Why I take the Bible literally

harmonicat said:
Wouldn't you be offended if you were told you're not a Christian and going to hell for rejecting Trinity? Christians continue to contribute to my unfavorable opinion of Christianity with their diabolical literal 6-Day Creationism which in my view is a slap in the face to the creator. I burned a total of at least 5 bibles and probably a hundred hard and soft cover resource books over this nonsense, well over $1,000 worth. I gave up and I'm not happy with believers who condemn others in the faith.
Click to expand...
I don't recall ever saying a person would go to hell for not believing in the Trinity. I think your anger is misplaced. That's not my job to condemn the world My job is to love the world and tell them the good news that God loves them and sent His Son to take the sins of the world and make them clean. We can't approach God with our sin. God's love for us is what's important.
 
*R.A. Torrey (1856-1928), founder of Talbot Seminary and editor of The Fundamentals (12 volumes, published in 1910): “Anyone who is at all familiar with the Bible and the way the Bible uses words, knows that the use of the word ‘day’ is not limited to twenty-four hours. It is frequently used to denote a period of entirely undefined length…There is no necessity whatsoever for interpreting the days of Genesis 1 as solar days of twenty-four hours length.”
I'd say that's anodyne enough. Nor does day necessarily infer any temporal determination, when clearly Genesis is treating of metacosmic events.

*J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), considered the last of the great orthodox Princeton theologians: “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time.”
Or as something else altogether ...

* Edward J. Young (1907-1968), regarded as the epitome of conservative exegetical orthodoxy: “But then there arises the question as the length of these days. That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”
Same as above.

* James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000), chairman of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy: “[Young-earth] creationists insist that the days cover a literal 24 hours, but this is not necessarily the case. Sometimes the word ‘day’ is used with a broader meaning…it can mean a period of indefinite duration.” “Any view that makes the earth 12 to 20 thousand years old flies in the face of too much varied and independent evidence to be tenable. In my judgment the earth and universe are indeed billions of years old.”

All quite based in the view that 'day' signifies some order of temporal duration.

Since WWII a significant increase of dialogue and exchange with Judaism regarding the reading and interpretations of texts has moved the debate on somewhat. It's not that the above authorities are wrong, but rather they speak from a somewhat narrow perspective that we've moved away from as more insightful scholarship comes to the fore.

Nor should it be overlooked that these nevertheless insightful and influential theologians represent a particularly American viewpoint and experience.

Stuff like Young Earth Creationism, Biblical Inerrancy as defined by 19th century American Evangelicals, Prosperity Gospel ideology, etc., is all 'very American' to us Europeans, and we look and shake our heads ...
 
harmonicat said:
Is that all you've got? So bible interpretation is TO EACH HIS OWN?

Here are the views of several respected scholars on the meaning of the creation “day” (yôm):
* R.A. Torrey (1856-1928), founder of Talbot Seminary and editor of The Fundamentals (12 volumes, published in 1910): “Anyone who is at all familiar with the Bible and the way the Bible uses words, knows that the use of the word ‘day’ is not limited to twenty-four hours. It is frequently used to denote a period of entirely undefined length…There is no necessity whatsoever for interpreting the days of Genesis 1 as solar days of twenty-four hours length.”

* J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), considered the last of the great orthodox Princeton theologians: “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each. We may think of them rather as very long periods of time.”

* Edward J. Young (1907-1968), regarded as the epitome of conservative exegetical orthodoxy: “But then there arises the question as the length of these days. That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”

* James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000), chairman of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy: “[Young-earth] creationists insist that the days cover a literal 24 hours, but this is not necessarily the case. Sometimes the word ‘day’ is used with a broader meaning…it can mean a period of indefinite duration.” “Any view that makes the earth 12 to 20 thousand years old flies in the face of too much varied and independent evidence to be tenable. In my judgment the earth and universe are indeed billions of years old.”
Click to expand...
Ok. It's a gift that we are given the freedom to choose. I choose to believe what I believe. I find peace in my belief. I hope you find it in yours.
 
For me it seems inescapable that if the Torah is valid Jesus is a criminal that deserved death according to the law.

You cannot reconcile them, they cannot both be true.

If Jesus is the Messiah the Torah must be discarded.
 
harmonicat said:
It's not only literal 6-day that's foolish, offensive, and heretical, it's about my rejection of Trinity. This is from another forum. Would you be offended by a reply like this?

"Actually you'd be correct that ALL Christians DO believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity, for the simple reason that it's clearly, and blatantly taught in the Scriptures. All people professing faith in the LORD Jesus Christ, while denying His LORDship, are deceived, and are members of non-Christian cults. To deny the Trinity and yet claim to be a Christian is like denying the Law of Moses and claiming to be an orthodox Jew. So again, no matter what they might say, no matter what they name their religious organization, they are outside the covenant; strangers to God; under His wrath and curse, and will die in their sins unless they repent (which is a gift of God, and not something a person musters up within himself) and believe upon the LORD Jesus Christ. Anyone reading the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and taking them as they clearly teach cannot but walk away with anything other than a Trinitarian Doctrine. Those who deny this absolutely essential Doctrine prove themselves to be unregenerate, and as the Apostle John described them, antichrist."
Click to expand...
This is what I struggle with in my walk.

Matthew 24:10-12​

10 And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11 Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12 And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.

That is agape love.. that is for the believer. Offense is an abomination to God. All of the effects of offense is anger resentment bitterness jealousy envy.. I am determined to not let offense hinder my walk. I pray to not be offended because how can God use me if I'm walking in the flesh and not the spirit.
 
harmonicat said:
So which one of his clones have led you into believing this literal 6-day creation account? John Barnett, Kent Hovind, Ken Hamn, Hanky Hanegraaf?

Question. Would you ever change your mind on this and other issues? Or do you believe you have this literal 6 day stuff and everything else right?
Click to expand...
I would rather take it literal and stand before God with that defense. I'm at peace with that.
 
harmonicat said:
Well then ********.
Click to expand...
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:26–27).

Peace is a beautiful thing and I hope you find it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DaoYin said:
For me it seems inescapable that if the Torah is valid Jesus is a criminal that deserved death according to the law.

You cannot reconcile them, they cannot both be true.

If Jesus is the Messiah the Torah must be discarded.
Click to expand...
That tells me that you don't know the texts.
 
harmonicat said:
So which one of his clones have led you into believing this literal 6-day creation account? John Barnett, Kent Hovind, Ken Hamn, Hanky Hanegraaf?

Question. Would you ever change your mind on this and other issues? Or do you believe you have this literal 6 day stuff and everything else right?
Click to expand...
I don't listen to any of those people either btw.
 
That person is obviously hurting.

Anger is a secondary emotion
Typically, we experience a primary emotion like fear, loss, or sadness first. Because these emotions create feelings of vulnerability and loss of control, they make us uncomfortable. One way of attempting to deal with these feelings is by subconsciously shifting into anger.
 
harmonicat said:
That's not true! This is a copy of an uncopyrighted MSN article.

The Flat Earth Myth of the Middle Ages
Contrary to widespread belief, scholars during the Middle Ages were well aware that the Earth was not flat. The misconception that they believed in a flat Earth largely originates from Washington Irving’s fictionalized 1828 biography of Christopher Columbus.
In reality, Columbus’s voyage was not about proving the Earth’s roundness but rather about finding a westward route to Asia. The idea that medieval scholars thought the Earth was flat is a historical inaccuracy, highlighting the importance of critically examining sources and understanding the context in which such misconceptions arise.
Click to expand...
Indeed, scientists knew it, but the church leaders (and also some Muslim leaders) were powerful enough to suppress this knowledge. This is not fiction, it's documented.
 
DaoYin said:
For me it seems inescapable that if the Torah is valid Jesus is a criminal that deserved death according to the law.

You cannot reconcile them, they cannot both be true.

If Jesus is the Messiah the Torah must be discarded.
Click to expand...
Why do you say that?
As far as I know, the Messiah is not even mentioned in the Torah...
 
Also, for me neither Matthew or Luke should be in the canon due to also violating Galatians...

According to Greek custom texts take precedence based on being prior, as such we must conclude that various statements in both texts come from what Galatians 2 calls the hypocrites.

I like some things in Matthew such as Matthew 6:19-34 but he also honors Yahweh where Hebrews 7 returns us to Yahweh's father, El... this is asserted in Deuteronomy 32:8-9 in the Hebrew but for obvious reasons translators tend to render it otherwise. The Quran also says it speaks of the God of Israel and this suggests why it supports the law again, but this is not the universal authority... again, it is El who gives Yahweh his domain and he has spent most of his efforts trying to expand against his fathers order.

For me this is a huge issue in Christianity, and the ramifications are why I can't accept the faith.
 
Last edited:
talib-al-kalim said:
Why do you say that?
As far as I know, the Messiah is not even mentioned in the Torah...
Click to expand...

This seems to be correct, they are taking various statements from the Torah and creating a label of convenience to reference it... this isn't particularly important though.

Mark 2:23-3:6 has Jesus violate the law and claim authority over it which comes up at trial... if the law is valid then Exodus 31:15 says he was rightly killed and both Christianity and Islam are invalid because they uphold a criminal.
 

Matthew 15:17-19​

17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
 
The Muslim argument that it wasn't actually Jesus on the cross is irrelevant.

Jesus is a criminal according to Mark and only in this context does the Resurrection gain meaning, it is God reversing the law.

Now righteousness is measured by how we love, not our obedience to arbitrary rules.

Those who killed Jesus were perfectly obedient.

Healing is an act of love yet is seen as worse than murder by these people.

Of course the Resurrection is not applied in Islam, and entirely too many Christians misunderstand it too.

This is why Revelation is necessary.

If you still reject it at judgement you were never of God.

You will be among those fooled by Satan's Messiah.
 
DaoYin said:
If you still reject it at judgement you were never of God.
Click to expand...
Just a heads up that this is the Christianity section, where people are invited to ask interested questions of other Christians rather than attempt to directly challenge their faith. After all, this is an Interfaith website, not a random free-for-all bulletin board. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top