one.opinion Posted March 25, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, visitor#88 said: Really? What do you think Birds of Prey eat ? As in Eagles, hawks, vultures etc. I will give you a hint. Those birds don't eat veggies. The hypothesis among young earth creationists is that birds of prey (and all other carnivores, for that matter) had drastically different diets before the fall of mankind and subsequent entry of sin into the world. The digestive anatomy (dentition, in particular) drastically changed in the time between the Fall and Noah’s flood (plenty of fossils exhibit anatomy suitable for carnivorous diets) to accommodate the severe shift in diet. I’m not saying I agree with it, just presenting the hypothesis. Edited March 25, 2018 by one.opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted March 25, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 25, 2018 14 hours ago, Sojourner414 said: My point is that if Jesus said "before the rooster crows" and Peter denied Him before any of the crows, it is still correct. The problem you face though is when you start putting meaning other than the literal ones to Scripture, where does it end? It doesn't. And that's where eisegesis gets a person. Yes, but what about Mark 14:30? If the rooster crowed only once and he denied Christ three times, that fits the other gospels, but it doesn't fit this one. That is half my point. The other half is that we don't have to take it literally. We understand what it means, as I pointed out in a previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted March 26, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 26, 2018 One of the issues I have with hyper literal interpretation of the bible is that it forces one to try to redefine words. A good example is Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus... A literal meaning tells us one of two things: 1. Everybody is saved from death. -or- 2. Those in Christ are saved from death, but those that are not, are not. They die. Permanently. There is no room to interpret that to support the concept that those that do not accept Christ will endure an eternity of conscious torment. That is, unless you ignore that one fate is juxtaposed against another with the unique attribute of eternal life*, and you redefine the words, "life" and "death". *If you specifically call out that the fate of one side is "X" and the fate of the oter side is "Y", it would be a logical fallacy for someone make the argument that the fate of one side is really X and the fate of the other side is X and Y. Where X = eternal life and Y = death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 6 minutes ago, Still Alive said: One of the issues I have with hyper literal interpretation of the bible is that it forces one to try to redefine words. First of all, there is no such thing as "hyper-literal." Secondly, it is liberal approaches to the Bible that try to redefine key theological terms. Quote A good example is Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus... A literal meaning tells us one of two things: 1. Everybody is saved from death. -or- 2. Those in Christ are saved from death, but those that are not, are not. They die. Permanently. There is no room to interpret that to support the concept that those that do not accept Christ will endure an eternity of conscious torment. That is, unless you ignore that one fate is juxtaposed against another with the unique attribute of eternal life*, and you redefine the words, "life" and "death". The problem with that argument is that we base our views on who is saved from death and who has eternal life on a multiplicity of passages of Scriptures, which together teach that those who receive Jesus Christ receive eternal life and those who choose to reject Jesus die and live eternally in Hell. The Bible as a whole, does support the truth that those who die without Christ spend eternity in conscious torment in Hell. Fortunately, we don't base anything on just one verse. So your argument really doesn't carry any weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted March 26, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 26, 2018 7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: First of all, there is no such thing as "hyper-literal." I strongly disagree. I've seen people take all sorts of writings and saying too literally. hyper- a prefix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “over,” usually implying excess or exaggeration ( hyperbole); on this model used, especially as opposed to hypo-, in the formation of compound words ( hyperthyroid). And we all know what literal means. Yes, it is a thing: Hyper literal in Google search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted March 26, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 26, 2018 8 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Secondly, it is liberal approaches to the Bible that try to redefine key theological terms. Well, I won't label it liberal, conservative, nor anything else. In Jesus time, the conservatives were the enemies of Christ and Christ's use of the word was definitely considered by the religious conservatives of the day as what we tend to label "liberal." All I'm saying is that the label really has no meaning. What has meaning is truth. And sometimes a liberal interpretation may lead one to truth while other times a "conservative" interpretation may lead one to truth. It all depends on what you mean by "liberal" and "Conservative". i.e. what we call politically conservative today is actually classical liberal. Labels of this sort just confuse and, when used to describe the position of others, is generally used to stamp a derogatory label on anything they espouse. I prefer to look for veracity in their words as they compare to scripture. That is, I take the Berean approach. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 2 minutes ago, Still Alive said: I strongly disagree. I've seen people take all sorts of writings and saying too literally. hyper- a prefix appearing in loanwords from Greek, where it meant “over,” usually implying excess or exaggeration ( hyperbole); on this model used, especially as opposed to hypo-, in the formation of compound words ( hyperthyroid). And we all know what literal means. Yes, it is a thing: Hyper literal in Google search You confuse "literal" with "face value." When we interpret something literally, we are simply reading the text in the light of the object the author has in view. There is no way to "hyper" that. What people incorrectly call "hyper-literal" (which is often used to cast aspersion on a literal interpretations of Scripture) is what we call, "face value" where someone is speaking metaphorically, but the metaphor is not recognized. Too often, "hyper-literal" is inappropriately applied to people who believe in things like a 6 day creation, or a global flood, etc. Jesus said that if your right eye offends you, pluck it out and if your right hand offends you, cut it off. Was Jesus saying that when we sin we have to maim ourselves? No, we understand that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about getting things our of our lives that hinder our walk with the Lord. Face-value is a wooden, surface attempt to read the Bible without any kind of intelligent thoughtfulness. Jesus said that He is the door of the sheep. He didn't mean that He is a piece of wood with hinges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted March 26, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 26, 2018 13 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: We base our views on who is saved from death and who has eternal life on a multiplicity of passages of Scriptures, which together teach that those who receive Jesus Christ receive eternal life and those who choose to reject Jesus die and live eternally in Hell. The Bible as a whole, does support the truth that those who die without Christ spend eternity in conscious torment in Hell. Fortunately, we don't base anything on just one verse. So your argument really doesn't carry any weight. I agree completely with the first part of your first sentence. The rest is an interpretation I agreed with for almost 30 years, but one with which I've strongly disagreed for about nine years - based on the content of the first part of your first sentence. And the evidence is overwhelming. But I think I'm hijacking the thread. I may need to start a thread on this: Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught, Not What the Greek Philosophers Taught Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted March 26, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,024 Content Per Day: 1.33 Reputation: 1,224 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted March 26, 2018 1 minute ago, shiloh357 said: You confuse "literal" with "face value." I was merely disagreeing with your argument that there is no "hyper literal". It was your first point. There is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, Still Alive said: Well, I won't label it liberal, conservative, nor anything else. I will label it that way, because it is liberals who reject the text of Scripture and want to redefine key theological terms to insulate their unbelief. Quote In Jesus time, the conservatives were the enemies of Christ and Christ's use of the word was definitely considered by the religious conservatives of the day as what we tend to label "liberal." No, Jesus' enemies were unbelievers who didn't appreciate Scripture. In fact, the Sadducees were quite liberal in their rejection of much of Scripture. Quote All I'm saying is that the label really has no meaning. What has meaning is truth. And sometimes a liberal interpretation may lead one to truth while other times a "conservative" interpretation may lead one to truth. When it comes to the Bible, liberal approach NEVER leads to the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts