On Interpretation of Scripture

[HumbleThinker]

Yes, and I'm presuming by implication you are asking if I believe in the Trinity, which is also yes.

So  since Jesus was God incarnate, anything Jesus said would be true and correct without mixture of error, right?

In as much as He intends it to not have error. If speaking from a mistaken position about the size of mustard seeds compared to all seeds for example would better serve His spiritual purposes, I see no reason why He would correct it. Correcting this understandably mistaken notion of the people at the time would not serve any purpose and would likely just get in the way. As I believe you said before, Jesus was not teaching a course in biology. Jesus of course being both human and divine would presumably know that there are seeds smaller than a mustard seed, but His audience would not nor would they particularly need to. Other than things like this, though, no there would be no error.

Do you not understand that in ancient times, they used figurative language when they spoke and in this case, Jesus was using hyperbole???   Or is that just supposed to belong to modern times.  

 

THe problem with your approach to the Bible is that you can't tell the difference bewteen plain speech and figurative devices in the text.  When the Bible says that the mountains melt like wax in the presence of God, do you assume that they were so stupid as to believe that mountains actually melt, or is it more likely that they were using figurative language?   The more you post, the more clear it becomes that you don't have a clue when it comes how to interpret the Bible.

 

 

But Jesus treats Adam as historical.   How can Jesus be God and make that kind of error if Adam isn't really historical.  The rest of the NT also treasts Adam as historical.  How does your questionable handling of Scripture trump the words of Jesus?

Are you calling it hyperbole because it is actually hyperbole and thus something you can demonstrate from the culture or Hebrew, or are you calling it hyperbole because Creation demonstrates that a mustard seed isn't the smallest of all seeds? If the latter, now you've opened the doors to that slippery slope that some creationists I know love to ramble on about that allows for Creation to assist us in interpreting Scripture. And if you want to talk about ancient times, you should start withe the fact that the mustard seed was the smallest known seed in that part of the world despite it growing into a tree much taller than "the garden plants" that grow from much bigger seeds. He is clearly drawing out a spiritual point from reality as he does on multiple occasions, even within the same chapter of Matthew that this parable is contained in. That the mustard seed in modern times is used for something that is proverbially small came about from the popularity of the Bible.

[Guest shiloh357]

Are you calling it hyperbole because it is actually hyperbole and thus something you can demonstrate from the culture or Hebrew, or are you calling it hyperbole because Creation demonstrates that a mustard seed isn't the smallest of all seeds?

 

I am calling it hyperbole because that is the device being used.  It is an exaggeration being used for effect.  He is trying to compare the size of the mustard seed to the size of the mustard plant it produces.  It is a device used to make a didactic point.  Jesus is teaching about faith, not making a scientific statement.  It is the smallest seed that grows a plant that large.

 

The problem with how you approach the Bible is that you keep wanting to take everything at face value and you don't make room for figurative language or devices. I can see it in how you approach what the Bible says about nature.  You treat every statement about nature like a face value statement of fact and completely ignore the way the author is using poetic imagery (especially in the Psalms) to make greater point.   That kind of stuff is lost on you which is why you keep making erroneous statements about their ancient "cosmology"  and claiming that creation contradicts the Bible when quite frankly, you just don't know what you are talking about and you are too arrogant to see it.

 

 

 

 

If the latter, now you've opened the doors to that slippery slope that some creationists I know love to ramble on about that allows for Creation to assist us in interpreting Scripture.

 

You don't know what you are talking about. 

 

And if you want to talk about ancient times, you should start withe the fact that the mustard seed was the smallest known seed in that part of the world despite it growing into a tree much taller than "the garden plants" that grow from much bigger seeds.

 

Well if YOU want to talk about the middle east ( a speciality of mine) you should know that the smallest seed in the ancient near east was the orchid seed and is alluded to in the Song of Solomon.   So it was not the case that it was the smallest known seed.   LIke I said before, you don't know what you are talking about.

[GoldenEagle]

There have been some reports on this thread. Closed for review.