jaybird18c

I'm agnostic when it comes to Odin.

The Bible is to be "interpreted" literally. It contains "literaly" lots of different types of literary forms (e.g. historical accounts, poetry, metaphors, hyperbole, prayers, parables, etc.) You'd just better know "literally" what it is saying, how it was said, who said it, who were they speaking to, where they came from, what was their culture like at the time, what was their language, what audience was it intended for, what principle (if any) can be derived from it, can/should that principal be applied to us today (it may not be intended to). It’s not what you want the passage to say. It’s what the author intended for it to say. I believe it might have been Leonard Ravenhill who said this but I'm not sure: "You wouldn't want a carpenter to show up at your house and just start smashing around with his tools without some kind of indication that he knew why he was there and what his plan and purpose was. Yet in the realm of theology, there are people crashing and smashing around with all kinds of tools with no obvious indication of what in the world they’re endeavoring to do." Added: With regard to your "bonkers" comment, I understand. This is the real problem. "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14 In 2 Kings 5, there is a story of Naaman (captain of the army of the king of Aram). He had leprosy. He was told to go to see a servant of Elisha. When he showed up, the servant told Naaman to get off his horse, go down to the river, dip himself in the river seven times, and he would be cured. Sounds foolish, doesn’t it? It did to him also and he refused. His pride was too great. He began to ride away but his servants convinced him to go back. He did what the servant instructed him to do and he was healed. The point being, until you get off your high horse (humble yourself before your God), you are too “self-righteous.” You will never be open to what the scripture is telling you without supernatural intervention whereby your very nature is changed.

Well then. Guess we're all just crazier than your pet dog. No convincing you then.

Even the Smithsonian Institute regards the Bible as historically accurate. Of course, they deny a global flood and discredit the earlier chapters in Genesis which don't fit into their presuppositions. But everything else...right on. I think that's inconsistent, but...at least they (and not you) agree that it is probably the most reliable work in antiquity. http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0403lead.asp Added: " … On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. "These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say … that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated." - Smithsonian Institute

Why do you seem so angry?

Wow! And THAT is a great example of making a conclusion without any understanding of the historical or theological context of a passage. And from a source called "evil bible." THAT is awesome!

Paul was a tentmaker by trade. He understood that you need to make straight cuts in order to do what he did. A cut may start out straight but, unless you're careful, it can get "way out there" the further along you get. I'm sure that's what he had in mind with 2 Tim 2:15 when he said "Study (be dilligent) to show yourself approved of God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." With interpretation, we should use the inductive method of exegesis (examining data to make a conclusion and then an application). We should not use the deductive method of eisegesis (making a conclusion and then finding evidence to support that conclusion or belief). With exegesis, one is attempting to find out "literally" what the person intended to convey in his message (authorial intent). Gotta know the grammar and historical setting before you can interpret and apply (if we can...because the text may not have been written for us and maybe it was only intended for them at that time). For example: Leviticus 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." Literally, what did that mean? Does it mean we shouldn't get haircuts? No. You've got to determine the original intent. Back then, there were pagan practices amongst the people. Cutting the beard was considered a pagan ceremony. You wouldn't know that unless you understood the culture at the time. God was instructing to leave those pagan practices behind. Is it a pagan practice in our culture to shave your beard today? Of course not. So, does that principal derived from scripture apply to us today? No. It doesn't mean the same thing. Now, in the Jewish culture, it still does. That's why the orthodox Jews still have their hair long on the sides and beards.

I agree. I go back to a passage like John 14:6, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me." (an essential doctrine of the faith). The Apostles and earliest of Church Fathers all understood the exclusivity of that statment. It has obviously not been lost in English or any other translation. I agree, some passages have been left in obscurity and there are differences of opinion as to their exact translation and meaning from the original languages, however, those aren't anywhere near the majority and the overall theme of the bible (God's unfolding plan of salvation for His people) is clear. In that way, one of the characteristics of scripture is its perspecuity.

I don't usually post my resume but I have post graduate seminary education (and not from answers in genesis). My undergraduate degree is unrelated. But that is beside the point. If you had all those years of philosophical education, I would think you'd understand something of biblical interpretation. I'm not saying that biblical interpretations do not change. That's got nothing to do with my literal reading of the Bible. My interpretation of a particular thing could be wrong. That's why, if my interpretation of a particular thing doesn't match up in any way with what it's always been understood to be, then I'm probably wrong. If it matches up, I'm probably on track. That's not to say that interpretations haven't changed in history. For example, false interpretations that had made its way into the Roman Catholic Church around the time of the Reformation (e.g. purgatory, etc.). It wasn't until then that the Catholic Church (during the Counter-Reformation) brought in the Apocryphal books and included them into their canon of scripture. Then, when Protestants asked where the scriptural support for these things was, they could point to their bible and say "there, it's in the bible." (Not to mention, that Jerome (early church father; Roman Catholic) in his Latin Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible) did not include the Apocryphal books). The point being, the early church fathers never included those teachings. Neither should have the Catholic Church.

You need a theology and biblical interpretation course Billvon (really) and not just a cursory easy-reading of the Bible. You need to understand hermaneutical rules of interpretation. One rule is that you can't apply 20th or 21st century understanding of a particular thing to a Hebrew understanding at that time. You've got to try and understand it from their perspective and not the other way around. Added: I don't mean that to be insulting. I'm being serious. It's the same reason cults exist today. they either center their entire theology around a particular verse or they read it and apply their modern concept of it...or both.

Are all these people anti-science? http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp Interesting to note the earlier ones around the 17th century. Was Francis Bacon (scientific method) "anti-science?" Added: You atheists really need to come up with some new material for your cause.

Says the guy who (apparently) believes in young earth creationism. Sorry dude, that's as unscientifically stupid as it gets! Scientific theory can change. The Word of God does not. I base my life on a firm foundation. That does not mean, I am anti-science. Not by any means. I just start from a different presupposition than you. Scientists (until the enlightenment period of the 17th century) used to do the same (and many still do; just not the majority). Now...as before...man wants to be like God. It's not the first time.

Firstly, you shouldn't take a quote from an article intended to discuss the false claim that the widespread believe of Christians has ever been in keeping with the concept of a flat earth and then apply it to your next question concerning heliocentricity. Secondly, I guess we've shown that the whole "flat earth" attack is simply unfounded. Thirdly, the Bible is not a science book. That was never its design or purpose. However, wheverever statments are made in it that touch on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate. Now, with regard to your question, we have to determine whether the bible even hints at the idea of heliocentricity. The answer is no. The Church (of which the Roman Catholic Church is a major culprit) throughout history has misused, distorted, and undermined the authority of scripture. Taken from it ideas which are not there and applied them to its purposes. Long story short, the Bible is neither geocentric or heliocentric regardless of what the Roman Catholic tradition has done with it. "Sola Scriptura!" "Some creationists believe that the scientific assault on the Bible did not begin with biological evolution, but with the acceptance of the heliocentric (or more properly, geokinetic) theory centuries ago. These people believe that the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move, and hence the only acceptable Biblical cosmology is a geocentric one. Modern geocentrists use both Biblical and scientific arguments for their case. We examine these arguments, and find them poorly founded. The Scriptural passages quoted do not address cosmology. Some geocentrists draw distinctions that do not exist in the original autographs or even in translations. In short, the Bible is neither geocentric nor heliocentric. While geocentrists present some interesting scientific results, their scientific arguments are often based upon improper understanding of theories and data. Much of their case is based upon a misunderstanding of general relativity and the rejection of that theory. While geocentrists are well intended, their presence among recent creationists produces an easy object of ridicule by our critics." http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp

Definitely not Roman Catholic. I consider myself an evangelical Christian and a member of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

Christianity has often been accused of opposing science and hindering technology throughout history by superstitious ignorance. However, a closer study of historical facts shows that this accusation is ill-founded. In his book The Discovers, author Daniel Boorstin stated: ‘A Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia … afflicted the continent from AD 300 to at least 1300. During those centuries Christian faith and dogma suppressed the useful image of the world that had been so slowly, so painfully, and so scrupulously drawn by ancient geographers’.1 Christianity has often been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. Yet it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the ‘official Christian viewpoint’. Lactantius The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245–325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life. He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived). Cosmas Indicopleustes and Church Fathers Next was sixth century Eastern Greek Christian, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat and lay beneath the heavens (consisting of a rectangular vaulted arch). His work also was soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians have usually claimed his view was typical of that of the Church Fathers. Many such historians have simply followed the pattern of others without checking the facts. In fact, most of the Church Fathers did not address the issue of the shape of the Earth, and those who did regarded it as ‘round’ or spherical. Washington Irving and Rip Van Winkle In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was ‘apt to indulge in the imagination’. Its theme was the victory of a lone believer in a spherical Earth over a united front of Bible-quoting, superstitious ignoramuses, convinced the Earth was flat. In fact, the well-known argument at the Council of Salamanca was about the dubious distance between Europe and Japan which Columbus presented — it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. Later writers repeated the error In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as ‘reputable’ ever since. In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life. Englishman Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the ‘affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves’ — these were the ‘Dark Ages’. Draper’s work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller. Meanwhile White (who founded Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States), published the two-volume scholarly work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in 1896. Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists. In fact, not only did the church not promote the flat Earth, it is clear from such passages as Isaiah 40:22 that the Bible implies it is spherical. (Non-literal figures of speech such as the ‘four corners of the Earth’ are still used today.) Encyclopedias erase the myth While many will have lost their faith through the writing of such men as Irving, Draper and White, it is gratifying to know that the following encyclopædias now present the correct account of the Columbus affair: The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopædia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989). There is still a long way to go before the average student will know that Christianity did not invent or promote the myth of the flat Earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp

Yes. I do. But not because I think the canon of scripture is completely "airtight." That kind of reasoning for proving something true comes from modern epistemology, 17th Century Enlightenment period, Baconian reasoning, scientific methodology, etc. That does not apply here and is not the kind of evidence that you would need in order to show the Bible to be trustworthy. Could we be wrong about inclusion of the longer ending of Mark or the woman caught in adultery? Yes. But that's ok. Those examples are few and far between and take nothing away from the established truth of the fundamentals of the faith. With regard to canonicity, let me start by saying that the Bible is the word of God and the standard (measuring rod) for what is true. It has been since it was recorded. A formalized canon didn’t need to be established until false teachings began creeping into the church (attacks from within). By the 2nd Century AD, we have the complete canon of the NT (by the way, by the 2nd Century BC, we have a very well defined canon of the OT). Criteria for canonization include Apostolicity (written by an apostle or a close associate of an Apostle; e.g. Mark with Peter), antiquity (how ancient the usage of the book was within the Church; written within the lifetime of an eyewitness, etc.), inspiration (did God write it; does it claim to be the word of God; was it accepted by the Church as inspired), widespread acceptance (over different geographic regions, was it generally used as scripture), content/orthodoxy (does it cohere with the overall message of the progressive revelatory nature of the Bible explaining God’s plan of salvation for His people; apostolic message). However, that aside, there is in fact also an inner witness of the Holy Spirit (which is subjective and experiential) that goes into the criteria as well. The Bible points us outside of itself to God and God meets those who seek him in the middle, fills us with His Holy Spirit, and informs us of His word. So, therefore, canonization is not completely objective. It has a subjective component. That’s not to say this is blind faith in the scripture. It is very much informed and and gives us very good reason to believe in it as accurate and trustworthy. That's not to say we are Bibliolaters. We do not worship the Bible. We worship God.

Jehovah's Witnesses can't even tell the Ketiv from the Qere. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI Now that's funny. ... I don't care who you are.

That was kind of a difficult read for me. Very granular and encyclopedic but very good.

That is your word for word grammatical translation of this?

Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the Trinity! They base that on their interpretation of their translation of the Bible. The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no consensus! Ok. Let's look at a fundamental passage. Matthew 14:6 (NASB) "Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me." (ESV) "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (NIV) "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (KJV) "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (NKJV) "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (NLT) " Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." How about a Spanish Castillian translation? "Jesús dijo entonces: Yo soy el camino, la verdad y la vida: nadie puede ir al Padre, si no es por mí." Now, using straight forward grammatical/historical interpretation (just read it), how would you personally interpret that item of scripture? And that clearly puts them outside the "consensus" of orthodoxy and into what we call a non-Christian "cult."

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that it is a good litmus test for what I was talking about (textual criticism, reliability, etc.) It doesn't mean that the majority is right in every instance (e.g. slavery in the South...abortion in the U.S.). That's not what I'm talking about.

Not the case: "This episode as a whole, despite its notoriety, does little to elucidate the Puritan mind of the age; but it did lead to chagrin and public remorse, which in turn reduced respect for the colony's religious leadership, especially in the eyes of the merchant class whose social and political importance were notably increased under the new charter." - Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, pg. 161. I had to read this book for a class. Ahlstrom does not strike me as an evangelical Christian. He is an excellent historian nevertheless. This was absolutely an isolated event in the colonies and did not represent the widespread beliefs of the Puritans.

"Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a flat Earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports the claim that Christians ever widely believed that the Earth was flat. And the Bible doesn’t teach it." http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp

Firstly, you're talking about two different things...differences in translation and differences in canonicity (e.g. Catholics adding the Apocryphal books). That aside, I use several. I own an NIV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV. I like the NASB the best because, in my opinion, it is one of the best scholarly word for word translations from the original Greek. However, the ESV is another excellent translation and is easier to read sometimes. The others are good for casual reading but when I really want to get to the meat of a particular matter, I regard the first ones I mentioned more reliable. But what's good is to compare side-by-side. The books of the Bible were originally in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic....then translated into Latin...German...English...and so on...and so forth. That does not mean that those translations aren't reliable. As a matter of fact, the vast number of translations actually establishes reliability. Of course, there are differences of opinion on some things. There are even mistakes in translation in some places...but those are extremely few and far between. As far as translation is concerned, however, none of those "mistakes" have anything to do with the essentials of the faith.

What's Europe got to do with the Salem Witch Trials brought up as an example earlier? Anyway, all of this is beside the point. None of those occurances were justifiable.