[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/kjv/ - An online home for Christians

"And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1454990683996.jpg (77.61 KB, 620x388, 155:97, Rowan-Williams.jpg)

fefff5 No.408

What parts of the Bible are literal fact and what parts of the Bible are allegory, poetry and metaphor?

What parts must be interpreted literally, and (if any) what parts must be interpreted figuratively? What are the consequences of interpreting scripture incorrectly in this specific context?

I'm using definitive language for the sake of clarity but this is obviously a matter of opinion.

87a5be No.409

File: 1455013796463.jpg (511.75 KB, 1234x1600, 617:800, 1410509216266.jpg)

>>408

> What parts of the Bible are literal fact and what parts of the Bible are allegory, poetry and metaphor?

Well the parts that are obvious like the parables in the gospels.

I however take Genesis literally. The word of God > the philosophies of these world.

> What parts must be interpreted literally, and (if any) what parts must be interpreted figuratively?

All of it, unless the context states otherwise. This is where I give it over to the OT experts.

> What are the consequences of interpreting scripture incorrectly in this specific context?

You undermine God's authority but misinterpreting His word.

And if you're one of those people (usually Roman Catholic) who view Genesis as a metaphor read this review and partial transcript of the Safarati v. Craig debate on theistic evolution and whether it's biblical.

http://creation.com/william-lane-craig-vs-creation


fefff5 No.410

File: 1455028712639.jpg (333.09 KB, 2464x1648, 154:103, robbierottendepressed.jpg)

>>409

>I however take Genesis literally. The word of God the philosophies of these world.

Interesting. Do you feel like its safer that way? I mean, I've considered that. If evolution is right and you still believe the rest of the Bible, you'll be fine, but if young earth creationism is correct and you reject it? That doesn't bode well, or maybe it depends on the theological ramifications of that decision.

>All of it, unless the context states otherwise.

How do you know when the context is stating this is meant to be taken figuratively, aside from the parables of Jesus. For example, my NRSV puts Job with the poetry, saying that in Hebrew its clearly not prose (most of it) and that historically in Hebrew Bibles it has been put together with the poetry, while in Christian Bibles it has been placed both with the historical and poetic books, causing it to be placed right before Psalms now (the poetical books). I don't read hebrew so I couldn't say much more; I did find Job strange but (had I not accepted the NRSV interpretation) I wouldn't necessarily feel qualified to make that judgement based on "strangeness" alone. Are there other examples that you can use to illustrate when one should take things figuratively?

>YEC article

This is a good article. So far I'm not really convinced of YEC but this makes some interesting points and I will read them in more detail.


31f408 No.412

>>408

I'm curious, OP; how much of the Bible have you read and for how long have you been a Christian?

These questions are answered when you take the time to read and understand it. Ask of God wisdom and discernment. He will provide you with a mental acuity appropriate for a comprehensive understanding.

Every book from Genesis to Esther is literal history and factual. While I believe Job is also a true story, it, Psalms and Proverbs, Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes are regarded as poetic expressions of truth. The rest of the books from Isaiah to Malachi are prophetic and while true, historic accounts, the imagery contained within the text is one's interpretation of revelation from God by means of visions.

The New Testament is all literal but Revelation which is much like the prophetic books of the OT.

Lately, and this could have always been the case, I've found that many Christians consider the Genesis account of creation to be non-literal. There's really only one reason for this but it's never readily admitted by those who think this way. 'Old-Earth Creationists' or Theistic Evolutionists' are simply intellectually insecure and seek to reconcile the Bible with the latest 'scientific' trends. They're too concerned with what the world thinks of them and so despite it being impossible, attempt to fit all these mutually exclusive worldviews into one worldview so their atheist peers won't call them stupid. They essentially exchange truth for fitting in. If you were to take one second to honestly evaluate the evidence for Darwinian Evolution you'd find a whole lot of nothing. A graoe does not transform into a sparrow. This isn't Animorphs. As a Christian we should be standing up for what we claim to believe because it's the truth. And the moment you start to reject the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures, you allow the enemy a foot in the door. If you start claiming parts to be non-literal what's stopping events like the crucifixtion of Christ from receiving the same treatment? This is the folly of Gnosticism.


87a5be No.417

>>410

> Interesting. Do you feel like its safer that way?

No. It's because if you do some research you found out Darwinism isn't without its own critiques. Evolutionism requires no God and its normal to expect secular academia and society to thus support it.

> That doesn't bode well, or maybe it depends on the theological ramifications of that decision.

Read the article. Safarti (a YEC) critiques William Lane Craig (theistic evolutionist) for his beliefs.

Here's a sermon by John MacArthur on biblical interpretation. He's a notorious expository preacher.

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-55/proper-biblical-interpretation

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-463/how-should-we-interpret-the-bible

They come with transcripts.

http://www.gty.org/blog/B141107/should-i-interpret-the-bible-literally

It's rather simple as you read the Bible since God the creator of the universe has inspired the writers then read it as him communicating unless of course a literal reading makes it extremely absurd.

Like John 10:7, is Jesus really a door?

> I did find Job strange

Depends what denomination you're from? Job really expounds on God's sovereignty over his creation. Job was really an admirable person.

Also he was real. I recommend you get a MacArthur study Bible (ESV, NIV, NKJV, NASB).

>>412

> Every book from Genesis to Esther is literal history and factual. While I believe Job is also a true story, it, Psalms and Proverbs, Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes are regarded as poetic expressions of truth. The rest of the books from Isaiah to Malachi are prophetic and while true, historic accounts, the imagery contained within the text is one's interpretation of revelation from God by means of visions.

Also understand most of the Tanakh was recorded and carried through the centuries through memorization and writing it on scrolls.

So poetry made it easier to remember verses. Of course English is Indo-European and Hebrew is Semitic. So when you read your Bible it doesn't appear to flow as such.

> Lately, and this could have always been the case, I've found that many Christians consider the Genesis account of creation to be non-literal

It's a resurgence of Roman Catholicism. They have a very liberal ideology that includes inclusivism. And so they when they are ministering to the youth they want to appeal to them, and the fact that Catholics don't hold scripture to high regard either doesn't help.

> 'Old-Earth Creationists' or Theistic Evolutionists' are simply intellectually insecure and seek to reconcile the Bible with the latest 'scientific' trends

OEC is a lot more valid scripturally than TE. The case being God created Adam as a fully developed man, and so the Earth could have been made fully developed.

> hey're too concerned with what the world thinks of them and so despite it being impossible, attempt to fit all these mutually exclusive worldviews into one worldview so their atheist peers won't call them stupid. They essentially exchange truth for fitting in. If you were to take one second to honestly evaluate the evidence for Darwinian Evolution you'd find a whole lot of nothing.

I agree. If they spent more time doing research they would be making headway. Also one critical reason to reject evolution is in our atheist society evolution is man-centred and thus perfect for unbelieving mind that suppresses God.

> And the moment you start to reject the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures, you allow the enemy a foot in the door. If you start claiming parts to be non-literal what's stopping events like the crucifixtion of Christ from receiving the same treatment? This is the folly of Gnosticism.

That's the same reason I take a proper literal stance. Good to see fellow Christians here with high regard for God's word. This is what has led to people like Crossan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-8r8rxboUo

The video is cringey.


31f408 No.421

>>417

I actually believe the universe was created much in the same way Adam was, already in a mature state. So while I reject the claims of the OEC theory, it's only by default because it conflicts with the YEC theory. I understand it in this way, and it's really only a matter of words and semantics. Our reality is what's ~6000 years old. So everything within our reality is only ~6000 years old. But as Adam was created with age, so to was the Earth and everything else God created that humans assume to be billions of years old. I believe God purposefully spent 6 24-hour days creating, resting on the 7th 24-hour day. Secular science insists humans in their current state have existed on the planet for one hundred thousand years. With 7.2 billion people on the planet, taking into consideration the expotential growth of human population, there'd be no dry land left for us in 2016. The Bible provides the answers and all that's required to understand it's wisdom is for one to approach it with humbleness.


87a5be No.424

>>421

> With 7.2 billion people on the planet, taking into consideration the expotential growth of human population, there'd be no dry land left for us in 2016. The Bible provides the answers and all that's required to understand it's wisdom is for one to approach it with humbleness.

What? Do you want to explain what you are saying.

First of all birth rates aren't all the same and the same with infant mortality rates too. Also life expectancies in countries vary so that's why it happens.


31f408 No.428

I took a science class where the professor said something like, 'humans as we know them now have existed on planet Earth for ~100,000 years. The Bible tells us that Adam was the first human and if we follow the lineages, Genesis 5 for instance, we find that human history starts ~6,000 years ago. If in that amount of time alone we've managed to put 7.2 billion of us on the planet, wouldn't there be like, an expotentially greater amount of people here if our species began 100,000 years ago? Like a dramatically greater number of people. There's 94,000 years for people to procreate and the more people on the planet procreating the faster the population grows.


d4041b No.431

File: 1455103563246.jpg (52.25 KB, 703x578, 703:578, world-pop-growth-eras-to-2….jpg)

>>428

Your quote doesn't end, so I am left wondering where the professor's statement ends and your thinking begins

Nevertheless, without my condoning or condemning, please refer pic-related and note the shape of the chart which consists of basically three stages:

(i) The pre-6000bc period where there is almost no growth whatsoever,

(ii) The period 6,000bc to roughly a little after the black death, a big long, slow increase in population from ~40m to about 400m people, and

(iii) the period after that, the past, say, 500-ish years when we exploded people.

Stage (i) is hunter-gatherer humans before agriculture, and we know their growth rate is negligible because we've had a few nomadic hunter-gatherer societies, such as the Australian aborigines, Papuans and some South American and African peoples, who had very small populations before white men arrived to plunder their shit.

The (ii) long, slow increase between the settling of humans into farms and about the black death, a very slow, modest growth rate, is due to agriculture making more efficient use of the land, which afforded us a modest increase in population as we were able to expand our geographic reach over the planet and live in places we previously could not, or could not in substantial numbers. And yet, disease, lack of control over our environment, and poor agricultural science leave us very inefficient farmers (compared to today) and subject to nature's curse, meaning that although the birth rate does increase and the death slightly decrease, they are still relatively close to each other, meaning our population growth is still very modest.

Finally, in (iii) there is modern medicine, hygiene, better farming techniques, and generally improved scientific understanding of the world to allow us to live on far less land per person, to survive the birth process, and to stave-off death by disease and wear and tear.

If the Biblical account is literal, and Adam wandered around 6,000 years ago, then we obviously started farming immediately, and that is born out by the testimony about both Cain and Abel, neither of whom, it seems, just went 'n' got stuff lying around.

If the Biblical account is more poetic and Adam and Eve both appeared tens of thousand of years ago, we grew from two humans to only 40 million over 100,000 years – a growth rate of only 0.0168%. But, we can account for this low population growth by our lack of agriculture, medicine and any non-inate defense against disease.

Basically, what I am saying is that regardless how long that "pre-historic" period (i) was – it could be a million years – a zero growth rate isn't going to change the total population before we started exploding people over the past few hundred years.


b7ea65 No.444

File: 1455217052884.gif (79.07 KB, 711x664, 711:664, image.gif)

>>431

Adam did start farming immediately. Read Genesis 3:17-19.

If 100,000 years ago, when the first of our kind allegedly emerged, why did it take 94,000 years to figure anything out? The mind is either that of a not human or of a human, so 100,000 years ago we were just as capable as we are now and 6,000 years ago. The same resources were available. Were the first humans just wandering about, procreating and eating berries? For 94,000 years? It never occurred to them that maybe they could do more? What took place 6,000 years ago would have taken place 100,000 years ago. Even if it took the first humans a thousand years to develop language and the most rudimentary of tools, what prevented them from progressing in 6,000 years to where we are now? Are you saying it took us 94,000 years to figure out agriculture? The theory makes no sense. To say humans as we know them today began 100,000 years ago but only just recently made all these technological advancements is to say for 99,000 years we slept in dirt and ate bugs. You'd think people'd grow tired of that after long and focus on providing for themselves a more confortable existence.


87a5be No.447

>>444

> that image

For God hath made foolish the wisdom of this world


b7ea65 No.448

File: 1455259407575.jpeg (38.9 KB, 300x217, 300:217, image.jpeg)

>>447

For those who proclaim the certainty of the theory of Evolution that verse couldn't be more accurate.

Also Colossians 2:8…

>8 Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.


288097 No.449

>>448

Avoid using those images a lot of of them tend to be false or taken out of context. You are making the YEC look bad. Purge yourself off outdated arguments. Check out the Creation Science website and ICR. Also Evolution News.


90f166 No.452

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>444

>Adam did start farming immediately. Read Genesis 3:17-19.

Perhaps he did, I don't know, but what those verses actually say is that:

"…through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. … By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food …

The Lord does emphatically say is that the ground is cursed, and we will only yield from it with toil, He doesn't say how – farming or otherwise. Otherwise, if it only applies to farming, we are saying the curse of Adam does not apply to the plethora of nomadic peoples that have wandered this earth. Do you follow this point?

>If 100,000 years ago, when the first of our kind allegedly emerged, why did it take 94,000 years to figure anything out? The mind is either that of a not human or of a human, so 100,000 years ago we were just as capable as we are now and 6,000 years ago. The same resources were available. Were the first humans just wandering about, procreating and eating berries? For 94,000 years?

Yeah, you're not putting on your thinking cap when you write things like this. I know it sounds like a slam-dunk point that puts this whole 100,000 years business in the grave, but you need to think a little more deeply. I'm not saying your whole framework of a 6,000 year-old world is wrong because of this, but I am saying that glib, ill-considered arguments are no better than the classic "I'm in space and I can't see God, so obviously he doesn't exist".

Why, to this day, are there STILL nomadic or primitive tribes in the few fragmented remains of jungles? They have the same brains we do, don't they? Don't they know they could invent computers and chemotherapy to cure their cancers?! What's holding them back?!

Actually, while we're on that, why did it take human beings until the late 20th century to invent a computer? What was wrong with them? They had the same brains, didn't they?

And why did we not invent penicillin until the 1920s? Millions of people died from preventable diseases – what the heck took us so long? We had 6,000 years?! What were we doing all this time?

Why did it take us 5,800 years already having the wheel, and 2,300 having steam power before we bothered to make a locomotive? What were we waiting for? Didn't we know there were great distances we could traverse? Great continents still undiscovered? We had the same brains, the same IQs, didn't we? What was the problem?

Why did it take until the 13th century before anyone started openly questioning the Catholic Church's hold on people's spirituality and publish a Bible in a local language? They had a good thousand years, didn't they? What was holding them back?

And why didn't anyone assert the five solas until Calvin? What was the hold-up?! We're talking people's salvation here! Didn't they have the same brains capable of the same thoughts we now take for granted?

Why were those people in the 21st century not yet sitting in our flying cars next to their AI android buddies? That's what your our descendants would be asking with this line of questioning. What took them so long? They had the same brain as we do, why couldn't they figure out four-dimensional hypercalculus already and just invent the anti-gravity wave already?

Continued in Part 2


90f166 No.453

File: 1455297489473.jpg (Spoiler Image, 759.87 KB, 1591x1189, 1591:1189, memes-memes-memes.jpg)

Part 2

>>444

What has held us back, indeed still holds us back – aside from the Lord's timing for all things – is our own imagination to foresee possibilities, the knowledge, the cultural make-up, the infrastructure, the tools, everything. Over the past hundred, two hundred years, that has dramatically changed, and we forget that for most of our history, be that 99,800 years or just 5,800 years, we have changed our world only very gradually, BUT with the same gradient. We invent because we have invented, and each new idea foments the next. But, when you're starting from a low base, such as nothing but what you can grab from the ground, and you're still suffering from the psychic shock of being thrown out of Eden by God, you're not exactly going to start synthesising biochemicals the next day, are you? Think of it as being like a e^x curve, where the derivative is accelerating just as the f(x) does, because the more progress we make, the more progress is available to us.

Yes, I understand that you might now say, "But, if it only took 6,000 years to achieve all this, why didn't we 94,000 years ago?" but you're making a massive assumption that anything only takes 6,000 years, whereas your opponents will allege, equally validly, for who can know such things, that, "No, it takes 100,000 years".

Now, I won't pretend that is a slam dunk that emphatically proves Adam is 99,000-ish years dead. Nor do I even care to make that case.

I'm more about demonstrating that if you fail to anticipate arguments of your opponents, you won't last long in the debate.

And your argument just sounded … well, beneath men of learning and apologetics.

Video only tangentially related, just another viewpoint, unrelated to my points

Pic utterly unrelated. I just couldn't bare to post an unadorned post


90f166 No.454

File: 1455298884350.jpg (279.84 KB, 1012x1004, 253:251, why-knowledge-accretion-is….jpg)

>>444

Okay, so this might have been a better image to put into this post: >>453

Some slides outlining what I was talking about, why knowledge acquisition is an exponential curve


90f166 No.455

File: 1455299526984.jpg (25.94 KB, 251x218, 251:218, 1321019073883.jpg)

>>444

Aaaaaaand, one last crack at an answer because re-reading your post and my reply, I don't think I made this point clear:

>The mind is either that of a not human or of a human, so 100,000 years ago we were just as capable as we are now and 6,000 years ago.

The key word is capable.

We were always just as capable of the same things our descendants will do with their flying cars and android friends, but we do not have the same knowledge as our descendants will have. And, as I said, knowledge begets knowledge.

Likewise it is with the first humans: same ability to understand the world, absolutely negligible knowledge-base. They knew nothing, and then they started – if we assume a 100,000 year old humanity – drifting apart and forming nomadic tribes, not talking to each other, not sharing their knowledge very efficiently or effectively, and not until they decided to settle and grow some food did they start with the knowledge sharing and then the inventing.

Again, I'm not going in to bat for one argument or the other. I just think you should understand your opponents' arguments before you try to start shooting holes in them.

Alright, I'm done now.


55723f No.460

>>408

Catholics are heretics. The pope is even in a gay kissing relationship with the eastern church now.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VL26B


d9e66a No.466

>>408

Catholics are heretics. The pope is even in a gay kissing relationship with the eastern church now.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VL26B>>408


77fb5c No.467

>>466

Yes, if you mean Roman Catholics, also called Trentians.

Ref.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]