NIV), here’s the passage you’re quoting, with the important part not left out:

It seems like what encompasses an entire quote and what is the important part is subjective.

quote:

And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you. And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

Again, He’s talking to them (not you) and here He’s talking about then (His return) not now.

So you are arguing that asking for things and recieving them was one of the powers only given to the apostles and not to believers in general but that having the power to do what Jesus did was granted to anyone who believes? If we go on the belief that Jesus was god and could therefore do anything I don’t see much difference in what one could demonstrate with either collection of super powers.

*Even if the bestowal of such powers is contemporaneous – have you made yourself a disciple of Christ? If not, on what basis do you demand the authority He gave to them? *

You will note on my dice bet with Meatros, I suggested that he would do the praying as he is the one with faith (just ask him). I just wanted probability on my side. Now if we wanted to add you additional dissection of the scriptures then Meatros praying won’t be necessary just belief in Jesus. That is fine by me and I’ll take the same bet with you. Is it correct for me to assume that you have faith?

And all these passages have to do with the extension of miraculous powers to the apostles after the death of Christ, in order to spread the Word of God (as given by His Son) with proof of His holiness to be provided by the doing of miracles.

I wonder why god gave up on what would seem such a successful marketing ploy?

How facile does your reading have to be, to take these teachings and transmute them into the promise of a wish-granting genie?

Probably because Jesus used the “he that believeth” and “anyone” (depending on your favorite bible) when describing who could do the works and better of Jesus.

Not to mention in Mark where Jesus grants special powers it is clearly (at least to me) given to believers in general with no experation date.

Mark 16:17-18.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Anyway, I hope I addressed the issues you had with me.

I’m not that interested in debating the wording of scripture as I saw where the “two creation stories in genesis” thread went. Rather I am interested in discussing how one can have faith in a book/or god described that book, from which the supposed believer himself admits is so full of flaws. I don’t know your position as to whether you admit those flaws or not, and as stated earlier I would prefer to keep my responses more focused. Unlike other’s I don’t have an eternity:)

As such I await Polys new thread.