Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Literal interpretations

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 7:14:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

That doesn't answer the question.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 7:45:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

It would seem that for one, literalist or literal position on scripture would not involve interpretation what so ever. For example some would believe a literalist would insist that creation happened in six 24 hr days, of which he would be incorrect and really is interpreting it to be 24 hr days. A day in the creation case is God says what He is going to do or make, fulfills what He said and sees it"s to His satisfaction or in His Judgement, that it is good. How much time, or cycles of the earth turning, is irrelevant, verified by the fact that the sun wasn"t until the fourth day, according to the same text, therefore how long was the previous ones? What is understood as a literalist or fundamentalist would see it as 24 hr"s which is what they see therefore what is there in their minds hence just how powerful interpretation is, or preconceived notions.

Technically in the case of scripture Jesus Christ is the interpretation, because He is the fulfillment in the case of God"s will towards mankind. Therefore interpretation isn"t really required. Actually scripture explains scripture, if one looks at what is written and not look at what one wants to believe it says. Literalist or fundamentalist is just another tag to Catagorize people, and interpret them, as people like to do. People always want to see according to their own judgement.

There are many who are correct about what they think, but what they think is bogus.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 7:47:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 7:14:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

That doesn't answer the question.

Which question, You asked 2 questions?

1. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal?

2. Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically,
Elderman
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:34:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper. : :

I'm not one who takes everything that is written in the Bible literally, although there are some literal passages mixed with very symbolic writing that contains hidden messages in them.

Only God knows the hidden messages. The good news is that he reveals these messages to those who listen to his voice and obey his commandments. Saint Paul and the rest of the elect were chosen to receive the hidden messages according to God's plan.

Ephesians 1
1: Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus:
2: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
4: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.
5: He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
9: For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ
10: as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:04:06 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart".

When we look what it meant when God hardened pharaohs heart, it happened by ending the plagues. If God should not have hardened pharaoh"s heart, it would have meant that the plagues would not have end. So, the answer why God hardened pharaoh"s heart is that he wanted to end the plague.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:04:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 7:47:06 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 7:14:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

That doesn't answer the question.

Which question, You asked 2 questions?

1. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal?


2. Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically,

You didn't answer either.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:08:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 9:04:06 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart".

When we look what it meant when God hardened pharaohs heart, it happened by ending the plagues. If God should not have hardened pharaoh"s heart, it would have meant that the plagues would not have end. So, the answer why God hardened pharaoh"s heart is that he wanted to end the plague.

Hardened pharoah's heart is a figure of speech. Just like breaking someone's heart. Everyone knows it cannot be taken literally.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:08:56 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 9:04:06 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart".

When we look what it meant when God hardened pharaohs heart, it happened by ending the plagues. If God should not have hardened pharaoh"s heart, it would have meant that the plagues would not have end. So, the answer why God hardened pharaoh"s heart is that he wanted to end the plague.

That doesn't answer the OP, and if God had not hardened pharoah's heart then there would have been no need for plagues.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:13:34 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 9:04:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 7:47:06 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 7:14:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

That doesn't answer the question.

Which question, You asked 2 questions?

1. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal?


2. Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically,

You didn't answer either.

The first one was answered. Plenty of scientists take the bible scriptures literally. That is why they are searching for evidence that can justify it validity.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 10:03:16 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 9:13:34 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:04:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 7:47:06 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 7:14:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

That doesn't answer the question.

Which question, You asked 2 questions?

1. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal?


2. Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically,

You didn't answer either.

The first one was answered. Plenty of scientists take the bible scriptures literally. That is why they are searching for evidence that can justify it validity.

Scientists are not an authority on how the Bible should be interpreted. I mean, if we explore that line of thought then does the proper interpretation of scripture depend on what they find? I doubt you would agree to that, and that is why I don't feel you've answered the question.

This is not a trick question. I would be inclined to agree with those who favor a literal interpretation of the Bible, but I'm not sure how such a view can be justified over a non literal view.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 10:39:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 7:45:15 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

It would seem that for one, literalist or literal position on scripture would not involve interpretation what so ever. For example some would believe a literalist would insist that creation happened in six 24 hr days, of which he would be incorrect and really is interpreting it to be 24 hr days. A day in the creation case is God says what He is going to do or make, fulfills what He said and sees it"s to His satisfaction or in His Judgement, that it is good. How much time, or cycles of the earth turning, is irrelevant, verified by the fact that the sun wasn"t until the fourth day, according to the same text, therefore how long was the previous ones? What is understood as a literalist or fundamentalist would see it as 24 hr"s which is what they see therefore what is there in their minds hence just how powerful interpretation is, or preconceived notions.

Technically in the case of scripture Jesus Christ is the interpretation, because He is the fulfillment in the case of God"s will towards mankind. Therefore interpretation isn"t really required. Actually scripture explains scripture, if one looks at what is written and not look at what one wants to believe it says. Literalist or fundamentalist is just another tag to Catagorize people, and interpret them, as people like to do. People always want to see according to their own judgement.

There are many who are correct about what they think, but what they think is bogus.

How does Jesus help an individual to understand if the creation account, the Exodus, global flood were actual events or representing something else?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MaxSterling
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 10:45:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

What does 'treat them' mean?
"But why do you want REVENGE?!"

"I HAVE REASONS!!!!!"
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 1:43:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 10:03:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:13:34 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:04:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 7:47:06 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 7:14:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

That doesn't answer the question.

Which question, You asked 2 questions?

1. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal?


2. Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically,

You didn't answer either.

The first one was answered. Plenty of scientists take the bible scriptures literally. That is why they are searching for evidence that can justify it validity.

Scientists are not an authority on how the Bible should be interpreted. I mean, if we explore that line of thought then does the proper interpretation of scripture depend on what they find? I doubt you would agree to that, and that is why I don't feel you've answered the question.

Scientists are only interested in supportable facts in the bible. That which can be demonstrated to be literally true. Scientists can add credibility to the bible for those who demand scientific evidence. Why wouldn't you want an unbiased interpretation from a scientific viewpoint?

This is not a trick question. I would be inclined to agree with those who favor a literal interpretation of the Bible, but I'm not sure how such a view can be justified over a non literal view.
The bible is combination of literary styles, colloquial expressions and theological doctrines which make a direct interpretation impossible. It cannot be only literal or only a non literal view, but a scholarly balance of the two.
Biblical scholars have recognized the problems of interpretation and apply a combination of methods to help in their understanding of the written word. These methods are textual criticism, exegesis and hermeneutics and there is the lexicon dictionary to help in the translations.
Putting it bluntly. These biblical scholarly developments renders most DDO members unqualified to participate in any intelligent discussions on the bible. Not to minimize other personal reasons that might also handicap them.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:00:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 10:45:24 PM, MaxSterling wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

What does 'treat them' mean?

To provide treatment for their mental condition.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:29:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 1:43:32 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 10:03:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:13:34 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:04:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 7:47:06 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 7:14:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

That doesn't answer the question.

Which question, You asked 2 questions?

1. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal?


2. Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically,

You didn't answer either.

The first one was answered. Plenty of scientists take the bible scriptures literally. That is why they are searching for evidence that can justify it validity.

Scientists are not an authority on how the Bible should be interpreted. I mean, if we explore that line of thought then does the proper interpretation of scripture depend on what they find? I doubt you would agree to that, and that is why I don't feel you've answered the question.

Scientists are only interested in supportable facts in the bible. That which can be demonstrated to be literally true. Scientists can add credibility to the bible for those who demand scientific evidence. Why wouldn't you want an unbiased interpretation from a scientific viewpoint?

Every one of the stories I mentioned above (the Exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, The global flood, creation) is lacking evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these accounts have been considered to be a record of actual events until a search for evidence corroborating them came up empty. This clearly demonstrates the methods of interpretations are lacking.

This is not a trick question. I would be inclined to agree with those who favor a literal interpretation of the Bible, but I'm not sure how such a view can be justified over a non literal view.
The bible is combination of literary styles, colloquial expressions and theological doctrines which make a direct interpretation impossible. It cannot be only literal or only a non literal view, but a scholarly balance of the two.

Sure, I can agree with that. Should we just wait for science to establish more stories are not true to decide which are which?

Biblical scholars have recognized the problems of interpretation and apply a combination of methods to help in their understanding of the written word. These methods are textual criticism, exegesis and hermeneutics and there is the lexicon dictionary to help in the translations.
Putting it bluntly. These biblical scholarly developments renders most DDO members unqualified to participate in any intelligent discussions on the bible. Not to minimize other personal reasons that might also handicap them.

In other words, you resent the question being asked. However, questions shouldn't be limited to those who have special knowledge of what the answer might look like. You've avoided answering if the stories I mentioned in the OP should be considered literal or non literal. If you were the Biblical scholar like you claim to be then why are you being so evasive? Is it to hide the fact that you don't know the answer either?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:33:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 2:00:03 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 10:45:24 PM, MaxSterling wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

What does 'treat them' mean?

To provide treatment for their mental condition.

So says the hindu who believesa in the jewish creation story. What's wrong with your own oh eggface?
ViceRegent
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:39:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
God literally hardened Pharoah's heart, which Biblically speaking is the spiritual center of the body, so that God could demonstrate His power over the will of men.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 2:54:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 2:39:10 PM, ViceRegent wrote:
God literally hardened Pharoah's heart, which Biblically speaking is the spiritual center of the body, so that God could demonstrate His power over the will of men.
God can't save starving children because it would defeat free will and god doesn't do that well except when he wants to maim and slaughter people cause he enjoys it.
Then it's OK, after all the starving kids are already giving his bloodlust enormous pleasure.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 8:32:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 2:29:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/26/2016 1:43:32 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 10:03:16 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:13:34 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:04:59 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 7:47:06 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 7:14:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

That doesn't answer the question.

Which question, You asked 2 questions?

1. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal?


2. Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically,

You didn't answer either.

The first one was answered. Plenty of scientists take the bible scriptures literally. That is why they are searching for evidence that can justify it validity.

Scientists are not an authority on how the Bible should be interpreted. I mean, if we explore that line of thought then does the proper interpretation of scripture depend on what they find? I doubt you would agree to that, and that is why I don't feel you've answered the question.

Scientists are only interested in supportable facts in the bible. That which can be demonstrated to be literally true. Scientists can add credibility to the bible for those who demand scientific evidence. Why wouldn't you want an unbiased interpretation from a scientific viewpoint?

Every one of the stories I mentioned above (the Exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, The global flood, creation) is lacking evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these accounts have been considered to be a record of actual events until a search for evidence corroborating them came up empty. This clearly demonstrates the methods of interpretations are lacking.

The events that you mentioned above are interpreted as literal. They are very real to the Jews and Judaism. It is just as real to Christianity which has its roots in Judaism. But these stories are not unique to the bible. They are found in other ancient mythologies from neighbouring regions and that creates doubts about its authenticity (not original) and factual occurrence (never happened).
But there are other situations where a literal or non-literal use have been explained and expanded as part of biblical commentary.

This is not a trick question. I would be inclined to agree with those who favor a literal interpretation of the Bible, but I'm not sure how such a view can be justified over a non literal view.
The bible is combination of literary styles, colloquial expressions and theological doctrines which make a direct interpretation impossible. It cannot be only literal or only a non literal view, but a scholarly balance of the two.

Sure, I can agree with that. Should we just wait for science to establish more stories are not true to decide which are which?

Biblical scholars have recognized the problems of interpretation and apply a combination of methods to help in their understanding of the written word. These methods are textual criticism, exegesis and hermeneutics and there is the lexicon dictionary to help in the translations.
Putting it bluntly. These biblical scholarly developments renders most DDO members unqualified to participate in any intelligent discussions on the bible. Not to minimize other personal reasons that might also handicap them.

In other words, you resent the question being asked. However, questions shouldn't be limited to those who have special knowledge of what the answer might look like. You've avoided answering if the stories I mentioned in the OP should be considered literal or non literal. If you were the Biblical scholar like you claim to be then why are you being so evasive? Is it to hide the fact that you don't know the answer either?

I am a spiritualist which implies a transcendental awareness that goes beyond just academic pursuits. Spirituality has to be experienced and accompanied by enlightenment or all you have is religious dogma.

I don't resent being asked questions nor would a trick question surprise me. It is in the nature of a crab to bite even when it is being saved from drowning as it is the nature of the wise man to save the crab from dying even though he is being bitten. We can only be ourselves.

As a vedantist raised in the Vedantic tradition and trained in the reading of esoteric scriptures, Christian Theology and Islamic fundamentalism, I try to resolve the duality of purpose as well as the duality of reality to attain advaya or nondualism. This way I can tell what you don't know as well as what you don't want to hear.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 8:43:25 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 9:08:56 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
That doesn't answer the OP, and if God had not hardened pharoah's heart then there would have been no need for plagues.

Before the plagues, pharaoh"s heart was already hard, because he didn"t allow the Jews to go. Therefore game the plagues. And every time the plague softened pharaoh"s heart and he was willing to let them go until the plague ended and pharaoh"s heart was again hardened.
12_13
Posts: 1,365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 8:43:32 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 9:08:30 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Hardened pharoah's heart is a figure of speech. Just like breaking someone's heart. Everyone knows it cannot be taken literally.

Yeah, and that is what I was trying to show. Hardening meant that pharaoh didn"t want to let the Jews go. It means basically that he didn"t care.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 9:25:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

I definitely don't take the stories literally but I will share my opinion about why I think some people do.
Literal interpretations seem to be justified over non literal interpretations in the minds of the readers when a literal interpretation makes sense to them. They become unjustifiable when something they read appears to be an idiom or allegory or other figure of speech. In that case some readers interpret the passage in what they call a "spiritual sense" which is simply a fancy way of saying they interpret it metaphorically.

Since the bible is a mixture of many different forms of literature, readers seem justified to interpret it in whatever way they want as long as it makes sense to them. If their own perception of the words make sense to them personally they will believe what they read.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 9:40:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 2:33:18 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/26/2016 2:00:03 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 10:45:24 PM, MaxSterling wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

What does 'treat them' mean?

To provide treatment for their mental condition.

So says the hindu who believesa in the jewish creation story. What's wrong with your own oh eggface?

That isn't the only creation story. You need to get out a little more. You have been stuck on dumb for too long.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,328
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 9:42:24 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 9:40:54 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/26/2016 2:33:18 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/26/2016 2:00:03 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 10:45:24 PM, MaxSterling wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

What does 'treat them' mean?

To provide treatment for their mental condition.

So says the hindu who believesa in the jewish creation story. What's wrong with your own oh eggface?

That isn't the only creation story. You need to get out a little more. You have been stuck on dumb for too long.

But it's the story you support, if you want to lie we would be glad to reveal your posts...is that what you prefer??
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 9:50:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 8:43:25 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 9:08:56 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
That doesn't answer the OP, and if God had not hardened pharoah's heart then there would have been no need for plagues.

Before the plagues, pharaoh"s heart was already hard, because he didn"t allow the Jews to go. Therefore game the plagues. And every time the plague softened pharaoh's heart and he was willing to let them go until the plague ended and pharaoh's heart was again hardened.

The God that hardened Pharoah's heart was the devil. He tried to make himself look powerful by sending plagues to softening Pharoahs heart but the softness was only temporary because Pharoah was sick of all the diseases and pain which the God of the Hebrews was causing him so he let them go to get rid of them and their God. However, once he realise he lost all his slaves and had no workers left he wanted them back again so he chased them to try to get them back.

The story is quite ironic from Pharoahs point of view since he could not live with them and could not live without them either. I find that amusing.
There is a lot of ironic humour in the principles of the bible stories.

The Scribes and Pharisees in the NT worshipped the same God which hardened Pharoahs heart and considered that God to be their father. Jesus told them their father was the devil. ( John 8:44) That can easily be interpreted as "God is the devil."

The "murderer from the beginning" is one who murdered all the first born in the story about Moses and Pharoah was God after all.
The same God murdered most of the people in the world when he sent a flood to drown the lot of them including innocent babies.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2016 9:54:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 9:40:54 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/26/2016 2:33:18 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/26/2016 2:00:03 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 10:45:24 PM, MaxSterling wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

What does 'treat them' mean?

To provide treatment for their mental condition.

So says the hindu who believesa in the jewish creation story. What's wrong with your own oh eggface?

That isn't the only creation story. You need to get out a little more. You have been stuck on dumb for too long.

See EV's response. Now that is scary EV.....LOL
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2016 1:39:05 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/26/2016 9:42:24 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 1/26/2016 9:40:54 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/26/2016 2:33:18 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/26/2016 2:00:03 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 10:45:24 PM, MaxSterling wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:21:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/25/2016 4:30:50 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
I was having a conversation with a believer today about the Exodus. He told me a mutual friend was trying to determine why god would "harden pharoah's heart". I told him I felt that was a good question and if I were a believer I would not interpret that story literally. His response was "that could be". His response was probably meant to avoid a discussion over all things religious. At any rate, I was surprised by his response because I know this person to be a literalist. That got me thinking, how is a literal interpretation of creation, exodus, Sodom and Gamorrah, global flood, etc, justified over non literal? Is that how the story was meant, is it a matter of tradition, some other option? Basically, I want a literalist to explain why literalism is proper.

There are plenty of scientists who take the events and characters in the bible literally. Archeologist have dug for evidence of the flood, the exodus, Jericho and even the ossuaries of James and Jesus. The move behind this is to put a lot of biblical questions to rest. The growing rate of suicides among atheists and the increase in the desperately lost and misguided is not sustainable. We either treat them or remove their nagging doubts. Those with faith will be rewarded for just hanging in there. No pun intended!!

What does 'treat them' mean?

To provide treatment for their mental condition.

So says the hindu who believesa in the jewish creation story. What's wrong with your own oh eggface?

That isn't the only creation story. You need to get out a little more. You have been stuck on dumb for too long.

But it's the story you support, if you want to lie we would be glad to reveal your posts...is that what you prefer??

Hinduism also has a creation story. We don't need to debate creation stories. They all point to God as the creator.