Story of creation: Genesis.

[Shadow Templar]

All sorts of people decide. That's a lot of where different denominations come from. In general, though, the people who decide are the people who study the reasons behind their stances in depth. If you go to seminary and spend 10 years studying a specific text and whether or not it should be taken literally, you have a little more say than someone who's an atheist, has never picked up a Bible, and is only repeating things he heard secondhand from other people who didn't know what they were talking about. It's pretty similar to any other study of any sort, including but not limited to all scientific studies. This is simply part of how knowledge works. If you study it a lot and reach a good conclusion that you can defend, then people tend to think you're right. In fact, it's really pretty hard for any other method of deciding what's a correct interpretation to rationally exist.

[Doug Shaver]

If you study it a lot and reach a good conclusion that you can defend, then people tend to think you're right.

Why should I care what other people tend to think?

[shunyadragon]

Cool. That means people think that part is literal. If that's wrong, argue it's wrong. I'm not saying people don't interpret things wrongly. What I'm saying is that taking things literally where people aren't arguing they're literal does no one any good. The arguing style I see a lot of goes something like this:

1: Someone takes one part of the Bible literally
2: Therefore they must take the whole Bible literal

This, Therefore . . . logic, does not work for even those that believe that believe in 'Divine Dictation.' They do not take the whole Bible literally.

3: There are parts of the Bible that are obviously wrong when taken literally.

True, again even those that believe in 'Divine Dictation' recognize this.

4: Therefore taking any part of the Bible literally is obviously wrong.

Logic does not follow from the above, based on the reality of how Christians actually believe which parts of the Bible are literal, and which parts are not.

5: The entire Bible is a sham.

Yes, many actually believe this when considering it a 'historical Divinely inspired document,' but this is not based on the above logic.

That's dumb and lame and used way too much. This thread alone contains a little too much of it and it stinks a bit. I'm simply warning against this arguing technique. If this isn't what you're using, then it's not relevant to your argument.

The problem is that it is not the logic that virtually any one uses. It is conflating the Bible into extremes of logic, which is not reality.

The history of Christianity centered around a God authored or directly inspired text does not mean that every part need be completely literal. That means that the words that are there were put there by God. As I was saying, they were put there to convey something, not necessarily to all be interpreted literally. Even throughout the history of Christianity, people have not looked at all parts as literal.

Spelling and grammatical errors have never been a serious issue. I wasn't arguing that it was. I was simply using that as an example of how the reasoning that "because one part isn't understood to be exactly fitting with the current day knowledge, therefore the whole thing is a sham regardless of the fact that the meaning behind the words still stands" is a flawed way of reasoning through the Bible. If the point still stands, the point still stands regardless of the complete scientific exactness of each and every literally interpreted word.

Simply a bad example, because it is not how either believers and critics consider the problem of parts of the Bible being literal and other parts not literal. The arguments by even the extreme critical scholars like Dr. Bart D. Ehrman, have a far more involved argument that the Bible is not what traditional Christians believe it is. It is combination of arguments based on such problems as the evidence of the nature and origin of the text, archeology, outside evidence, and linguistic analysis.

[Kbertsche]

Who decides? The original author of the text. The original author was trying to communicate something, and whatever it was is the "correct interpretation" of the text. Unfortunately, the original author is no longer around in person to ask what he meant. We must work from his writings, from his culture, from his place in history, and try to figure out what he meant. As has been said, sometimes his meaning is obvious, but other times it is not. But even where we cannot be absolutely sure of his meaning, he did have one, and there is a correct interpretation of the text, even though we may not be positive of what it is.

[JimL]

Some things are meant to be literal, and others aren't, so yes, it's completely ok and consistent to argue that some things are meant to be literal, and others are not. Simply stating so without giving reasons behind why one thing is treated differently than another is lame, but holding different parts to different standards is normal and legit. Like I said before, not the WHOLE Bible is meant to be strictly literal. There are parts that are (God creating the universe being one of the parts that's held as literal, as is Christ's divinity). There are other parts that are not meant to be literal in every word for word basis. Recognizing which parts are which isn't easy, but doing so is by no means inconsistent.

You, like KBertsche, are still avoiding a direct answer to my question though. In what sense is God the author of scripture? How did he indicate to the human authors what to write? How did the human authors distinguish between that which was literal fact and that which was metaphor? For example, a literal interpretation of the creation of the universe is not essential to Christianity, and so you could argue that the human authors getting it factually wrong was irrelevant to their intent, which was to assert or proclaim a creator, a God, but a literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is essential to Christianity. One can't just be inspired to write a factual narrative like the story of Adam and Eve based on their belief in a creator, because unlike the creation of the universe it is essential to Christianity that Adam and Eve be factual. So again, in what sense do you define God as the author, by what method, in each of the two cases, did he reveal and inspire the human authors to write what they did?

[OingoBoingo]

You realize you're asking two very different questions JimL. The first question is "how can you have a metaphorical interpretation of the creation of the universe and a literal Adam?", and the second question is "by what method did God inspire human authors?". KBertsche is not avoiding the OP, and he isn't unable to explain his point of view. I'm betting you know that, but you're just trying to bait him in a line of questioning that he's not interested in going in right now, and that's not relevant to the questions you asked in the beginning of this thread.

Despite that, he gave you an answer. He said he believes in "verbal, plenary inspiration". You can Google exactly what that is. Then he told you there are other views, namely "partial inspiration" and "dictation". Then he recommended you some books on theology that will go into all of this. He's provided everything you need to figure it out on your own, but a freaking map and a powerpoint.

The most obvious reason you're making a stink of it is because you want to debate someone about the nitty-gritty mechanics of it all. As if it were a gear that you could take apart and examine. Your problem really is that you're too obvious. If you're going to troll for a debate then you need to do it with a bit more finesse.

[JimL]

You realize you're asking two very different questions JimL. The first question is "how can you have a metaphorical interpretation of the creation of the universe and a literal Adam?", and the second question is "by what method did God inspire human authors?". KBertsche is not avoiding the OP, and he isn't unable to explain his point of view. I'm betting you know that, but you're just trying to bait him in a line of questioning that he's not interested in going in right now, and that's not relevant to the questions you asked in the beginning of this thread.

Despite that, he gave you an answer. He said he believes in "verbal, plenary inspiration". You can Google exactly what that is. Then he told you there are other views, namely "partial inspiration" and "dictation". Then he recommended you some books on theology that will go into all of this. He's provided everything you need to figure it out on your own, but a freaking map and a powerpoint.

The most obvious reason you're making a stink of it is because you want to debate someone about the nitty-gritty mechanics of it all. As if it were a gear that you could take apart and examine. Your problem really is that you're too obvious. If you're going to troll for a debate then you need to do it with a bit more finesse.

Well, why don't you explain to me, in your own words, what inspiration means in the case of a proclaimed factual story such as that of the Adam and Eve narrative? I don't like to discuss these things by weblink because anyone can provide a link without themselves even having read it, and even if they have read the link themselves that doesn't mean that they have understood or thought it through in order that they come to their own logical conclusions concerning it. I've read a lot of things as well, but when questioned by someone on a subject i don't call them a troll, and i don't tell them to go read up on it, I tell them my own thoughts about what i've learned and why I agree or disagree with it. Surely the concept of inspiration as applied to the biblical authors can't be that difficult to define or explain. If it is then you probably don't even understand it yourself, or have even thought about it yourself.

[OingoBoingo]

Well, why don't you explain to me, in your own words, what inspiration means in the case of a proclaimed factual story such as that of the Adam and Eve narrative?

LOL, why do you think you can trap me in the same off topic subject that you were trying to trap KBertsche in. Why don't you start a new thread about the inspiration of the Bible and see who's attracted to it?

I don't like to discuss these things by weblink because anyone can provide a link without themselves even having read it, and even if they have read the link themselves that doesn't mean that they have understood or thought it through in order that they come to their own logical conclusions concerning it. I've read a lot of things as well, but when questioned by someone on a subject i don't call them a troll, and i don't tell them to go read up on it, I tell them my own thoughts about what i've learned and why I agree or disagree with it.

Hate to tell you this, but this sounds exactly like you're not at all interested in learning anything about the actual theology involved in the doctrine of inspiration. You're more interested in just debating it. Why would anyone entertain your desire to debate a subject that you have so little familiarity in? Just to stroke your ego?

Surely the concept of inspiration as applied to the biblical authors can't be that difficult to define or explain. If it is then you probably don't even understand it yourself, or have even thought about it yourself.

That's a wild jump in logic. If the concept of inspiration was so simple, then obviously no one would direct you to texts that examine it. Here's a novel idea...why don't you take the time to learn about various views on inspiration, then start a new thread for why you don't except them. Hell, who knows, maybe learning something about a subject that you don't know anything about will convince you that it has teeth, and then you won't need to start a new thread.

[JimL]

Who decides? The original author of the text. The original author was trying to communicate something, and whatever it was is the "correct interpretation" of the text. Unfortunately, the original author is no longer around in person to ask what he meant. We must work from his writings, from his culture, from his place in history, and try to figure out what he meant. As has been said, sometimes his meaning is obvious, but other times it is not. But even where we cannot be absolutely sure of his meaning, he did have one, and there is a correct interpretation of the text, even though we may not be positive of what it is.

That doesn't say much for Gods ability to communicate to us what he wants us to know Kbertsche. I don't say that as an antagonist as some here would like to suggest of me, but as one who sees that as a problem in accepting it as the word of God. If the biblical authors are human beings who are trying to communicate their personal ideas, or beliefs, then such an obscure and flawed rendering could be understood, but if it is God who is trying to communicate the facts of existence then I would think he could do so in a clear and precise way.

[JimL]

LOL, why do you think you can trap me in the same off topic subject that you were trying to trap KBertsche in. Why don't you start a new thread about the inspiration of the Bible and see who's attracted to it?



Hate to tell you this, but this sounds exactly like you're not at all interested in learning anything about the actual theology involved in the doctrine of inspiration. You're more interested in just debating it. Why would anyone entertain your desire to debate a subject that you have so little familiarity in? Just to stroke your ego?



That's a wild jump in logic. If the concept of inspiration was so simple, then obviously no one would direct you to texts that examine it. Here's a novel idea...why don't you take the time to learn about various views on inspiration, then start a new thread for why you don't except them. Hell, who knows, maybe learning something about a subject that you don't know anything about will convince you that it has teeth, and then you won't need to start a new thread.

If you have no interest in, or feel as though you are somehow being trapped into discussing the subject, then please feel free to go elsewhere and find another thread that you actually have an interest in. Thanks.

[OingoBoingo]

If you have no interest in, or feel as though you are somehow being trapped into discussing the subject, then please feel free to go elsewhere and find another thread that you actually have an interest in. Thanks.

LOL, great rebuttal /s.

[Shadow Templar]

You, like KBertsche, are still avoiding a direct answer to my question though. In what sense is God the author of scripture? How did he indicate to the human authors what to write? How did the human authors distinguish between that which was literal fact and that which was metaphor? For example, a literal interpretation of the creation of the universe is not essential to Christianity, and so you could argue that the human authors getting it factually wrong was irrelevant to their intent, which was to assert or proclaim a creator, a God, but a literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is essential to Christianity. One can't just be inspired to write a factual narrative like the story of Adam and Eve based on their belief in a creator, because unlike the creation of the universe it is essential to Christianity that Adam and Eve be factual. So again, in what sense do you define God as the author, by what method, in each of the two cases, did he reveal and inspire the human authors to write what they did?

I wasn't avoiding a direct answer to your question. I was simply stating that some parts are meant to be literal and others were not. That is simply a fact. I didn't get into the inner workings of the details of the topic, nor attempted to answer what you brought up. I was simply saying that just because the creation story isn't meant to be taken literally doesn't mean that all other parts aren't meant to be taken literally.

That doesn't say much for Gods ability to communicate to us what he wants us to know Kbertsche. I don't say that as an antagonist as some here would like to suggest of me, but as one who sees that as a problem in accepting it as the word of God. If the biblical authors are human beings who are trying to communicate their personal ideas, or beliefs, then such an obscure and flawed rendering could be understood, but if it is God who is trying to communicate the facts of existence then I would think he could do so in a clear and precise way.

That seems to be the real issue here. If you can't accept it as God's word, then yea, yer going to be confused as to why he didn't communicate it in the exact way you would if you were God. Really, though, it's not as hard as you're making it. It's not like a shrouded cloud of mystery that you have to struggle your way through to remotely understand. The points that are essential are very clearly laid out before you in easy to understand language. If you have an issue with how God communicates some part of the Bible, take it up with Him. Humans aren't going to be able to give you a perfect rationale behind God's reasons. If you're looking for me to tell you the reason God didn't just put all the stars in a position that literally spells out "I'm here, I made the universe" then you're on your own.

[Doug Shaver]

If you have an issue with how God communicates some part of the Bible, take it up with Him.

I would do that, if he were the one talking to me. The only ones talking to me are people who say God is trying to communicate with me through the Bible.

[Shadow Templar]

I would do that, if he were the one talking to me. The only ones talking to me are people who say God is trying to communicate with me through the Bible.

Hehehehe... Yeah, that's my point. The people talking to you are the people telling you HOW God talks to you. That's what the Bible is. If you believe there is no God, then you can't talk to something that doesn't exist. But if you hold that God exists, then it also follows that he communicates his will to us. Hence, we have the Bible.

In short, people are telling you what you want to know, and you're deciding to refuse to listen, then wondering why you don't know what you want to know.

[Carrikature]

But if you hold that God exists, then it also follows that he communicates his will to us.

No, it doesn't.