Willie T Posted August 2, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 528 Content Per Day: 0.21 Reputation: 102 Days Won: 1 Joined: 07/26/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2018 16 minutes ago, Still Alive said: That one cracked me up. Thanks! It is said that Karl Barth once spoke these words: "I Take The Bible Too Seriously To Take It All Literally." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted August 2, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,028 Content Per Day: 1.32 Reputation: 1,225 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2018 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Davida said: I really do not see evidence of that in your posts at all. Your ideas of the Bible & beliefs are way off in some areas. If you had been yrs ago a discipled born again believer back then, you wouldn't profess such a confused theology that you do now. I should give that a serious response. When you say I'm way off, what you are saying is that you (and sources you respect) disagree with me and sources I respect. It is a statement of raw opinion and can only be interpreted as such. Regarding the rest of it, What is really going on is that I'm an example of the spirit of the phrase, "nobody comes out of seminary with their faith intact". That is, the more I prayerfully read the bible a meditate on its content, and the more I expose myself to the original languages, the more I either refine or change my original views opinions regarding the personality of m creator and my role in our relationship. Thing is, I agree with you on some things, disagree with you on others, and see other things as squishy. That is, I'm still forming my opinion and don't have enough information to have a solid opinion. Back In the day, I used to say that when, in revelation, the phrases "soon" or "near" were used, it was in a "a day is as a thousand years..." perspective since obviously those things simply couldn't have happened yet. But I now know that is lame because, obviously, if one applies that reasoning, the phrase has all meaning removed from it. So it meant what it said, and as one guy said, if the pizza delivery guy says he will be at my place, "soon", and he shows up 2,000 years later, he was lying. But not all of revelation, IMO, happens at the same time. I believe some of it has happened and some of it has not. Also, I no longer cling to a six day creation. It doesn't mean I don't believe it was in six days. Rather, I see it as one of those Rooster crowing things. Arguing about the length of time misses the point of what is being communicated. Edited August 2, 2018 by Still Alive 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 32 minutes ago, Still Alive said: You had me up to the last sentence. It's a non-sequitur to me. You can infer a literal translation of a metaphor, but that doesn't mean you took the metaphor literally, nor that your inference is correct. It is an opinion of what you think someone meant with their metaphor. That is incorrect. To derive the literal intent of the author and to see the literal meaning that lies behind the metaphor is to take it literally. 41 minutes ago, Still Alive said: Exactly. It is because the application is, well, not within the scope of the definition. And it doesn't have to be, because a literal interpretation aims at the meaning the author is intending, which may not have anything to do with actual definition. 51 minutes ago, Still Alive said: I understand. But when it comes to the bible, that phrase "the way the author intends" really means, "what one infers from what the author penned". The inference may be correct, but inference it is. Which means it is an interpretation, which means one may be dead wrong." That is why we have rules of interpretation in order to provide an objective standard for how we approach a text and that means we take into account several aspects of the text to arrive at the meaning conveyed by the author. Your approach makes the reader master over the text, and the reader fills the text with the meaning he wants it to have. If we approach the Bible like that, it a meaningless and useless book for us. It's just every man making the Bible mean what he wants it to mean and you have billions of subjective interpretations that completely ignore the meaning of the text and what God wanted to communicate to us is completely lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted August 2, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,028 Content Per Day: 1.32 Reputation: 1,225 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, Willie T said: It is said that Karl Barth once spoke these words: "I Take The Bible Too Seriously To Take It All Literally." Wow! That is very much how I see it. If I took it all literally, there is no way I could take it seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 54 minutes ago, Still Alive said: Yep. But we are talking about Revelation. It is a book of symbols. One takes the whole thing "literally" at their peril. The churches are not literal lampstands, Jesus is not a literal lamb and the second death is not a literal lake of fire. Those things are all symbols. They are not to be taken as "literal" lamb, lampstands and lake of fire. This is basic stuff. Which again shows that you still don't understand how "literal" works when approaching literature. You are still trying to operate from a one-dimensional, rather shallow understanding of what it means to take something literally. We are looking for the meaning behind the symbols; that's what it means to take it literally. I take the book of Revelation literally, the way it was written, symbols and all, and I understand that there are some things for which we cannot know exactly what the symbols mean because there is not enough light from the Lord to give that understanding. We accept that there are some things that are closed to us at this time. We can still make sense of the book without allegorizing the stuffing out of it, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted August 2, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,028 Content Per Day: 1.32 Reputation: 1,225 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Your approach makes the reader master over the text, and the reader fills the text with the meaning he wants it to have. Actually, no. I confess that I have caught myself doing that, but that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about interpreting and let the chips fall where they may. It's changed a lot of my minor doctrine points, and a couple of major ones (e.g. my switch from ECT to CI). And a HUGE part of this is the influence of the Holy Spirit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie T Posted August 2, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 528 Content Per Day: 0.21 Reputation: 102 Days Won: 1 Joined: 07/26/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Still Alive said: Wow! That is very much how I see it. If I took it all literally, there is no way I could take it seriously. Yes, I have always loved the dogmatist's belief that an actual star from outer space was going to slam into the earth, and the result would be merely something like a third of the Earth's water supply would be contaminated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Still Alive Posted August 2, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,028 Content Per Day: 1.32 Reputation: 1,225 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/05/2018 Status: Offline Share Posted August 2, 2018 1 minute ago, shiloh357 said: Which again shows that you still don't understand how "literal" works when approaching literature. You are still trying to operate from a one-dimensional, rather shallow understanding of what it means to take something literally. We are looking for the meaning behind the symbols; that's what it means to take it literally. I take the book of Revelation literally, the way it was written, symbols and all, and I understand that there are some things for which we cannot know exactly what the symbols mean because there is not enough light from the Lord to give that understanding. We accept that there are some things that are closed to us at this time. We can still make sense of the book without allegorizing the stuffing out of it, though. I've come to the conclusion, sir, after reading that post, that you are doing a lot of projecting here. This mincing of words has run its course, as has the claims of "I know more than you". This discussion has run its course. Thanks for your time. The irony is that you and I seem to at least mostly agree on the subject of the OP. And please don't critique my use of the word "irony". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, Still Alive said: I've come to the conclusion, sir, after reading that post, that you are doing a lot of projecting here. This mincing of words has run its course, as has the claims of "I know more than you". This discussion has run its course. Thanks for your time. The irony is that you and I seem to at least mostly agree on the subject of the OP. And please don't critique my use of the word "irony". When it comes to interpretation, I do know better than you. I am not projecting anything. 6 minutes ago, Still Alive said: Actually, no. I confess that I have caught myself doing that, but that is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about interpreting and let the chips fall where they may. That is not the result of interpretation. The correct interpretation is not an accident that just falls into place. It is the result of a objective process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 19 minutes ago, Willie T said: It is said that Karl Barth once spoke these words: "I Take The Bible Too Seriously To Take It All Literally." Given some of his nonsense, no one should take Barth seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts