Semantics or Principles?

[reverbbb]

I don't want a heated debate to break out here. However, I would like some thoughts on something that I would like a little more understanding about. Some Biblical references would be great.

Nevertheless, I have been wondering if EVERYTHING in the Bible should be taken at face value. There are a lot of miracles mentioned that are very hard to understand or believe. This can be key issue for attacks by atheists, other religions, and doubters. I must admit that I have had difficulties maintaining my faith in the past because of the magnitude of miracles.

On the other hand, if one were to look at the Bible as a book of principles, then the lessons that are taught become more tangible. Even atheists, other religions and non-believers can relate to the principles.

Many Christians will argue even among themselves as to the strict meaning of passages in the Bible. This is where semantics (the study of language) seems to interfere with the principles.

What are your thoughts on this? Please avoid being defensive. Otherwise, this is where the debate may begin.

[TheViking]

You raise a very interesting question here. First of all it raises the question is the Bible the word of God (infallible) or is it word of men inspired by God (fallible in detail, infallible in central messages or even fallible in central messages). If the Bible is the word of God, it must be perfect since God doesn’t make mistakes. If it is word of man inspired by God, mistakes can occur. The next question that comes to mind is the credibility of the Bible. If the Bible contains errors and mistakes, how big are these errors? If something written in the Bible that appears to be a fact really just describes a principle, when do our right to interpret these facts start or stop.
If a miracle in the Bible is listed as to show a principle, how can we know what miracle is meant to be a principle and what miracle isn’t a principle? All miracles are unbelievable, that is the nature of a miracle. There is no logical explanation to how Jesus or the apostles for that matter could heal people, why Jesus were able to feed 5000 people from a mid size lunch box or any of the other miracles for that matter. Miracles are listed in the Bible to show the sovereignty of God, to give him glory. They are not supposed to be explainable
Faith to me is being certain of something I can not prove. If I can prove it, it is no longer faith but provable facts or knowledge. Being a Christian faith is what saves me. When I studied theology I was very into defending God and the Bible. I felt I needed to build a good defence for my faith and beliefs. There are a lot of passages in the Bible I do not understand. There are miracles hard to believe and stories I can feel are on the borderline to insulting my intellect. But I am not saved by what I understand; I am saved because I chose to believe. It is my faith that saves me by the Grace of God.
Of course atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews or any other religious or non religious group can attack my faith. Of course they are able to point out non explainable miracles. However it is not my job to defend the Almighty. He defends himself every second, every minute, every hour all over the world by touching people’s lives in so many different ways. Already from the days the Garden of Eden, evil has used doubt as a tool. Are you sure God said u could not eat from this tree? Are you sure he really meant it? Today the questions may differ. Are you sure Jesus walked on water? Are you sure he rose from the dead? The answer is no I am not sure he did, but I do know I believe he did. I can’t explain it, I can’t defend it, and I have absolutely no clue whatsoever of how he did it. You can call me stupid, naïve even unrealistic, but I do not care. I believe my Heavenly Father like a child, and will continue with it.

[kewlpack]

I like the concept behind "God said it, that settles it - whether I believe it or not."

Rev - Vik is right: let the truth take care of itself. It is from God and it will fulfill its purpose (and not return void). A study of evidences is always fascinating and faith building. Studying the early Christian writings (80AD-300AD) is also a great faith builder and helps iron out so many things that seem confusing.

Remember that Truth is not afraid of meticulous scrutiny and will stand up just fine under investigation by anyone. When you come across something that is hard to understand or fathom, dig in and investigate it. You may find exactly the answer that you were looking for. Then again, you might find so much more. And as Vik said, some things are just unknowable (go read Deut 29:29).

In Christ,
~A~

[Pearly Gator]

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Literal Interpretation of Scripture

By Ellen Kavanaugh

The "Pashat" meaning of scripture is it's literal meaning. This means scripture is understood to mean exactly what it says -- it's not an allegory. If scripture's literal meaning is denied, then verses could be made to mean most anything!

If scripture is read as an allegory, then no two people would agree on much. When I studied literature in college we had so many opinions on what each author *really* meant. Everyone saw a different meaning, and since it was subjective, who could really say who was right? But in science courses, where textbooks were accepted as fact and read literally, everyone agreed on their meaning. Scripture isn't fiction, it's G-d's Word to us --- the "textbook" G-d gives us. And I think He revealed absolute truth in it, not allegories alluding to truths. If scripture is reduced to allegory status, what separates it from the pagan legends? And even if we only relegated parts of scripture to allegory status, who's to say which parts are allegory and which are absolute fact?

I use the golden rule of interpretation when I study:

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

[stephen]

GOOD THREAD!

While reading this, I'm reminded of what Billy Graham "endured" prior to the very first Salvation Crusade. Did you know that it was not the Billy Graham Crusade? Did you know that Billy Graham was NOT suppossed to be the preacher?

Unfortunately, I am suffering from a slight case of brain fade, and I cannot remember the mans name (the one who was suppossed to be the preacher), but about 6 months before the crusade, he began questioning his faith, and the main sticking point for him was all those miracles, and the Ressurection. He went on a private quest to "find the truth". Well that quest lead him to dissavow his faith, only days before the crusade, and relinquish the duties to Billy.

But, he started trying to 'sway' Billy, to see things his way, and get Billy to deny Christ also! The night before the first crusade, this guy (now a puppet of satan), was workin overtime trying to get Billy to cave. Finally Billy sent him packing, and sought the Lord. Billy was confused, but he cried out to God, and said, "Lord, I dont care about all those 'facts' (his now ex-friends arguments), and I choose to beleive you in spite of them. Help me to know that you are God! I might not have the answers to refute him, but I want to trust and believe in You! Help Me trust and believe in in You, because your Word says so!" in other words, 'Forget all those other arguments, You said, I beleive it, that settles it!' Man that just screams FAITH!

One of this guys arguments was, "Its a good book of morals, and principles, but you cant be taken seriously, if you beleive in all the magic (miracles)! If there is a God, he hasnt spoken to us, and he probably doesnt care a thing about what I do, or dont do." He went on to write quite a few books, denouncing God, Christians, and Billy. Billy went on to preach about Jesus to more people, than any other preacher in History. Oh, and Billy has all the answers now to his ex-friends arguments.

If you want, you can read all about it in "The Case For Christ". Excelent book, that covers a lot of ground, and requires a multiple read (too much for one reading to absorb).

I myself, I beleive every single miracle in the Word of God. I think it is safe to say, that we all beleive in Creation, the way Moses wrote it down. Now, if God can create something from nothing, how hard is it to deliver a man from leprosy, a fish's belly, or raise him, and from the dead? We are the ones stuck in our physical laws, and time line, but God is not bound by any of those constraints. The atheist that doesnt beleive in God, would not be able to comprehend a miracle, because only God can bend, twist, manipulate, or obliterate those physical, and scientific laws, and to him that is impossible, cause there is no God! The athiest doesnt beleive, because he is not "spiritually discerned". It just does not exist to him. Period. Remember, the bible is just a book of words to the unbeleiver, but a Book of Life to the beleiver!

Heres something to twist your noodle: the first few words of the bible, show that God created Quantum Physics; "In the beginning..." right there, God created the physical law we know as time. Before that, there was no time. So if He created it all, to changge it at His will, is an easy matter for Him!

[reverbbb]

Excellent thoughts from everyone. Keep them coming!

I have a couple of thoughts that have come to me over the past few years. These thoughts question the theories that science has come up with.

:idea: 1) One theory sets out to prove that life on earth came from a witches brew of gases and highly charged electrical atmosphere that somehow jolted some amino acids to form some protein strands.

:?: 1a) This seems logical for explaining the composition of life. But what is the explanation for the "drive to exist"? Amino acids had no brain, therefore no instinct for survival. Why did the amino acids "feel" a need for self-preservation that apparently evolved into a life form of propagation?

:?: 1b) If this witches brew of gases was so worthy of creating proteins, then why would there only be one genetic trail? It would seem that this "ideal" environment would have allowed this phenomenon to occur simultaneously several times over the coarse of 5 billion years. Since we know that nature is not perfect and no two things are alike, then the DNA trails of different starting points would be dramatically different. Was it a "miracle" that life only started once on our planet?

:idea: 2) According to science, in the beginning, there was no time, there was nothing but a mass. The "Big Bang" created time and all of the elements of the universe and that we are forever expanding.

:?: 2a) So where did this mass come from and why did it explode?

:?: 2b) If we are forever expanding, will the fragments of this universe ever encounter another "mass" in our travel? Why was there only one "mass" if there is no other? If there are other masses, why haven't they exploded?

:idea: 3) Astrologers think they can now tell how old the universe is because they think they have found the center where it is all expanding from. 15 billion years is the common theory these days.

:?: 3a) If the "Big Bang" dispersed the mass so far and wide, wouldn't that leave a HUGE void in the center of the universe? Elvis has left the building syndrome. There is nothing here to see guys, let's go home.

:?: 3b) If they have found the center, where is the edge? Are we on the edge, near the center, in the middle?

:?: 3c) Was the "Big Bang" so perfect that there are no large chunks of mass left over near the center? If not, that seems like a miracle in of itself.

:idea: 4) Oxygen is the perfect reactive element in the universe to support life.

:?: 4) Oxygen IS the perfect element for all we know and love. How did the "Big Bang" create such a perfect component out of such chaos? Could the oxygen atom be the "brain" that caused life to exist? How come earth got just the perfect amount of oxygen. A "Big Bang" theory would not explain why the earth just happened to get the perfect amount.

~~~~~~

When you think about it, the mysteries of the universe are so grand, that small miracles on earth seem like nothing at all by comparison. It is a miracle that we even have brains at all to reason this stuff out. Now I know God has a sense of humor. :wink:

[ptrallan01]

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
(1 Timohty 6:20-21)

1 Miracles are not for believers but unbelievers. They force the unbeliever to come to terms with what he believes.

2 The Bible, while literal, is not logical by human standards because it is written to God standards.

3 The fact that miracles are unbelievable is why they are in the Bible, they don't make sense they make faith!

4 The bible holds its own in the scientific debates really well. As a matter of fact I read somewhere that the Big Bang theory is an extension of an older theory called the Big Bubble that was first postulated by a Catholic priest to explain creation

5 Physicists say that the big bang was not a cause but rather an effect but they don't know what the cause was (duh)! The big bang is what happened nano seconds after the cause (Did I hear Someone say, "Let there be light"?

6 20th century physists(sp) determined the universe was expanding according to something I believe is called hubbles constant that somehow monitors the separation of galaxies. (I was really into cosmology before I got saved and came to believe the Genesis account). That would be old news to the prophet Isaiah to whom God decreed that it was He (God) who "stretched out the universe". (Isaiah 45:12)

7 God allowed Jesus to come at a time when there was no telephone, no telegraph, no radio, no television, no radar, no computers, no special effects, no computer graphics. He did this because He wanted people to tell the story to other people and let His Spirit speak to our hearts. Ours is a journey of faith. Hebrews 11:1-2 reminds us that faith is both evidence and substance for that which we cannot know. The Just Shall Live by Faith.

8 Albert Einstein was reportedly frustrated with churches and is alledged to have said that the god that most ministers talked about was too small because the God that they talked about was too small to do what the God he knew existed had created.

9 For once I know where I read something! :!:
Worlds Bible Handbook page 124 commenting about the extended day ligh in Joshua 10:12-14

An astronomer, who was a professor at Yale, made a startling discovery. He found that the "earth was twenty-four hours out of schedule. Another professor at Yale, Dr. Totten, suggested the astronomer read the Bible, starting at the beginning and going as far as necessary, to see if the Bible could account for the missing time. When he came to the account of the long day of Joshua, the astronomer rechecked the figures and found that at the time of Joshua there were only twenty-three hours and twenty minutes lost. His skepticism justified, he decided that the Bible was not the Word of God, because here was a mistake by forty minutes. Professor Totten showed him that the Bible account does not say twenty-four hors, but rather 'about the space of a whole day.' On reading farther the astronomer found that God, through his prophet Isaiah and in answer to Hezekiah's prayer, promised to add fifteen years to his life(II Kings 20:1-11; Isaiah 38:1-21). To confirm this promise, the shadow on the sundial was turned back ten degrees. Ten degrees on a sundial is forty minutes on the face of a clock. When he found his of missing time accounted for in the Bible, the astronomer bowed his head in worship of its Author, saying, "Lord, I believe!"

Science and the Bible will be in perfect harmony when science understands everything about God. That day will probably never come

I am glad that I serve a God who is bigger than my understanding. If He weren't, He wouldn't be big enough to solve my problems and offer me salvation.

Love Peter

[Pearly Gator]

Guys, this is great stuff! Over at the prophecy site, there are a lot of attacks upon The Faith by scientists and non-believers. I'm adding this information to my "ammo can." :wink:

All glory to Christ,

Gary

[kewlpack]

5 Physicists say that the big bang was not a cause but rather an effect but they don't know what the cause was (duh)! The big bang is what happened nano seconds after the cause (Did I hear Someone say, "Let there be light"?


I like to tell folks that the Big Bang was when God clapped his hands together and said "Let's get this thing started!" :P

~A~

[stephen]

:idea: 1) One theory sets out to prove that life on earth came from a witches brew of gases and highly charged electrical atmosphere that somehow jolted some amino acids to form some protein strands.


OK, to twist these theorists noodle, throw the "Law of Large Numbers at Chance" at them: (ONLY TALKING ABOUT AMINO ACIDS, NOT DNA) You have all these "suppose this happens" (gasses form, electrical charges, radiation, crystals solidifying, etc.), you calculate them into the mix. BUT, this mix is very delicate, and must be in perfect prportions to acheive the exact balance, to create even the simplest amino acid, which is required for DNA to be viable. You then add in the time line factor required.

I read a book that had all the calculations for this to occur by "chance". The odds were more likely, that a chimp, could dress himself in a tux, go to a piano, pull random notes out of a bowl, one at a time, and in that succession, it would be Beethovens 5th Symphony, perfectly laid out, and then, that untrained chimp, would be able to play the peice flawlessly!

And remeber, this is just crunchiong all the chance law of large numbers, for the amino acids only! Thaey have not been able to come up with the calculations for DNA, (chance: law of large numbers), because there are even way, way, more variables, than for amino acids

[PVTele]

I don't really know why I'm writing this, since you've said it all - but I just have to endorse everything you said...

From the Vineyard Churches UK Statement Of Faith: "WE BELIEVE that the Holy Spirit inspired the human authors of Holy Scripture so that the Bible is without error in the original manuscripts. We receive the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments as our final, absolute authority, the only infallible rule of faith and practice."

This is how it seems to work - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16-17 (NIV) God "breathed" (the Greek is theopneustos) by his Holy Spirit (pneuma) the sense of his Word into the hearts and minds of men and women who spoke &/or wrote it out. The actual words (small 'w') they used were their own words, the words of, say, a shepherd of Tekoa during King Uzziah's reign (Amos) or a 1st century Greek doctor (Luke). You can see, BTW, from the synpotic Gospels (Mt, Mk, Lk) how this pans out in practice. Three very different guys set out to tell the same story - and they talk to various others (several of the Marys, Peter, and so on) to make sure they've got it straight. Then they write down three accounts that are broadly the same in terms of fact, but so different in terms of angle and language.

Now of course we've got the added thing of translation - and whether we use a literal (e.g. ESV) translation, a 'dynamic-equivalence' one (e.g. NIV) or a paraphrastic one (e.g. The Message). If we stick to the KJV then we have the added complication that while it's a fairly literal translation of the then available MSS, we have to reinterpret the language for ourselves, since English has changed since the 17th century.

So we have to think a bit when we use the Bible - and we have to remember that there are things in there that are just plain and straightforward commands ("don't commit adultery" - ever, under any circumstances, no excuses) or culturally-based commands (you become unclean if you so much as touch a dead body (Leviticus 21:11); women can't pray with bare heads, and men can't pray without 'em (1 Cor 11:4-5).)

But you see the meaning behind the culturally-based commands is still there - hygiene is essential, especially when dealing with the sick or the dead; we mustn't do things that would offend our brothers & sisters, especially in church, and we must treat God with honour & respect, especially in prayer.)

But your remarks on creation, Peter, are priceless. I'm going to save those to my hard disk - would you mind if I quoted you in the 'letter to the church' in our church magazine?[/i]

[ptrallan01]

Thanks for the addition and the kind words. Please feel free to use anything I post here without crediting me. Just help people to know Him as Savior, Redemmer and Lord. And always check my spelling :oops:

Love

Peter

[Old Believer]

I don't have much to add here, but a couple of things. I was a well trained athiest. I could argue, at that time, that the Bible was a stockpile of myths, and legends. Since the day I became a believer, I have devoted much of my study time to apologetics. The Bible is the inspired Word of God, and can be taken at face value.

[greg]

You had mentioned miracles. In Isaiah 32 and 35 it says when people's fears are taken away, then the blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk. This is what Jesus did in the gospels. He healed the blind, lame, mute, etc.
Isaiah 61 says that Jesus came to heal the brokenhearted and bind up their wounds by giving them joy and putting praise in their mouths.
Joy heals. As Proverbs 17 says, "A cheeful heart is good medicine."
In Psalm 51 David asked God to "resore to me the joy of your salvation." And this is what Jesus came to do, according to Isaiah 61: He came to give us joy through forgiveness.
Psalm 34 says he priased God, and the Lord delivered him of his fears.
This is what heals us spiritually. 2 Corinthians 3,4 and 1 John 2 say people are blind to the truth of the gospel and live in darkness because they observe the law and live in hatred.
Even Romans 1 says people are in darkness (i.e., blind) because they didn't want to praise and thank God.
But as Isaiah 35 shows, they're blind also because they live in fear. Jesus came to "free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" (Heb 2).
So when Jesus performed miracles, he healed the brokenhearted. He took away people's fears and anger and sorrows through the joy of his salvation and forgiveness. :-)

[Crunchyriff]

In reference to your question, I would have to say the answer is BOTH. Bear with me here, gang.

AS far as miracles- certainly they were literal. Obviously so. Too much information there to suggest otherwise. Same thing with Jesus' ressurection, and so forth.

HOWEVER, something that I came to know many years ago is that God's Word is multi-faceted; that is, it (HE) talks at a few different levels, if you will. Not to mention the scriptures themselves speaking of God ( & Jesus ) speaking in parables and mysteries INTENTIONALLY, so that the blind would NOT see, and the deaf would not hear. Look, the apostles were constantly questioning His teaching, and even Nicodemus was floored and confused when Jesus said "unless ye be born again.."

For instance when Jesus said: "if your eye offends thee, pluck it out.." how many times did we hear about people doing just that afterwards? None. Jesus meant something deeper here than the physical illustration he used to reference His point. Same thing with "trying to get the speck out of your brother's eye, when you have a log in yours". Nobody was running around with sticks in their eyes, but in Jesus' assesment, they most certainly were...but not in a physical perspective. Quite often, Jesus would use a physical (seen or imaginative) allegory to get his point across about something much deeper (and usually eternal) than a mere physical issue.

Same thing when the apostles asked him a question, and Jesus said " I fed 5000 people that day and we had how many baskets left over; I fed even more the next time, we had how many baskets left over...and you STILL don't get it??" Mind you, the dullness of the apostles was a testament to humanity in general.

Therefore, the whole Word of God is an allegory of sorts (and I'm not sure that is the right adjective to choose here), yet at the same time, it is QUITE literal.

How can I justify this? Simple.

As Job said: "things too wonderful for me"

It is easy in our "Christian culture": cluttered with Doctorate-adorned teachers, tapes, books, teaching series', CHR, etc. (all the wisdom of collective mankind on tap) to fool ourselves into thinking that we have God all figured out; when, IMHO, nothing could be further from the truth.

The farther I walk with Jesus, the smaller I feel; and the more in awe of God I am. HE is more a mystery to me now, than he ever was before.

Let The Comforter lead us into all truth.

[greg]

In 1 Corinthians 2 Paul said what he spoke was "spiritual truths." And these truths are not revealed to the natural mind - i.e., "no eye has seen no ear has heard no mind has conceived."
The Spirit reveals them to us because they're "spiritually discerned."
The apostles taught what Jesus taught them. It was "spiritual truths." And THAT is why the teachers of the law and Pharisees could not see. They could not understand spiritual truths because, as Paul was explaining in 1 Corinthians 2,3, they judged and lived by the law.

Or as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3 and James said in James 3: they were worldy, UNspiritual, of the devil, because they argued and judged.
1 John 2 says people are in darkness and do not see because they hate.
In Isaiah 58,59 the Lord's people had evil thoughts by judging. In Isaiah 35 people were blind because of fear.
And that kept them in darkness to where they did not understand the things Jesus taught by the Spirit.
My point is, what Jesus and the apostles taught was spiritual. But one thing or another blinds us to where we don't see or understand.
In Galatians 1 Paul said the gospel was not revealed to him by man but by the Spirit.
And this is what Paul was explaining in 1 Corinthians 2,3. The Spirit of God has to reveal the truth to us. We can't study and find and understand it.
Actually, in Luke it says the teachers of the law and Pharisees could not accept Jesus' teching because they had not been baptized by John. Meaning, their hearts were still in darkness because they observed the law, which taught people to judge ("the law commanded us to stone such women").

Jesus didn't come to judge but to show forgiveness and mercy. When we obey the Lord, then the veil that blinded us is taken away (2 Cor. 3). This veil is for anyone who observes the law (juding by what is visible).
If God does not judge by external appearances (Gal. 2:6), then why do we? We are to "stop judging my mere appearances and make a RIGHT judgment" (John 7:24). :-)