Your closest friendnt Posted August 30, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 7,859 Content Per Day: 2.41 Reputation: 2,763 Days Won: 3 Joined: 06/05/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2015 Everything in the Bible is God's truth.Almost everything, there is a lot of narration which is not from prophets, and a lot of, we don't know, but perhaps that what happen (expressing the scholars point of view). You must find out for your self. I have more than one example. But that does not define the bible as not credible, only the very specific situation. As to understan that those in control, are able to impose their minds to others. The bible still has credibility. Our explanation ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah_ Posted August 30, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 791 Content Per Day: 0.25 Reputation: 880 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/07/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2015 "The true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning” (Calvin) – not necessarily what we would call the ‘literal’ meaning! When Jesus said to His disciples at the Last Supper, “This is my body,” (Mark 14:22) not many of us Protestants think that He intended His words to be taken literally! In fact, the Bible is stuffed full of metaphor and symbolism. But if some parts of the Bible are ‘poetic’ or ‘metaphorical’, while others are ‘historical’ or ‘literal’, how do you decide which parts are which? Some are easy to define, others less so. For the Bible is a very complex book. For one thing, it is not a single book but a library of many different books, from different authors writing at different times and in various cultural situations. God has spoken not only “at many times,” but also “in various ways.” (Hebrews 1:1) Some of the books are legal documents; some are historical records; some are poetry; some are prophecy; some are apocalyptic; some are stories; some are personal letters. What all this means is that the Bible should not be approached as a ‘sacred text’ that must be taken literally at every point. Nor should verses be plucked out at random with no regard for genre or context. In most cases it’s obvious which type of literature is which; but there are a few exceptions. Is the book of Job history or poetry? Is the book of Jonah the historical account of a real event in the life of the prophet – or a story written by the prophet? Are the opening chapters of Genesis to be read in the same way as the Gospels? Christians have genuine differences of opinion on these questions. Even if recognising the overall type of literature is fairly straightforward, we still have to be aware that the biblical writers – just like any other people – often employ verbal techniques such as metaphor, exaggeration and humour, in order to make their point.https://deborahsbiblestudies.wordpress.com/the-bible/8-understanding-the-bible/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted August 30, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.34 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2015 I don't think Jesus necessarily spoke of Jonah as a real historical person .If Jonah was not a real historical person, then Christ would not have said that He was greater than Jonah. So why don't you read and meditate on what is actually stated? One does not compare oneself to fictitious characters. The prophecy of Jonah is prophecy, not fiction. And there is certainly no reason to call it a parable. But then again, you prefer to believe whatever you like, as do many others. It does not change the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted August 30, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,992 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,690 Content Per Day: 11.78 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted August 30, 2015 Everything in the Bible is God's truth.True , everything in the Bible is God's truth , but are we to understand it all literally ?Yes,there are figures of speech among the pages of the Bible but those are obvious when the words are studied.Just like in the English language.If someone told you it was raining cats and dogs you would not think there were cats and dogs coming from the sky.Jesus read the Bible literally why shouldn't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 For example , do we take the words of the Bible about Jonah literally.......that he was in a whale's belly for three days ?Jesus treated the story as literally true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tristen Posted August 31, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,377 Content Per Day: 0.63 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 1 Joined: 01/26/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2015 "Literally" is the wrong word to describe how Christians should take the Bible.The Bible consists of many grammatical devices such as metaphors, similes, allegories, parables, lyrics, poetry, prophetic visions etc. (which tend to involve some degree of symbolic application). To interpret these "literally" would be to ignore the intent of the author.Many Christians now use the term "as written"; as in, "the Bible should be interpreted as written". This basically means that the Bible should be interpreted in accordance with the obvious grammatical context. If a passage is written as an historical account, then it should be interpreted as an historical account. A parable should be interpreted as a parable etc.Ultimately, our goal should be to establish the original intent of the Author; what was the Author trying to convey to the originally intended audience?There is no room for compromising the message. One cannot simply "decide" to not take something literally. It must be obvious from the grammatical context that the author intended some degree of analogical application of the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegaman 3.0 Posted August 31, 2015 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 57 Topic Count: 1,546 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 10,320 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 12,323 Days Won: 9 Joined: 04/15/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/05/1951 Share Posted August 31, 2015 I don't think Jesus necessarily spoke of Jonah as a real historical person .If Jonah was not a real historical person, then Christ would not have said that He was greater than Jonah. So why don't you read and meditate on what is actually stated? One does not compare oneself to fictitious characters. I think that is a good observation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin hood Posted August 31, 2015 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 105 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 106 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/13/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 "Literally" is the wrong word to describe how Christians should take the Bible.The Bible consists of many grammatical devices such as metaphors, similes, allegories, parables, lyrics, poetry, prophetic visions etc. (which tend to involve some degree of symbolic application). To interpret these "literally" would be to ignore the intent of the author.Many Christians now use the term "as written"; as in, "the Bible should be interpreted as written". This basically means that the Bible should be interpreted in accordance with the obvious grammatical context. If a passage is written as an historical account, then it should be interpreted as an historical account. A parable should be interpreted as a parable etc.Ultimately, our goal should be to establish the original intent of the Author; what was the Author trying to convey to the originally intended audience?There is no room for compromising the message. One cannot simply "decide" to not take something literally. It must be obvious from the grammatical context that the author intended some degree of analogical application of the text. That makes sense to me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin hood Posted August 31, 2015 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 105 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 106 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/13/2015 Status: Offline Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 The Book of Jonah.....It is impossible that Nineveh , the ruins of which have been explored , could have been a city of "three days' journey" .A city of 120 000 infants implies a total population of over a million , far too large for Nineveh .Our knowledge of Assyria , both from Assyrian and biblical records , leaves no room for a conversion of Nineveh to the worship of Yahweh . The title "King of Nineveh" never appears in Assyrian or biblical records . It is always "king of Ashur" .The literary type of the book is didactic fiction or parable .This in no way detracts from the truth of the book . It is truth in the form of a parable rather than truth in the form of an historical narrative .In the same way the parable of the Good Samaritan is not truth expressed as an history narrative , rather truth as expressed in didactic fiction . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 The Book of Jonah.....It is impossible that Nineveh , the ruins of which have been explored , could have been a city of "three days' journey" .A city of 120 000 infants implies a total population of over a million , far too large for Nineveh .Our knowledge of Assyria , both from Assyrian and biblical records , leaves no room for a conversion of Nineveh to the worship of Yahweh . The title "King of Nineveh" never appears in Assyrian or biblical records . It is always "king of Ashur" .The literary type of the book is didactic fiction or parable .This in no way detracts from the truth of the book . It is truth in the form of a parable rather than truth in the form of an historical narrative .In the same way the parable of the Good Samaritan is not truth expressed as an history narrative , rather truth as expressed in didactic fiction .And where are you getting this plethora of misinformation from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts