Suspicion Against Scientists?

[Uber Genius]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

Other means of interpretation are usually meant to get around the literal meaning in order to make room for unregenerate, carnal theories like Evolution or something else.  The last thing secular readers want is the actual meaning of the text.   They want a belief system that allows them to remain comfortable in their preferred view regardless of the truth expressed in the text.

Yes. I totally agree that to misrepresent the text and ignore the best explanation of what the authors is trying to say is carnal and intellectually immature. Where we disagree is that I'm not certain which of the seven conservative Evangelical views correctly represents the author is any, and I'm willing to represent the views accurately rather than impugning motives of the authors of those views which  has both elements of the genetic fallacy and the ad hominem fallacy. 

I assume we will not be getting past the fallacious reasoning and onto which explanation of the 7 gives the best account of the data of scripture anytime soon. 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, masonlandry said:

I think I'm with you on everything but the last point, and maybe that's because I wasn't clear enough on what I meant. A literal prophecy would be something like, "In 1000 years, God will send his son, who will be called Emmanuel, to be born of a virgin in Bethlehem." When I say literal, I'm specifically talking about the prophecy. As in, if it isn't literally worded as "such and such thing will literally happen like this" the prophecy itself must be understood in some way other than literal in order for it to be a prophecy. So like, in Jeremiah 25:11 when it says Babylon will become a desolate wasteland and these nations will serve the King of Babylon for 70 years." That's clearly literal. The fulfillment of that prophecy would be the literal words coming true in the future. 

Okay, I see what you mean now, but that is not how a "literal prophecy works."   The idea that the prophecy has to be specific in every detail is simply not the case.   There are prophecies in the Bible that do contain amazing details, to be sure, but they don't have to in order to be "literal prophecies."  

But in the case of Jesus note a few of the details:

• He will be both God and man (Isaiah 9:6-7)
• He will be born of a virgin Gen. 3:15, Isa 7:14
• He will be born in Bethlehem Ephrata (Mic. 5:2)
• He will be of the Tribe of Judah and the Royal line of David (I Sam.7:12-16; Isa.9:6-7; Jer.23:5-6)

The Bible doesn't' prophecy that he will be born to a woman named Mary and have an  adoptive father named Joseph, it doesn't mention  the shepherds or  wise men, it doesn't mention the disciples or that he will turn water into wine.  But it doesn't have to have explicit details like that to be a literal prophecy.

You are trying to erect a subjective standard for what prophecy has to look like and you are not in a position to do so.

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Essential for what? And who is saying this is a binary choice - essential vs expendable? How about "essential vs important"?

For my car to function, gas in the tank is essential. Shock absorbers are important.

That is not comparable to scripture.   God didn't inspire any nonessential, superfluous information that we can feel free to reject if we feel the need to so.   The Bible isn't a smorgasbord where you can pick and choose according to your tastes.

[Guest shiloh357]

3 minutes ago, Uber Genius said:

Yes. I totally agree that to misrepresent the text and ignore the best explanation of what the authors is trying to say is carnal and intellectually immature. Where we disagree is that I'm not certain which of the seven conservative Evangelical views correctly represents the author is any, and I'm willing to represent the views accurately rather than impugning motives of the authors of those views which  has both elements of the genetic fallacy and the ad hominem fallacy. 

I assume we will not be getting past the fallacious reasoning and onto which explanation of the 7 gives the best account of the data of scripture anytime soon. 

If you want to talk about the seven theories then start a thread about them.   Don't hijack this thread to do so.

[Still Alive]

15 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

That is not comparable to scripture.   God didn't inspire any nonessential, superfluous information that we can feel free to reject if we feel the need to so.   The Bible isn't a smorgasbord where you can pick and choose according to your tastes.

es·sen·tial

/əˈsen(t)SHəl/

adjective

absolutely necessary; extremely important.

"it is essential to keep up-to-date records"

noun

a thing that is absolutely necessary.

"we had only the bare essentials in the way of gear"

 

Again, I need to know, "essential for what"? If a believer is only exposed, during his entire life, to small snippets of the bible, yet he lives, and dies, and is saved, how does that make every scripture he was never exposed to "essential"?

I agree that it is important. I'll even agree that it is essential if you plan on reaching spiritual perfection before you die - which no man other than Christ can do. But that's about it. In fact, the bible is never called "essential". None of it. What it is called is "useful". And I agree. It is VERY useful. You are better off with it than without it. 

But I think I may just be diving into semantics. I don't mean to argue just to argue. 

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, Still Alive said:

es·sen·tial

/əˈsen(t)SHəl/

adjective

absolutely necessary; extremely important.

"it is essential to keep up-to-date records"

noun

a thing that is absolutely necessary.

"we had only the bare essentials in the way of gear"

 

Again, I need to know, "essential for what"? If a believer is only exposed, during his entire life, to small snippets of the bible, yet he lives, and dies, and is saved, how does that make every scripture he was never exposed to "essential"?

Every verse of the Bible is essential (absolutely necessary) to our spiritual growth and we are accountable for it.   God didn't give us any useless information that we can do without.  Essential for salvation and essential for Christian living are two different things.   If someone is truly saved, he will want more of the Bible and God makes more of the Bible available to him. He does that a lot.

Salvation isn't the only essential part of the Bible.

Quote

I agree that it is important. I'll even agree that it is essential if you plan on reaching spiritual perfection before you die - which no man other than Christ can do. But that's about it. In fact, the bible is never called "essential". None of it. What it is called is "useful". And I agree. It is VERY useful. You are better off with it than without it. 

Yeah, well real Christians view the whole Bible as essential and not just useful.  It is useful, but it is WAY more than that.   It is the inerrant, inspired infallible Word of God and every part of it is relevant and essential for our lives.

[Still Alive]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yeah, well real Christians view the whole Bible as essential and not just useful.  It is useful, but it is WAY more than that.   It is the inerrant, inspired infallible Word of God and every part of it is relevant and essential for our lives.

I'd say that is true of "real Christians" that agree with you. But I don't think "real Christians" always agree. There was even a famous spat over Barnabas in Acts.

[Guest shiloh357]

10 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I'd say that is true of "real Christians" that agree with you. But I don't think "real Christians" always agree. There was even a famous spat over Barnabas in Acts.

No, it is true of real Christians, period.   No one who loves Jesus looks at any part of the Bible as simply useful, but non-essential or superfluous; they love whole thing.   And they were not arguing over Barnabas,  they were arguing over John Mark.   And that is totally irrelevant here. 

God didn't give us any non-essential information.   If you say otherwise, you're wrong, period.

[masonlandry]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Okay, I see what you mean now, but that is not how a "literal prophecy works."   The idea that the prophecy has to be specific in every detail is simply not the case.   There are prophecies in the Bible that do contain amazing details, to be sure, but they don't have to in order to be "literal prophecies."  

But in the case of Jesus note a few of the details:

• He will be both God and man (Isaiah 9:6-7)
• He will be born of a virgin Gen. 3:15, Isa 7:14
• He will be born in Bethlehem Ephrata (Mic. 5:2)
• He will be of the Tribe of Judah and the Royal line of David (I Sam.7:12-16; Isa.9:6-7; Jer.23:5-6)

The Bible doesn't' prophecy that he will be born to a woman named Mary and have an  adoptive father named Joseph, it doesn't mention  the shepherds or  wise men, it doesn't mention the disciples or that he will turn water into wine.  But it doesn't have to have explicit details like that to be a literal prophecy.

You are trying to erect a subjective standard for what prophecy has to look like and you are not in a position to do so.

I don't know why you thought I was setting a standard for prophecies. I was just making a distinction between literal details and symbolic or metaphorical. 

[Guest shiloh357]

3 hours ago, masonlandry said:

I don't know why you thought I was setting a standard for prophecies.

That's how your comments came across to me. 
 

Quote

 

I was just making a distinction between literal details and symbolic or metaphorical. 

 

And that's okay for prophecy, but not when we get to Genesis 1-3 where no metaphorical or symbolic language or devices are in play.