spdjeanne wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
Sometimes exactly what the Bible says isn't exactly what it means. For instance, neither of us take the Last Supper literally, whereas many sects of Christianity do, because we see it in its cultural context and see that that scripture does not mean exactly what it says because of its context. If you took this scripture literally, word for word, you would also believe in transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Why does this principle, for you, only apply to the Last Supper, and not to other parts of scripture that are also in a specific cultural context?
I explained it, but you're apparently still missing what "literally" means. And you're not stating exactly to what passage you're referring in the Last Supper. However, my instincts tell me you're alluding to Jesus' phrase, "this is my body", in referrence to the bread.
Once again, there's a difference between taking a text literally, and taking it for its "first impression" meaning. "Literally" includes the intended context. "First impressions" are just random interpretations. People use figures of speech, even when they're clearly expressing a
literal truth through that figure of speech. When the map at the mall says, "You are here", do you believe that red spot on the map is literally you? And if so, are
you still you? Or has the red spot become you? Perhaps there are two of you, etc, etc, etc.
Neither, then, would the Bible need to explain the obvious representation Jesus was making when refering to the bread as His body -- the very bread which he was holding
with his body! The point I'm making... doesn't really need to be made at all, because it's obvious that people using expressions doesn't mean those people aren't
specifically and
definitely communicating a literal truth, and one which is easily understood by his listeners.
So, yes, as I said before, the Bible means what it says. But, also as I said before, we must often study the historical background surrounding the Bible to find out exactly what it's saying. *Do you see how it still means what it says? We just have to study deeply to find out some of those things. But, indeed, not all. Many commandments in the Bible do not become dated to the point they can't be easily understood, such as "don't lie", "don't steal", "don't commit adultery", and the verse in my signature.
Symbolism is not literal, not even a dot on a map, that is what makes it symbolic or figurative not literal.
I don't know if you're playing word games, or if you still don't understand what I said. Symbolism is symbolism, even when it expresses a literal meaning. There -- that's the shortest possible way I can explain it.
spdjeanne wrote:
People often express themselves symbolically especially in literature to convey a message that they believe to be true, but the truth of the message, even if the message can be expressed literally, does not make the story or symbolism itself literally true.
Correct!
spdjeanne wrote:
For example, I believe in the truth of the story of the Garden of Eden, but I do not believe that those events literally took place.
Ah, here's where you and I differ. I believe the story took place, because the Bible gives no indication -- nor is one implicit -- that it is making up a story, rather than telling actual events. The story of the Garden of Eden is not surreal, like John's visions in Revelation are. And neither is it announced as a parable, like Jesus often announced his stories were.
So those are my two main citeria for determining parable versus literal:
1. Is the story surreal?
or
2. Is the story announced as a parable?
spdjeanne wrote:
I believe that the story symbolically describes the way in which people fell away from obedience to God accurately. This truth can be described literally, but the story itself is not literally true, or do you believe in talking serpents?
So a talking snake makes the entire story false? That is too hard to believe happened? How about Balaam's mule, in Numbers 22:28: "Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?"
Also, do you believe in angels -- literally? Do you believe in God -- literally? These are much more difficult things to believe in than a talking snake, so if a talking snake is too difficult to believe, you must not believe in a literal God. And
that's the danger I'm indictating.
spdjeanne wrote:
Obviously the Bible is composed of many different genres of literature; mythology, history, poetry, prophesy, biography, and correspondence to name a few. To take mythology, poetry, or prophesy as literally true would be to miss the point of those writings completely, but that isn't to say that they don't express something true through their symbolism.
The difference between your view and mine is that I believe that the
truths expressed in the poetry are definite, literal truths. Whereas, you believe we can attribute to them
whatever truths and meanings we wish. Such would be to imply that the poetry of the Bible appears nonsensical, which is of course not the case.
Read the Psalms of David -- they convey quite literal concepts ("My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet"), even though they are lyrics to songs he wrote. You can see that not every word in that quotation is literal, yet the meaning
is literal, and quite clear. He's using figures of speech in poetry -- such
does not open his writings to wider interpretation. When parts of the Bible are labeled "Poetry", that does not meaning random poems. It means dictinct truths expressed in some peotic terms. As such, perhaps the English word "Poetry" is not best used, since many people equate it with fiction.
spdjeanne wrote:
If you mean by saying that you take the Bible to be literally true to mean that once you've expressed everything figurative in literal terms then it is all true, then I guess I would agree with you. However, to take the Bible literally, meaning to take every word as it is as the literal truth no interpretation required, I cannot agree with.
Jeanne, obviously, one doesn't take EVERY WORD of
anything they read literally, for it was not meant to be taken as a robot would interpret it. Expressions, figures of speech are thrown into
everything of any real length which is written or spoken, all while these communications remain
crystal-clear in their meanings. So, the Bible is no different in this respect from a letter you'd write to your friend: Not every word is going to be
dictionary-definition #1, even though the letter is clearly understood by your friend -- because your friend
knows you, as we know God through the Spirit of Christ within us, and through his Holy Spirit which guides us as we read His Word.
spdjeanne wrote:
I would also suggest that even the parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken literally still need qualification in terms of their cultural context because, culture is a system of symbols. So even if you do extract the literal meaning of a scripture meant to be taken figuratively, the cultural context still applies to that literal meaning because in effect the literal meaning is still symbolic because it is within a specific cultural system of symbols.
This is true of ALL non-modern and/or non-local documents, not just of the Bible. But you're still injecting doubt where it does not belong: in God's Word. You believe error crept in -- unknown to and unprevented by God -- and that we have to be
VERY skeptical when we read the Bible. Nope, not at all. We simply need to study it, realizing that it is true, even while our understanding of its truth needs help from God.
The Bible is perfect. Our understanding of it is not.
Firstly, thank you Ragtime for opening this thread with an interesting theoretical reconciliation of the Scriptures and science; I acknowledge I lack the expertise in the relevant branches of science to respond authoritatively.
With regard to your ongoing conversation with spdjeanne, while I understand your concern about her faith being watered down or heretical in your perspective, I am inclined to think that accusing her of not accepting Christ as her Sovereign Lord is a rather more serious accusation than the stylistic pedantry in analysis of your posts that you complain of (for which she has apologised; I would be inclined to accept this as sincere).
Concerning the differing understandings between you of what is meant by literal truth, you do appear to be arguing that any expression that contains a truth is literally true, which seems to be a strained definition, but of course you have a point about figurative speech. I think spdjeanne's instance of the Last Supper was a worthwhile point to raise, and to be honest I do not think the literal truth conveyed by Jesus' words is as obvious as for example that "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out," or "by their fruits you shall know them." In these examples the message is plain while not in spdjeanne's sense literal; I am not entirely clear as to how this is with "This is my body," and would appreciate your enlightening me (I hope that does not sound sarcastic as I suspect it does, for this was not my intention). Even the reformers were divided as to exactly how Jesus' words should be understood at that point.
I hope that you do not take the contents of this post as a personal attack; I respect the integrity of your position (given that I am conscious of failing it would be sinfully arrogant to do otherwise) but think that your characterisation of spdjeanne as proud is perhaps not altogether just. You are right no doubt to point out the danger of relativising the truth of the Scriptures out of existence, and may have grounds for fearing for the welfare of either spdjeanne's soul or my own, and are no doubt motivated by Christian love in seeking to respond to this; at times you can come across as abrasive or arrogant, which I do not believe to be the truth concerning you.
Still, you are right to remind that our understanding of the Scriptures is imperfect.
30 Jul 2007, 5:25 pm
Quit monkeying around, Sedaka. Or no banana for you!
