How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 Viewers)

[CowboysFromHell]

Earlier in this thread there was a lot of discussion on the veracity of the Bible. Which books were selected / excluded, which stories are meant to be literal / metaphorical, etc. Christians quote the Bible to make their arguments. "God said this, Jesus said that." "God wants this or that from us." Everything hinges on the Bible and how it is interpreted, right? That's the whole religion. I guess the same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and on and on. They all have their different books and they all believe their books are correct and all other religious books are unreliable, made up.

As an atheist, on the outside looking in, this is fascinating to watch. Muhammad was clearly hallucinating in a cave. L. Ron Hubbard is a first class nut case. Obviously there wasn't really a global flood survived only by Noah and his arc. Jonah didn't literally hang out in the belly of a whale for 3 days and survive. BUT, a virgin really did literally give birth to a man that one day would rise from the dead and then float up into the sky. That part is really true and actually happened. How do you know which stories to believe and which ones to use your common sense on? Having been raised in Catholic schooling, I know for a lot of people, they believe the stories that they were taught as children. For others, I guess it's just which ones feel right to them personally.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Earlier in this thread there was a lot of discussion on the veracity of the Bible. Which books were selected / excluded, which stories are meant to be literal / metaphorical, etc. Christians quote the Bible to make their arguments. "God said this, Jesus said that." "God wants this or that from us." Everything hinges on the Bible and how it is interpreted, right? That's the whole religion. I guess the same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and on and on. They all have their different books and they all believe their books are correct and all other religious books are unreliable, made up.

As an atheist, on the outside looking in, this is fascinating to watch. Muhammad was clearly hallucinating in a cave. L. Ron Hubbard is a first class nut case. Obviously there wasn't really a global flood survived only by Noah and his arc. Jonah didn't literally hang out in the belly of a whale for 3 days and survive. BUT, a virgin really did literally give birth to a man that one day would rise from the dead and then float up into the sky. That part is really true and actually happened. How do you know which stories to believe and which ones to use your common sense on? Having been raised in Catholic schooling, I know for a lot of people, they believe the stories that they were taught as children. For others, I guess it's just which ones feel right to them personally.

At the beginning of the movie Fargo, it says "Based on a true story." But as an audience member, you immediately know that they're just saying that and that the movie is actually a work of fiction. But when you watch Oppenheimer, you know that the main character was a real person and the story you're seeing is mostly actual history.

How can you pick and choose which of those movies to take literally and which is just made up?

 

[Sparky Polastri]

Earlier in this thread there was a lot of discussion on the veracity of the Bible. Which books were selected / excluded, which stories are meant to be literal / metaphorical, etc. Christians quote the Bible to make their arguments. "God said this, Jesus said that." "God wants this or that from us." Everything hinges on the Bible and how it is interpreted, right? That's the whole religion. I guess the same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and on and on. They all have their different books and they all believe their books are correct and all other religious books are unreliable, made up.

As an atheist, on the outside looking in, this is fascinating to watch. Muhammad was clearly hallucinating in a cave. L. Ron Hubbard is a first class nut case. Obviously there wasn't really a global flood survived only by Noah and his arc. Jonah didn't literally hang out in the belly of a whale for 3 days and survive. BUT, a virgin really did literally give birth to a man that one day would rise from the dead and then float up into the sky. That part is really true and actually happened. How do you know which stories to believe and which ones to use your common sense on? Having been raised in Catholic schooling, I know for a lot of people, they believe the stories that they were taught as children. For others, I guess it's just which ones feel right to them personally.

As a collection of historical stories, there isn't much to really question with regard to the accuracy of the Bible. Not only that, most of it is supported by other writings of the time as well. ("supported" here means addressed/mentioned/alluded to etc not "proven" or "confirmed correct"). There's plenty of evidence to support that the books are historically accurate. None of that can be said about any of the other subjects you bring up here. That's one big difference.

Of course, people can argue over the meaning of those words and when we go beyond what those words are saying, we trend into the concept of belief which gets pretty squirrely quick. That's part of the faith. We can argue over what is literal and what is story telling, but I don't really understand why we do. I have yet to run across one of those arguments where the story's meaning/point changes in any significant way depending on whether it was literal or parabolic.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Earlier in this thread there was a lot of discussion on the veracity of the Bible. Which books were selected / excluded, which stories are meant to be literal / metaphorical, etc. Christians quote the Bible to make their arguments. "God said this, Jesus said that." "God wants this or that from us." Everything hinges on the Bible and how it is interpreted, right? That's the whole religion. I guess the same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and on and on. They all have their different books and they all believe their books are correct and all other religious books are unreliable, made up.

As an atheist, on the outside looking in, this is fascinating to watch. Muhammad was clearly hallucinating in a cave. L. Ron Hubbard is a first class nut case. Obviously there wasn't really a global flood survived only by Noah and his arc. Jonah didn't literally hang out in the belly of a whale for 3 days and survive. BUT, a virgin really did literally give birth to a man that one day would rise from the dead and then float up into the sky. That part is really true and actually happened. How do you know which stories to believe and which ones to use your common sense on? Having been raised in Catholic schooling, I know for a lot of people, they believe the stories that they were taught as children. For others, I guess it's just which ones feel right to them personally.

At the beginning of the movie Fargo, it says "Based on a true story." But as an audience member, you immediately know that they're just saying that and that the movie is actually a work of fiction. But when you watch Oppenheimer, you know that the main character was a real person and the story you're seeing is mostly actual history.

How can you pick and choose which of those movies to take literally and which is just made up?

Exactly. How do we choose what to believe? For me personally, I use my common sense (things I know from my lived experience) and if I'm really not sure, I dig in and research it. I know from my lived experience that virgins don't give birth and people don't rise from the dead. Those are easy. For a time, I was really into bible research, trying to figure out for myself how much of it is really fact based. I got into Ehrman, Carrier, and a few others. Carrier even argues Jesus isn't a historical figure at all. In the end, I'm not sure that I buy his conclusions, but there is a lot about the Jesus story that is pretty clearly bolted on to what is probably a historical dooms day prophet from 2,000 years ago.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Earlier in this thread there was a lot of discussion on the veracity of the Bible. Which books were selected / excluded, which stories are meant to be literal / metaphorical, etc. Christians quote the Bible to make their arguments. "God said this, Jesus said that." "God wants this or that from us." Everything hinges on the Bible and how it is interpreted, right? That's the whole religion. I guess the same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and on and on. They all have their different books and they all believe their books are correct and all other religious books are unreliable, made up.

As an atheist, on the outside looking in, this is fascinating to watch. Muhammad was clearly hallucinating in a cave. L. Ron Hubbard is a first class nut case. Obviously there wasn't really a global flood survived only by Noah and his arc. Jonah didn't literally hang out in the belly of a whale for 3 days and survive. BUT, a virgin really did literally give birth to a man that one day would rise from the dead and then float up into the sky. That part is really true and actually happened. How do you know which stories to believe and which ones to use your common sense on? Having been raised in Catholic schooling, I know for a lot of people, they believe the stories that they were taught as children. For others, I guess it's just which ones feel right to them personally.

As a collection of historical stories, there isn't much to really question with regard to the accuracy of the Bible. Not only that, most of it is supported by other writings of the time as well. ("supported" here means addressed/mentioned/alluded to etc not "proven" or "confirmed correct"). There's plenty of evidence to support that the books are historically accurate. None of that can be said about any of the other subjects you bring up here. That's one big difference.

Of course, people can argue over the meaning of those words and when we go beyond what those words are saying, we trend into the concept of belief which gets pretty squirrely quick. That's part of the faith. We can argue over what is literal and what is story telling, but I don't really understand why we do. I have yet to run across one of those arguments where the story's meaning/point changes in any significant way depending on whether it was literal or parabolic.

Agree that in the end it doesn't necessarily matter. The Bible has some great teachings and stories (some not so great). You can follow the teachings without necessarily believing any of it actually happened. The same can be said for loads of fictional novels. There are some great life lessons in Lord of the Rings, for example.

 

[dkp993]

Earlier in this thread there was a lot of discussion on the veracity of the Bible. Which books were selected / excluded, which stories are meant to be literal / metaphorical, etc. Christians quote the Bible to make their arguments. "God said this, Jesus said that." "God wants this or that from us." Everything hinges on the Bible and how it is interpreted, right? That's the whole religion. I guess the same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and on and on. They all have their different books and they all believe their books are correct and all other religious books are unreliable, made up.

As an atheist, on the outside looking in, this is fascinating to watch. Muhammad was clearly hallucinating in a cave. L. Ron Hubbard is a first class nut case. Obviously there wasn't really a global flood survived only by Noah and his arc. Jonah didn't literally hang out in the belly of a whale for 3 days and survive. BUT, a virgin really did literally give birth to a man that one day would rise from the dead and then float up into the sky. That part is really true and actually happened. How do you know which stories to believe and which ones to use your common sense on? Having been raised in Catholic schooling, I know for a lot of people, they believe the stories that they were taught as children. For others, I guess it's just which ones feel right to them personally.

At the beginning of the movie Fargo, it says "Based on a true story." But as an audience member, you immediately know that they're just saying that and that the movie is actually a work of fiction. But when you watch Oppenheimer, you know that the main character was a real person and the story you're seeing is mostly actual history.

How can you pick and choose which of those movies to take literally and which is just made up?

Because we are alive during the events as the happen and have detailed proof of Oppenheimers achievements

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Earlier in this thread there was a lot of discussion on the veracity of the Bible. Which books were selected / excluded, which stories are meant to be literal / metaphorical, etc. Christians quote the Bible to make their arguments. "God said this, Jesus said that." "God wants this or that from us." Everything hinges on the Bible and how it is interpreted, right? That's the whole religion. I guess the same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and on and on. They all have their different books and they all believe their books are correct and all other religious books are unreliable, made up.

As an atheist, on the outside looking in, this is fascinating to watch. Muhammad was clearly hallucinating in a cave. L. Ron Hubbard is a first class nut case. Obviously there wasn't really a global flood survived only by Noah and his arc. Jonah didn't literally hang out in the belly of a whale for 3 days and survive. BUT, a virgin really did literally give birth to a man that one day would rise from the dead and then float up into the sky. That part is really true and actually happened. How do you know which stories to believe and which ones to use your common sense on? Having been raised in Catholic schooling, I know for a lot of people, they believe the stories that they were taught as children. For others, I guess it's just which ones feel right to them personally.

At the beginning of the movie Fargo, it says "Based on a true story." But as an audience member, you immediately know that they're just saying that and that the movie is actually a work of fiction. But when you watch Oppenheimer, you know that the main character was a real person and the story you're seeing is mostly actual history.

How can you pick and choose which of those movies to take literally and which is just made up?

Because we are alive during the events as the happen and have detailed proof of Oppenheimers achievements

You weren't alive during Oppenheimer's lifetime -- you think you know something about his life and accomplishments based on what you've read elsewhere.

But that's beside the point. The important thing is that each of us has a certain level of media literacy, and none of us has any difficulty distinguishing between fiction and non-fiction. We can easily recognize that Fargo is fiction even though it explicitly "says" otherwise (we all know the "the following is based on a true story" trope and we can decode it in context). Even if you've never heard of the Manhattan Project, you can tell that Oppenheimer is non-fiction. Normal human beings have absolutely no problem doing this sort of thing. We're good at it.

Plutarch's Lives describes actual human beings who actually lived. I don't know if those accounts are accurate or not, but they claim to be. Everybody understands that the Aeneid is just a story.

That's how we can tell that books like Acts and Judges purport to be actual history, while the Song of Solomon isn't. A person might not believe what Acts is telling them, of course, but it purports to describe something that actually happened for real, and it's not difficult to distinguish between that sort of thing and poetry, assorted wisdom teachings, parables, and so on.

 

[dkp993]

Earlier in this thread there was a lot of discussion on the veracity of the Bible. Which books were selected / excluded, which stories are meant to be literal / metaphorical, etc. Christians quote the Bible to make their arguments. "God said this, Jesus said that." "God wants this or that from us." Everything hinges on the Bible and how it is interpreted, right? That's the whole religion. I guess the same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and on and on. They all have their different books and they all believe their books are correct and all other religious books are unreliable, made up.

As an atheist, on the outside looking in, this is fascinating to watch. Muhammad was clearly hallucinating in a cave. L. Ron Hubbard is a first class nut case. Obviously there wasn't really a global flood survived only by Noah and his arc. Jonah didn't literally hang out in the belly of a whale for 3 days and survive. BUT, a virgin really did literally give birth to a man that one day would rise from the dead and then float up into the sky. That part is really true and actually happened. How do you know which stories to believe and which ones to use your common sense on? Having been raised in Catholic schooling, I know for a lot of people, they believe the stories that they were taught as children. For others, I guess it's just which ones feel right to them personally.

At the beginning of the movie Fargo, it says "Based on a true story." But as an audience member, you immediately know that they're just saying that and that the movie is actually a work of fiction. But when you watch Oppenheimer, you know that the main character was a real person and the story you're seeing is mostly actual history.

How can you pick and choose which of those movies to take literally and which is just made up?

Because we are alive during the events as the happen and have detailed proof of Oppenheimers achievements

You weren't alive during Oppenheimer's lifetime -- you think you know something about his life and accomplishments based on what you've read elsewhere.

But that's beside the point. The important thing is that each of us has a certain level of media literacy, and none of us has any difficulty distinguishing between fiction and non-fiction. We can easily recognize that Fargo is fiction even though it explicitly "says" otherwise (we all know the "the following is based on a true story" trope and we can decode it in context). Even if you've never heard of the Manhattan Project, you can tell that Oppenheimer is non-fiction. Normal human beings have absolutely no problem doing this sort of thing. We're good at it.

Plutarch's Lives describes actual human beings who actually lived. I don't know if those accounts are accurate or not, but they claim to be. Everybody understands that the Aeneid is just a story.

That's how we can tell that books like Acts and Judges purport to be actual history, while the Song of Solomon isn't. A person might not believe what Acts is telling them, of course, but it purports to describe something that actually happened for real, and it's not difficult to distinguish between that sort of thing and poetry, assorted wisdom teachings, parables, and so on.

I fundamentally disagree with your hypothesis. If we are so good at it there would be an overwhelming general consensus of agreement of understanding on it, of which there very clearly isn’t. I know you certainly think you have a clear understanding of the distinctions, cool, good for you. But so do others, like our thread starter here, who have very different understandings and interpretations. It’s clear as mud yet you continue to say it’s crystal clear.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Earlier in this thread there was a lot of discussion on the veracity of the Bible. Which books were selected / excluded, which stories are meant to be literal / metaphorical, etc. Christians quote the Bible to make their arguments. "God said this, Jesus said that." "God wants this or that from us." Everything hinges on the Bible and how it is interpreted, right? That's the whole religion. I guess the same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and on and on. They all have their different books and they all believe their books are correct and all other religious books are unreliable, made up.

As an atheist, on the outside looking in, this is fascinating to watch. Muhammad was clearly hallucinating in a cave. L. Ron Hubbard is a first class nut case. Obviously there wasn't really a global flood survived only by Noah and his arc. Jonah didn't literally hang out in the belly of a whale for 3 days and survive. BUT, a virgin really did literally give birth to a man that one day would rise from the dead and then float up into the sky. That part is really true and actually happened. How do you know which stories to believe and which ones to use your common sense on? Having been raised in Catholic schooling, I know for a lot of people, they believe the stories that they were taught as children. For others, I guess it's just which ones feel right to them personally.

At the beginning of the movie Fargo, it says "Based on a true story." But as an audience member, you immediately know that they're just saying that and that the movie is actually a work of fiction. But when you watch Oppenheimer, you know that the main character was a real person and the story you're seeing is mostly actual history.

How can you pick and choose which of those movies to take literally and which is just made up?

Because we are alive during the events as the happen and have detailed proof of Oppenheimers achievements

You weren't alive during Oppenheimer's lifetime -- you think you know something about his life and accomplishments based on what you've read elsewhere.

But that's beside the point. The important thing is that each of us has a certain level of media literacy, and none of us has any difficulty distinguishing between fiction and non-fiction. We can easily recognize that Fargo is fiction even though it explicitly "says" otherwise (we all know the "the following is based on a true story" trope and we can decode it in context). Even if you've never heard of the Manhattan Project, you can tell that Oppenheimer is non-fiction. Normal human beings have absolutely no problem doing this sort of thing. We're good at it.

Plutarch's Lives describes actual human beings who actually lived. I don't know if those accounts are accurate or not, but they claim to be. Everybody understands that the Aeneid is just a story.

That's how we can tell that books like Acts and Judges purport to be actual history, while the Song of Solomon isn't. A person might not believe what Acts is telling them, of course, but it purports to describe something that actually happened for real, and it's not difficult to distinguish between that sort of thing and poetry, assorted wisdom teachings, parables, and so on.

I fundamentally disagree with your hypothesis. If we are so good at it there would be an overwhelming general consensus of agreement of understanding on it, of which there very clearly isn’t. I know you certainly think you have a clear understanding of the distinctions, cool, good for you. But so do others, like our thread starter here, who have very different understandings and interpretations. It’s clear as mud yet you continue to say it’s crystal clear.

I don't think it's clear as mud, and I don't think you do either. Neither one of us is the kind of person who would "take the Bible literally" in the way that OP does.

 

[dgreen]

Earlier in this thread there was a lot of discussion on the veracity of the Bible. Which books were selected / excluded, which stories are meant to be literal / metaphorical, etc. Christians quote the Bible to make their arguments. "God said this, Jesus said that." "God wants this or that from us." Everything hinges on the Bible and how it is interpreted, right? That's the whole religion. I guess the same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and on and on. They all have their different books and they all believe their books are correct and all other religious books are unreliable, made up.

As an atheist, on the outside looking in, this is fascinating to watch. Muhammad was clearly hallucinating in a cave. L. Ron Hubbard is a first class nut case. Obviously there wasn't really a global flood survived only by Noah and his arc. Jonah didn't literally hang out in the belly of a whale for 3 days and survive. BUT, a virgin really did literally give birth to a man that one day would rise from the dead and then float up into the sky. That part is really true and actually happened. How do you know which stories to believe and which ones to use your common sense on? Having been raised in Catholic schooling, I know for a lot of people, they believe the stories that they were taught as children. For others, I guess it's just which ones feel right to them personally.

At the beginning of the movie Fargo, it says "Based on a true story." But as an audience member, you immediately know that they're just saying that and that the movie is actually a work of fiction. But when you watch Oppenheimer, you know that the main character was a real person and the story you're seeing is mostly actual history.

How can you pick and choose which of those movies to take literally and which is just made up?

Because we are alive during the events as the happen and have detailed proof of Oppenheimers achievements

You weren't alive during Oppenheimer's lifetime -- you think you know something about his life and accomplishments based on what you've read elsewhere.

But that's beside the point. The important thing is that each of us has a certain level of media literacy, and none of us has any difficulty distinguishing between fiction and non-fiction. We can easily recognize that Fargo is fiction even though it explicitly "says" otherwise (we all know the "the following is based on a true story" trope and we can decode it in context). Even if you've never heard of the Manhattan Project, you can tell that Oppenheimer is non-fiction. Normal human beings have absolutely no problem doing this sort of thing. We're good at it.

Plutarch's Lives describes actual human beings who actually lived. I don't know if those accounts are accurate or not, but they claim to be. Everybody understands that the Aeneid is just a story.

That's how we can tell that books like Acts and Judges purport to be actual history, while the Song of Solomon isn't. A person might not believe what Acts is telling them, of course, but it purports to describe something that actually happened for real, and it's not difficult to distinguish between that sort of thing and poetry, assorted wisdom teachings, parables, and so on.

I fundamentally disagree with your theory. If we are so good at it there would be an overwhelming general consensus of agreement of understanding on it, of which there very clearly isn’t. I know you certainly think you have a clear understanding of the distinctions, cool, good for you. But so do others, like our thread starter here, who have very different understandings and interpretations. It’s clear as mud yet you continue to say it’s crystal clear.

Yeah, I appreciate Ivan's approach to simplify this and draw analogies to how we do this all the time. However, my experience is that so many people don't do this with the Bible. I don't think that necessarily takes away from Ivan's point, but it does highlight that a lot of people tend to approach the Bible differently. And I don't think it's appropriate to treat it differently.

I'd like to tweak the analogy. Instead of asking whether we are good at differentiating between Fargo and Oppenheimer, I'd ask whether or not we think people thousands of years from now will be able to differentiate between the two. I'm confident they'll be able to differentiate between Oppenheimer and Finding Nemo, but I'm not so sure about movies that are closer in genre. Similarly, we can easily see a difference between Judges and Song of Solomon, but those are at the extremes and there are going to be examples that are closer together and more difficult for us to deal with.

ETA: And, even if something purports to be an ancient historical writing, that doesn't necessarily mean we should be asking "Did that really happen?" on every detail of that text.

 

[dkp993]

I'd like to tweak the analogy. Instead of asking whether we are good at differentiating between Fargo and Oppenheimer, I'd ask whether or not we think people thousands of years from now will be able to differentiate between the two. I'm confident they'll be able to differentiate between Oppenheimer and Finding Nemo, but I'm not so sure about movies that are closer in genre. Similarly, we can easily see a difference between Judges and Song of Solomon, but those are at the extremes and there are going to be examples that are closer together and more difficult for us to deal with.

Agreed. Though I would further add to your analogy that it would also be similar genres movies 1000’s of years later in languages we don’t speak and often written(spoke in this analogy) in a style closer to poetry that requires interpretation rather than common language.

And to my earlier point, this system of required understanding doesn’t make much sense for an all knowing deity to set up for us folks not born in and around the time of Jesus. For our literal enternal souls to hang in the balance sure feels like it’s set up to fail (or not be real).

 

[dkp993]

Earlier in this thread there was a lot of discussion on the veracity of the Bible. Which books were selected / excluded, which stories are meant to be literal / metaphorical, etc. Christians quote the Bible to make their arguments. "God said this, Jesus said that." "God wants this or that from us." Everything hinges on the Bible and how it is interpreted, right? That's the whole religion. I guess the same can be said for Judaism, Islam, Scientology, and on and on. They all have their different books and they all believe their books are correct and all other religious books are unreliable, made up.

As an atheist, on the outside looking in, this is fascinating to watch. Muhammad was clearly hallucinating in a cave. L. Ron Hubbard is a first class nut case. Obviously there wasn't really a global flood survived only by Noah and his arc. Jonah didn't literally hang out in the belly of a whale for 3 days and survive. BUT, a virgin really did literally give birth to a man that one day would rise from the dead and then float up into the sky. That part is really true and actually happened. How do you know which stories to believe and which ones to use your common sense on? Having been raised in Catholic schooling, I know for a lot of people, they believe the stories that they were taught as children. For others, I guess it's just which ones feel right to them personally.

At the beginning of the movie Fargo, it says "Based on a true story." But as an audience member, you immediately know that they're just saying that and that the movie is actually a work of fiction. But when you watch Oppenheimer, you know that the main character was a real person and the story you're seeing is mostly actual history.

How can you pick and choose which of those movies to take literally and which is just made up?

Because we are alive during the events as the happen and have detailed proof of Oppenheimers achievements

You weren't alive during Oppenheimer's lifetime -- you think you know something about his life and accomplishments based on what you've read elsewhere.

But that's beside the point. The important thing is that each of us has a certain level of media literacy, and none of us has any difficulty distinguishing between fiction and non-fiction. We can easily recognize that Fargo is fiction even though it explicitly "says" otherwise (we all know the "the following is based on a true story" trope and we can decode it in context). Even if you've never heard of the Manhattan Project, you can tell that Oppenheimer is non-fiction. Normal human beings have absolutely no problem doing this sort of thing. We're good at it.

Plutarch's Lives describes actual human beings who actually lived. I don't know if those accounts are accurate or not, but they claim to be. Everybody understands that the Aeneid is just a story.

That's how we can tell that books like Acts and Judges purport to be actual history, while the Song of Solomon isn't. A person might not believe what Acts is telling them, of course, but it purports to describe something that actually happened for real, and it's not difficult to distinguish between that sort of thing and poetry, assorted wisdom teachings, parables, and so on.

I fundamentally disagree with your hypothesis. If we are so good at it there would be an overwhelming general consensus of agreement of understanding on it, of which there very clearly isn’t. I know you certainly think you have a clear understanding of the distinctions, cool, good for you. But so do others, like our thread starter here, who have very different understandings and interpretations. It’s clear as mud yet you continue to say it’s crystal clear.

I don't think it's clear as mud, and I don't think you do either. Neither one of us is the kind of person who would "take the Bible literally" in the way that OP does.

I actually do think it’s clear as mud, certainly anything outside of general themes. The amount of individual interpretation required makes it so. Though I readily admit I’m not one who intuitively picks up on Shakespeare with 100% comprehension. But again all of this only speaks to my point.

 

[dgreen]

I'd like to tweak the analogy. Instead of asking whether we are good at differentiating between Fargo and Oppenheimer, I'd ask whether or not we think people thousands of years from now will be able to differentiate between the two. I'm confident they'll be able to differentiate between Oppenheimer and Finding Nemo, but I'm not so sure about movies that are closer in genre. Similarly, we can easily see a difference between Judges and Song of Solomon, but those are at the extremes and there are going to be examples that are closer together and more difficult for us to deal with.

Agreed. Though I would further add to your analogy that it would also be similar genres movies 1000’s of years later in languages we don’t speak and often written(spoke in this analogy) in a style closer to poetry that requires interpretation rather than common language.

I'm not sure how you use "interpretation" but I'd say everything, even common language, requires interpretation. I'd say we are in the act of interpreting each other in every interaction we have. We are more likely to correctly interpret each other in this thread because we use the same language and live in relatively the same culture, but it still requires interpretation. And, yes, that's an important point that language, culture, time, etc all play roles in our ability to interpret. I'm thankful for all the experts who have done their best to put the Bible into my language so I can better interact with it. Yet, it still requires work. And people will continue that work and future generations will hopefully have even a better understanding.

And to my earlier point, this system of required understanding doesn’t make much sense for an all knowing deity to set up for us folks not born in and around the time of Jesus. For our literal enternal souls to hang in the balance sure feels like it’s set up to fail (or not be real).

Yeah, I guess I don't think that's the system.

 

[BlackCrowes]

i think our ability to document and preserve historical events might be a little better today than 2000 years ago.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

i think our ability to document and preserve historical events might be a little better today than 2000 years ago.

That's true obviously, but it's not really what's at issue. The issue is how can people tell the difference between a work of fiction that seeks to convey a message, versus a historical narrative of stuff that we're supposed to believe actually happened.

You can cull all kinds of examples of both types of documents from ancient history. For example, consider the works of Herodotus. The stuff that he wrote was intended to be taken as face-value descriptions of things that really existed in the world. For our purposes, whether Herodotus got it right or not doesn't really matter -- what matters is that when you read the Histories, it's pretty obvious that I'm reading something that the author expects me to believe.

By way of contrast, nobody who reads Oedipus Rex thinks that it is describing actual events. The audience understands from the get-go that Oedipus is a fictional character, and the whole story is made up to make a point.

There are definitely large swaths of the Bible that could be read either way. For instance, I could see people of good will genuinely disagreeing about whether the story of Jonah is supposed to be a real event or not*. I really don't see any similar scope for disagreement when it comes to books like the Revelation, Psalms, Song of Solomon (all fiction/metaphor), Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Judges, I and II Kings (all histories), etc. Those are pretty cut and dry.


* For what it's worth, I don't personally think it matters even a little tiny bit whether Jonah was a real person or not. The same is true for a rather large number of Biblical characters IMO. But Jesus is really the one character for whom that possibility is most clearly and unambiguously removed. There's no reasonable interpretation of scripture that allows us to view Jesus as anything other than a flesh and blood person who made some pretty wild claims about Judaism, and his followers really wanted people to think that he literally rose from the dead. Whether he did or not is a different question, but they sure want us to think that that really happened.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

i think our ability to document and preserve historical events might be a little better today than 2000 years ago.

That's true obviously, but it's not really what's at issue. The issue is how can people tell the difference between a work of fiction that seeks to convey a message, versus a historical narrative of stuff that we're supposed to believe actually happened.

You can cull all kinds of examples of both types of documents from ancient history. For example, consider the works of Herodotus. The stuff that he wrote was intended to be taken as face-value descriptions of things that really existed in the world. For our purposes, whether Herodotus got it right or not doesn't really matter -- what matters is that when you read the Histories, it's pretty obvious that I'm reading something that the author expects me to believe.

By way of contrast, nobody who reads Oedipus Rex thinks that it is describing actual events. The audience understands from the get-go that Oedipus is a fictional character, and the whole story is made up to make a point.

There are definitely large swaths of the Bible that could be read either way. For instance, I could see people of good will genuinely disagreeing about whether the story of Jonah is supposed to be a real event or not*. I really don't see any similar scope for disagreement when it comes to books like the Revelation, Psalms, Song of Solomon (all fiction/metaphor), Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Judges, I and II Kings (all histories), etc. Those are pretty cut and dry.


* For what it's worth, I don't personally think it matters even a little tiny bit whether Jonah was a real person or not. The same is true for a rather large number of Biblical characters IMO. But Jesus is really the one character for whom that possibility is most clearly and unambiguously removed. There's no reasonable interpretation of scripture that allows us to view Jesus as anything other than a flesh and blood person who made some pretty wild claims about Judaism, and his followers really wanted people to think that he literally rose from the dead. Whether he did or not is a different question, but they sure want us to think that that really happened.

Agree that his followers / biblical authors really wanted us to believe Jesus rose from the dead. I think that invalidates their entire narrative. If they’re really really claiming to be truthful about that, then I can’t believe anything they say. To be a Christian I think the hill you have to die on is the resurrection. That’s where you lose me. Dead people are dead. They don’t come back to life. To claim that this one guy did is beyond extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hearsay from 2,000 years ago doesn’t cut it for me.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

And to my earlier point, this system of required understanding doesn’t make much sense for an all knowing deity to set up for us folks not born in and around the time of Jesus. For our literal enternal souls to hang in the balance sure feels like it’s set up to fail (or not be real).

The system has three basic tentpoles that are the foundation. Biblical teaching, personal relationship with God and fellowship with fellow believers. The system is designed to work when engaged in all three of those aspects. The system will fall flat on it's face if one focuses on simply one of them. So far, in this thread, people have been talking about one aspect alone.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

i think our ability to document and preserve historical events might be a little better today than 2000 years ago.

That's true obviously, but it's not really what's at issue. The issue is how can people tell the difference between a work of fiction that seeks to convey a message, versus a historical narrative of stuff that we're supposed to believe actually happened.

You can cull all kinds of examples of both types of documents from ancient history. For example, consider the works of Herodotus. The stuff that he wrote was intended to be taken as face-value descriptions of things that really existed in the world. For our purposes, whether Herodotus got it right or not doesn't really matter -- what matters is that when you read the Histories, it's pretty obvious that I'm reading something that the author expects me to believe.

By way of contrast, nobody who reads Oedipus Rex thinks that it is describing actual events. The audience understands from the get-go that Oedipus is a fictional character, and the whole story is made up to make a point.

There are definitely large swaths of the Bible that could be read either way. For instance, I could see people of good will genuinely disagreeing about whether the story of Jonah is supposed to be a real event or not*. I really don't see any similar scope for disagreement when it comes to books like the Revelation, Psalms, Song of Solomon (all fiction/metaphor), Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Judges, I and II Kings (all histories), etc. Those are pretty cut and dry.


* For what it's worth, I don't personally think it matters even a little tiny bit whether Jonah was a real person or not. The same is true for a rather large number of Biblical characters IMO. But Jesus is really the one character for whom that possibility is most clearly and unambiguously removed. There's no reasonable interpretation of scripture that allows us to view Jesus as anything other than a flesh and blood person who made some pretty wild claims about Judaism, and his followers really wanted people to think that he literally rose from the dead. Whether he did or not is a different question, but they sure want us to think that that really happened.

Agree that his followers / biblical authors really wanted us to believe Jesus rose from the dead. I think that invalidates their entire narrative. If they’re really really claiming to be truthful about that, then I can’t believe anything they say. To be a Christian I think the hill you have to die on is the resurrection. That’s where you lose me. Dead people are dead. They don’t come back to life. To claim that this one guy did is beyond extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hearsay from 2,000 years ago doesn’t cut it for me.

Yes, this is correct.

 

[Joe Bryant]

One common objection is "Isn't the bible like a game of telephone and we got things wrong as it was transferred over the years?"

A response to that.

The Bible Is Not a Game of Telephone

In his response to a Newsweek article attacking the Bible, Dan Wallace explains why the transmission of the Bible was not like a game of Telephone.

www.str.org

In his response to the now infamous Newsweek article by Kurt Eichenwald attacking the Bible, Dan Wallace succinctly explained why the transmission of the Bible was not like a game of Telephone (bullet point formatting added by me for ease of reading):

The title of Eichenwald’s section that deals with manuscript transmission is “Playing Telephone with the Word of God.” The implication is that the transmission of the Bible is very much like the telephone game—a parlor game every American knows. It involves a brief narrative that someone whispers to the next person in line who then whispers this to the next person, and so on for several people. Then, the last person recites out loud what he or she heard and everyone has a good laugh for how garbled the story got. But the transmission of scripture is not at all like the telephone game.

• First, the goal of the telephone game is to see how badly the story can get misrepresented, while the goal of New Testament copying was by and large to produce very careful, accurate copies of the original.
• Second, in the telephone game there is only one line of transmission, while with the New Testament there are multiple lines of transmission.
• Third, one is oral, recited once in another’s ear, while the other is written, copied by a faithful scribe who then would check his or her work or have someone else do it.
• Fourth, in the telephone game only the wording of the last person in the line can be checked, while for the New Testament textual critics have access to many of the earlier texts, some going back very close to the time of the autographs.
• Fifth, even the ancient scribes had access to earlier texts, and would often check their work against a manuscript that was many generations older than their immediate ancestor. The average papyrus manuscript would last for a century or more. Thus, even a late second-century scribe could have potentially examined the original document he or she was copying.

If telephone were played the way New Testament transmission occurred, it would make for a ridiculously boring parlor game

 

[Jayrod]

I know all of you probably know this, but it is worth reminding that the Bible isn't a single book. It is 66 different books from approximately 40 different authors throughout around 1500 years of recorded history in 3 different languages.

All that said, I've never fully believed anything simply because it was "what the Bible said". I have experienced and tested enough of the teaching of the Bible to find it valid and believe it is true and believe that Jesus was a man born with God as His father who died and was resurrected. After my confidence in that is gained, the rest is easy to believe at face value and has been constantly reaffirmed throughout my life without a single point of refutation that I have found credible.

I mean if God is all-powerful, all-knowing & all-present then there is nothing too big or small for Him to do. The entire Bible could very likely be 100% factual without need to ascribe "allegory" to things that are not presented as such.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

i think our ability to document and preserve historical events might be a little better today than 2000 years ago.

That's true obviously, but it's not really what's at issue. The issue is how can people tell the difference between a work of fiction that seeks to convey a message, versus a historical narrative of stuff that we're supposed to believe actually happened.

You can cull all kinds of examples of both types of documents from ancient history. For example, consider the works of Herodotus. The stuff that he wrote was intended to be taken as face-value descriptions of things that really existed in the world. For our purposes, whether Herodotus got it right or not doesn't really matter -- what matters is that when you read the Histories, it's pretty obvious that I'm reading something that the author expects me to believe.

By way of contrast, nobody who reads Oedipus Rex thinks that it is describing actual events. The audience understands from the get-go that Oedipus is a fictional character, and the whole story is made up to make a point.

There are definitely large swaths of the Bible that could be read either way. For instance, I could see people of good will genuinely disagreeing about whether the story of Jonah is supposed to be a real event or not*. I really don't see any similar scope for disagreement when it comes to books like the Revelation, Psalms, Song of Solomon (all fiction/metaphor), Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Judges, I and II Kings (all histories), etc. Those are pretty cut and dry.


* For what it's worth, I don't personally think it matters even a little tiny bit whether Jonah was a real person or not. The same is true for a rather large number of Biblical characters IMO. But Jesus is really the one character for whom that possibility is most clearly and unambiguously removed. There's no reasonable interpretation of scripture that allows us to view Jesus as anything other than a flesh and blood person who made some pretty wild claims about Judaism, and his followers really wanted people to think that he literally rose from the dead. Whether he did or not is a different question, but they sure want us to think that that really happened.

Agree that his followers / biblical authors really wanted us to believe Jesus rose from the dead. I think that invalidates their entire narrative. If they’re really really claiming to be truthful about that, then I can’t believe anything they say. To be a Christian I think the hill you have to die on is the resurrection. That’s where you lose me. Dead people are dead. They don’t come back to life. To claim that this one guy did is beyond extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hearsay from 2,000 years ago doesn’t cut it for me.

Yes, this is correct.

Fascinating. You seem like a really smart guy. If I told you my dad died of Parkinson’s 5 years ago and then showed up at my door yesterday, would you believe me?

 

[kupcho1]

i think our ability to document and preserve historical events might be a little better today than 2000 years ago.

That's true obviously, but it's not really what's at issue. The issue is how can people tell the difference between a work of fiction that seeks to convey a message, versus a historical narrative of stuff that we're supposed to believe actually happened.

You can cull all kinds of examples of both types of documents from ancient history. For example, consider the works of Herodotus. The stuff that he wrote was intended to be taken as face-value descriptions of things that really existed in the world. For our purposes, whether Herodotus got it right or not doesn't really matter -- what matters is that when you read the Histories, it's pretty obvious that I'm reading something that the author expects me to believe.

By way of contrast, nobody who reads Oedipus Rex thinks that it is describing actual events. The audience understands from the get-go that Oedipus is a fictional character, and the whole story is made up to make a point.

There are definitely large swaths of the Bible that could be read either way. For instance, I could see people of good will genuinely disagreeing about whether the story of Jonah is supposed to be a real event or not*. I really don't see any similar scope for disagreement when it comes to books like the Revelation, Psalms, Song of Solomon (all fiction/metaphor), Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Judges, I and II Kings (all histories), etc. Those are pretty cut and dry.


* For what it's worth, I don't personally think it matters even a little tiny bit whether Jonah was a real person or not. The same is true for a rather large number of Biblical characters IMO. But Jesus is really the one character for whom that possibility is most clearly and unambiguously removed. There's no reasonable interpretation of scripture that allows us to view Jesus as anything other than a flesh and blood person who made some pretty wild claims about Judaism, and his followers really wanted people to think that he literally rose from the dead. Whether he did or not is a different question, but they sure want us to think that that really happened.

Agree that his followers / biblical authors really wanted us to believe Jesus rose from the dead. I think that invalidates their entire narrative. If they’re really really claiming to be truthful about that, then I can’t believe anything they say. To be a Christian I think the hill you have to die on is the resurrection. That’s where you lose me. Dead people are dead. They don’t come back to life. To claim that this one guy did is beyond extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hearsay from 2,000 years ago doesn’t cut it for me.

Yes, this is correct.

Fascinating. You seem like a really smart guy. If I told you my dad died of Parkinson’s 5 years ago and then showed up at my door yesterday, would you believe me?

5 years ago? No.

3 days ago? Seems reasonable.

 

[Zow]

I know all of you probably know this, but it is worth reminding that the Bible isn't a single book. It is 66 different books from approximately 40 different authors throughout around 1500 years of recorded history in 3 different languages.

All that said, I've never fully believed anything simply because it was "what the Bible said". I have experienced and tested enough of the teaching of the Bible to find it valid and believe it is true and believe that Jesus was a man born with God as His father who died and was resurrected. After my confidence in that is gained, the rest is easy to believe at face value and has been constantly reaffirmed throughout my life without a single point of refutation that I have found credible.

I mean if God is all-powerful, all-knowing & all-present then there is nothing too big or small for Him to do. The entire Bible could very likely be 100% factual without need to ascribe "allegory" to things that are not presented as such.

Agreed. Which is why I struggle with his inability to stop seriously heinous crimes against children.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

i think our ability to document and preserve historical events might be a little better today than 2000 years ago.

That's true obviously, but it's not really what's at issue. The issue is how can people tell the difference between a work of fiction that seeks to convey a message, versus a historical narrative of stuff that we're supposed to believe actually happened.

You can cull all kinds of examples of both types of documents from ancient history. For example, consider the works of Herodotus. The stuff that he wrote was intended to be taken as face-value descriptions of things that really existed in the world. For our purposes, whether Herodotus got it right or not doesn't really matter -- what matters is that when you read the Histories, it's pretty obvious that I'm reading something that the author expects me to believe.

By way of contrast, nobody who reads Oedipus Rex thinks that it is describing actual events. The audience understands from the get-go that Oedipus is a fictional character, and the whole story is made up to make a point.

There are definitely large swaths of the Bible that could be read either way. For instance, I could see people of good will genuinely disagreeing about whether the story of Jonah is supposed to be a real event or not*. I really don't see any similar scope for disagreement when it comes to books like the Revelation, Psalms, Song of Solomon (all fiction/metaphor), Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Judges, I and II Kings (all histories), etc. Those are pretty cut and dry.


* For what it's worth, I don't personally think it matters even a little tiny bit whether Jonah was a real person or not. The same is true for a rather large number of Biblical characters IMO. But Jesus is really the one character for whom that possibility is most clearly and unambiguously removed. There's no reasonable interpretation of scripture that allows us to view Jesus as anything other than a flesh and blood person who made some pretty wild claims about Judaism, and his followers really wanted people to think that he literally rose from the dead. Whether he did or not is a different question, but they sure want us to think that that really happened.

Agree that his followers / biblical authors really wanted us to believe Jesus rose from the dead. I think that invalidates their entire narrative. If they’re really really claiming to be truthful about that, then I can’t believe anything they say. To be a Christian I think the hill you have to die on is the resurrection. That’s where you lose me. Dead people are dead. They don’t come back to life. To claim that this one guy did is beyond extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hearsay from 2,000 years ago doesn’t cut it for me.

Yes, this is correct.

Fascinating. You seem like a really smart guy. If I told you my dad died of Parkinson’s 5 years ago and then showed up at my door yesterday, would you believe me?

5 years ago? No.

3 days ago? Seems reasonable.

Lol. Jesus gave up a weekend to save us from ourselves…and he needs money!

 

[kupcho1]

I have experienced and tested enough of the teaching of the Bible to find it valid and believe it is true

Can you provide an example or two of this?

 

[dgreen]

I have experienced and tested enough of the teaching of the Bible to find it valid and believe it is true

Can you provide an example or two of this?

Loving my neighbor

Forgiveness

 

[kupcho1]

I have experienced and tested enough of the teaching of the Bible to find it valid and believe it is true

Can you provide an example or two of this?

Loving my neighbor

Forgiveness

So for "Loving my neighbor" for example, was the experience that a neighbor showed you love, or vice versa? And in either case, was that love only shown after you (or they) read about it in the bible? Same with "Forgiveness" (I put these in quotes here rather than using the quote feature repeatedly).

 

[dgreen]

I have experienced and tested enough of the teaching of the Bible to find it valid and believe it is true

Can you provide an example or two of this?

Loving my neighbor

Forgiveness

So for "Loving my neighbor" for example, was the experience that a neighbor showed you love, or vice versa? And in either case, was that love only shown after you (or they) read about it in the bible? Same with "Forgiveness" (I put these in quotes here rather than using the quote feature repeatedly).

For me, all of the above. People showing love towards me. Me showing love towards them. And probably mostly me seeing others loving others. It's all around us and for a long time I wasn't participating in that as much as I am now.

I have no idea if reading the Bible was a prerequisite for others. I'd guess for many people it wasn't. The idea of loving your neighbor is pretty well-ingrained in our culture so people can easily pick up on that without ever opening a Bible. My guess is that idea is ingrained in our culture because of the Bible, but I could be wrong about that.

For me, I went through a lengthy study of the Bible that definitely helped me see the value in things like loving others and forgiveness. I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I've gone to church my whole life and struggled with implementing this. I've grown to be jealous of people who can simply hear the command and do it without an in-depth Bible study. I, sadly, needed it to be proven to me.

Now, I'm not saying I've lived my life as a total jerk to others. I'd say I've been pretty mid, as the kids say. I grew up in a church tradition that talked a lot about salvation and getting to Heaven after you die. The OP in this thread is very familiar to me. I have always been very clear on the doctrine of saved by grace. I've heard over and over and over that I'm not saved by my works. In my mind, as a kid, teenager, and young adult, those repeated messages somehow had me devaluing good works. Of course, there were times that I'd hear sermons about how we are supposed to do good things and love others, but I think I must have heard 10x more sermons on being saved by grace so that's what I saw as being of highest importance. My view on good works has been impacted by what I consider to be a better understanding of the Bible.

 

[Paddington]

I hope you all had a Happy Thanksgiving

 

[Paddington]

We've always had spiritual and religious threads here in the forum. This can stay as long it stays civil and respectful and sincere. Please be cool to each other as folks usually are in these things and respect the folks who are saying what they truly believe in a civil way.

I have been respectful and cool. Please let me keep this discussion. It's been drawing a lot of attention and I would like to keep it going please.

 

[Joe Bryant]

We will consolidate to this one thread so not to have duplicate threads.

Please do not edit this thread title.

 

[Paddington]

We will consolidate to this one thread so not to have duplicate threads.

Please do not edit this thread title.

I appreciate you keeping the thread in one area, but the title was bringing a lot of discussion as it was. Please let me change it back. This is the Title that was bringing a lot of discussion below:

HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE! Read This First Post, THEN Q & A Discussion! ASK QUESTIONS HERE!

 

[Joe Bryant]

We will consolidate to this one thread so not to have duplicate threads.

Please do not edit this thread title.

I appreciate you keeping the thread in one area, but the title was bringing a lot of discussion as it was. Please let me change it back. This is the Title that was bringing a lot of discussion below:

HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE! Read This First Post, THEN Q & A Discussion! ASK QUESTIONS HERE!

Edited.

Here's my challenge for you. Please discuss as if the other person has a valid viewpoint and may have reasonable reasons for thinking what they think. I think you, and anyone, will be most effective that way.

 

[Paddington]

We will consolidate to this one thread so not to have duplicate threads.

Please do not edit this thread title.

I appreciate you keeping the thread in one area, but the title was bringing a lot of discussion as it was. Please let me change it back. This is the Title that was bringing a lot of discussion below:

HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE! Read This First Post, THEN Q & A Discussion! ASK QUESTIONS HERE!

Edited.

Here's my challenge for you. Please discuss as if the other person has a valid viewpoint and may have reasonable reasons for thinking what they think. I think you, and anyone, will be most effective that way.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

 

[Paddington]

i think our ability to document and preserve historical events might be a little better today than 2000 years ago.

I would certainly agree with you that our ability to preserve historical events is better today than it was 2000 years ago, however, they put a lot more emphasis back then on oral history. They had excellent memories and ability to recall events in detail because they rarely wrote things down until decades later. The fact that the Biblical writings of the NT were written down within 20+ years is actually very soon for that time period believe it or not.

 

[Paddington]

The Bible is completely silent on the age of the earth. The 6000 year thing is an interpretation of words going beyond what the words require. An extrapolation if you will. That is not an application of science.

I would partially agree with you that the Bible doesn't tell us the exact age of the earth and that one must extrapolate the age through the historical writings and the events that took place around the events in the writings, but I also believe that the creation of Adam and Eve can be fairly extrapolated through the Scriptures. Some disagree on the age of the earth because of the events that took place before the creation of Adam and Eve. The Gap Theory allows for the earth to be as old as the Evolutionists say it is, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that old. Some also believe in a pre Adamic flood that came before Adam and Eve were created, Hence the passage "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..." Personally, I don't tend to agree with those theories, but I acknowledge that I could be wrong. Biblically, there is a case that can be made.

 

[Paddington]

The Rich man and Lazarus was not a Parable. It uses proper names, Abraham is a real person. Not a Parable.

Ok, now what? Is this just a discussion for the fun of it (which, of course, is perfectly fine) or do you think it’s important that people see it is as a real story? I’m not sure where you are coming from on this, so I’m not sure where to go next.

I believe that the story of the Rich man and Lazarus is a true event that occurred because Parables don't use proper names. In the story of the Rich man and Lazarus, Abraham is mentioned who we know is a real life person who existed. Lazarus is a proper name of a man, which also doesn't happen in Parables. The detail of the story could only be interpreted as a real event, not a Parable or Allegory.

 

[Paddington]

I assume there have been some rules changes, or else he'd just bump one of his many other identical threads.

I kinda respect the dedication to the shtick. They have been a member for seven years just to post about one topic.

Thank you. It's extremely important to me. In 2001, I had an experience with the Lord, God of the Bible. I had visited a Church and was deciding whether to go back there or not. I decided that I would NOT go back to that Church, started to roll over and go to sleep. At that exact second, I felt the Holy Spirit, slowly come through my wall and hover over my chest. He looked into my eyes (It was Jesus) and He said "I want you to go back to that Church". I went back there and they Discipled me in the Foundational Doctrines of the Faith. God was preparing me for this ministry that I do now. I am not special, I am just an ordinary guy, but God uses ordinary people to accomplish His will. I have a passion for the Gospel and to answer questions and discuss this topic with people.

 

[dgreen]

The Rich man and Lazarus was not a Parable. It uses proper names, Abraham is a real person. Not a Parable.

Ok, now what? Is this just a discussion for the fun of it (which, of course, is perfectly fine) or do you think it’s important that people see it is as a real story? I’m not sure where you are coming from on this, so I’m not sure where to go next.

I believe that the story of the Rich man and Lazarus is a true event that occurred because Parables don't use proper names. In the story of the Rich man and Lazarus, Abraham is mentioned who we know is a real life person who existed. Lazarus is a proper name of a man, which also doesn't happen in Parables. The detail of the story could only be interpreted as a real event, not a Parable or Allegory.

Ok. I’m still not sure why you think it’s an important distinction. What’s the problem with someone reading it as a parable?

 

[Ridgeback]

What's your favorite color?

 

[Scoresman]

We know how old the earth is (4-5 billion years). It’s not something that is extrapolated from scripture.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

The Bible is completely silent on the age of the earth. The 6000 year thing is an interpretation of words going beyond what the words require. An extrapolation if you will. That is not an application of science.

I would partially agree with you that the Bible doesn't tell us the exact age of the earth and that one must extrapolate the age through the historical writings and the events that took place around the events in the writings, but I also believe that the creation of Adam and Eve can be fairly extrapolated through the Scriptures. Some disagree on the age of the earth because of the events that took place before the creation of Adam and Eve. The Gap Theory allows for the earth to be as old as the Evolutionists say it is, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that old. Some also believe in a pre Adamic flood that came before Adam and Eve were created, Hence the passage "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..." Personally, I don't tend to agree with those theories, but I acknowledge that I could be wrong. Biblically, there is a case that can be made.

You are mixing subjectivity (beliefs) with objectivity. What you post here doesn't address what you quoted. The Bible is silent on the age of the earth. We don't need to go to that book to make that determination. We have science that answers this for us.

 

[Joe Bryant]

We will consolidate to this one thread so not to have duplicate threads.

Please do not edit this thread title.

I appreciate you keeping the thread in one area, but the title was bringing a lot of discussion as it was. Please let me change it back. This is the Title that was bringing a lot of discussion below:

HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE! Read This First Post, THEN Q & A Discussion! ASK QUESTIONS HERE!

Edited.

Here's my challenge for you. Please discuss as if the other person has a valid viewpoint and may have reasonable reasons for thinking what they think. I think you, and anyone, will be most effective that way.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

I edited the title. Please leave as is.

 

[Joe Bryant]

As someone who's seen this on repeat for the last 30 years, the age of the Earth is fun if you want to go back and forth forever and never get anywhere.

On the "things that matter" scale, most Christians I know put very little if any weight on it. It's something to argue about endlessly but in my opinion, it's mostly a distraction from important topics.

 

[Paddington]

The Rich man and Lazarus was not a Parable. It uses proper names, Abraham is a real person. Not a Parable.

Ok, now what? Is this just a discussion for the fun of it (which, of course, is perfectly fine) or do you think it’s important that people see it is as a real story? I’m not sure where you are coming from on this, so I’m not sure where to go next.

I believe that the story of the Rich man and Lazarus is a true event that occurred because Parables don't use proper names. In the story of the Rich man and Lazarus, Abraham is mentioned who we know is a real life person who existed. Lazarus is a proper name of a man, which also doesn't happen in Parables. The detail of the story could only be interpreted as a real event, not a Parable or Allegory.

Ok. I’m still not sure why you think it’s an important distinction. What’s the problem with someone reading it as a parable?

It's an important distinction because I believe that there is a false teaching that there is no hell. And those who don't believe in hell call this passage an allegory or a parable in order to dismiss its reality. There are other passages that allude to hell also, but this passage is the most detailed account of it.

 

[dgreen]

The Rich man and Lazarus was not a Parable. It uses proper names, Abraham is a real person. Not a Parable.

Ok, now what? Is this just a discussion for the fun of it (which, of course, is perfectly fine) or do you think it’s important that people see it is as a real story? I’m not sure where you are coming from on this, so I’m not sure where to go next.

I believe that the story of the Rich man and Lazarus is a true event that occurred because Parables don't use proper names. In the story of the Rich man and Lazarus, Abraham is mentioned who we know is a real life person who existed. Lazarus is a proper name of a man, which also doesn't happen in Parables. The detail of the story could only be interpreted as a real event, not a Parable or Allegory.

Ok. I’m still not sure why you think it’s an important distinction. What’s the problem with someone reading it as a parable?

It's an important distinction because I believe that there is a false teaching that there is no hell. And those who don't believe in hell call this passage an allegory or a parable in order to dismiss its reality. There are other passages that allude to hell also, but this passage is the most detailed account of it.

Interesting, thanks. I don't think I've heard anyone make that argument. I'm confident I know a lot of people who would say this is a parable AND there is a hell. I agree that this piece of text, even if it is a parable, is not some argument against the reality of hell. That would seem odd to say something can't be real because it's mentioned in a parable. The Good Samaritan talks about Jericho and Jerusalem, which are obviously real, as were priests and Levites and Samaritans.

 

[BlackCrowes]

The Bible is completely silent on the age of the earth. The 6000 year thing is an interpretation of words going beyond what the words require. An extrapolation if you will. That is not an application of science.

I would partially agree with you that the Bible doesn't tell us the exact age of the earth and that one must extrapolate the age through the historical writings and the events that took place around the events in the writings, but I also believe that the creation of Adam and Eve can be fairly extrapolated through the Scriptures. Some disagree on the age of the earth because of the events that took place before the creation of Adam and Eve. The Gap Theory allows for the earth to be as old as the Evolutionists say it is, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that old. Some also believe in a pre Adamic flood that came before Adam and Eve were created, Hence the passage "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..." Personally, I don't tend to agree with those theories, but I acknowledge that I could be wrong. Biblically, there is a case that can be made.

the age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution. The facts of evolution just correlate with the age of the earth based on other lines of evidence.

 

[Joe Bryant]

The Bible is completely silent on the age of the earth. The 6000 year thing is an interpretation of words going beyond what the words require. An extrapolation if you will. That is not an application of science.

I would partially agree with you that the Bible doesn't tell us the exact age of the earth and that one must extrapolate the age through the historical writings and the events that took place around the events in the writings, but I also believe that the creation of Adam and Eve can be fairly extrapolated through the Scriptures. Some disagree on the age of the earth because of the events that took place before the creation of Adam and Eve. The Gap Theory allows for the earth to be as old as the Evolutionists say it is, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that old. Some also believe in a pre Adamic flood that came before Adam and Eve were created, Hence the passage "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..." Personally, I don't tend to agree with those theories, but I acknowledge that I could be wrong. Biblically, there is a case that can be made.

the age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution. The facts of evolution just correlate with the age of the earth based on other lines of evidence.

While we're hitting all the big topics I also don't know many Christians who put much effort into evolution. Yes, years ago maybe. And I know they for sure exist today. But denying that things evolve is like denying gravity.

Now I know there are some that like to debate a literal 7 day creation with 24 hour days as we know it origin. And that the first humans ever looked exactly like humans today. I personally don't think arguing those points are a productive use of my time. I'd much rather focus on trying to follow Jesus and his teachings.

That gets into again big discussions and tangent parsing out arguments that almost never go anywhere. I am completely comfortable with the idea God created the world and it changes over time. As are most Christians I know.

 

[Navin Johnson]

The Bible is completely silent on the age of the earth. The 6000 year thing is an interpretation of words going beyond what the words require. An extrapolation if you will. That is not an application of science.

I would partially agree with you that the Bible doesn't tell us the exact age of the earth and that one must extrapolate the age through the historical writings and the events that took place around the events in the writings, but I also believe that the creation of Adam and Eve can be fairly extrapolated through the Scriptures. Some disagree on the age of the earth because of the events that took place before the creation of Adam and Eve. The Gap Theory allows for the earth to be as old as the Evolutionists say it is, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that old. Some also believe in a pre Adamic flood that came before Adam and Eve were created, Hence the passage "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..." Personally, I don't tend to agree with those theories, but I acknowledge that I could be wrong. Biblically, there is a case that can be made.

the age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution. The facts of evolution just correlate with the age of the earth based on other lines of evidence.

While we're hitting all the big topics I also don't know many Christians who put much effort into evolution. Yes, years ago maybe. And I know they for sure exist today. But denying that things evolve is like denying gravity.

Now I know there are some that like to debate a literal 7 day creation with 24 hour days as we know it origin. And that the first humans ever looked exactly like humans today. I personally don't think arguing those points are a productive use of my time. I'd much rather focus on trying to follow Jesus and his teachings.

That gets into again big discussions and tangent parsing out arguments that almost never go anywhere. I am completely comfortable with the idea God created the world and it changes over time. As are most Christians I know.

I think you are in the minority her, Joe, at least among those claiming to be Christian

 

[dgreen]

The Bible is completely silent on the age of the earth. The 6000 year thing is an interpretation of words going beyond what the words require. An extrapolation if you will. That is not an application of science.

I would partially agree with you that the Bible doesn't tell us the exact age of the earth and that one must extrapolate the age through the historical writings and the events that took place around the events in the writings, but I also believe that the creation of Adam and Eve can be fairly extrapolated through the Scriptures. Some disagree on the age of the earth because of the events that took place before the creation of Adam and Eve. The Gap Theory allows for the earth to be as old as the Evolutionists say it is, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that old. Some also believe in a pre Adamic flood that came before Adam and Eve were created, Hence the passage "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters..." Personally, I don't tend to agree with those theories, but I acknowledge that I could be wrong. Biblically, there is a case that can be made.

the age of the earth has nothing to do with evolution. The facts of evolution just correlate with the age of the earth based on other lines of evidence.

While we're hitting all the big topics I also don't know many Christians who put much effort into evolution. Yes, years ago maybe. And I know they for sure exist today. But denying that things evolve is like denying gravity.

Now I know there are some that like to debate a literal 7 day creation with 24 hour days as we know it origin. And that the first humans ever looked exactly like humans today. I personally don't think arguing those points are a productive use of my time. I'd much rather focus on trying to follow Jesus and his teachings.

That gets into again big discussions and tangent parsing out arguments that almost never go anywhere. I am completely comfortable with the idea God created the world and it changes over time. As are most Christians I know.

I get what you're saying. However, I do think this topic is important to discuss from the standpoint of moving beyond it and towards discovering the original intent of Genesis. IMO, the reason these arguments never go anywhere is because they are stuck in a science debate using a text that isn't talking about science. I think I see what you've seen in that not many Christians put much effort into evolution. I'd guess most Christians I know accept evolution. But, many of those people are no closer to understanding Genesis because of this disconnect between science and the Bible. If fact, they may now be even farther away from understanding Genesis because they just avoid it due to this disconnect.

So, I do like to enter into "age of the earth" discussions as a way to try to guide the discussion towards what Genesis 1 is trying to say.