The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

[halbhh]

If you asked proper questions you would get proper answers. When you have an incorrect assumption buried in a question it becomes improper.

Consider what made you try to reach so far past the useful point of your OP...
...and assert the Old Testament just generally wrong about factual/literal stuff across the board.

Wrong about and I quote:
"a thousand other scientific facts"

This was your wording friend. Look --

For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally.

I think you should ask yourself whether such a far reaching conclusion is correct. Use your skeptical ability in a beneficial way (to yourself) by examining your own thoughts/argument there.

If you meant to say the Bible can't be interpreted literally in certain places....that would have useful, and could lead to plenty of possible good discussion about what and where.

But you did this broad (interesting) mistake above. You did that. Not any of us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Consider what made you try to reach so far past the useful point of your OP...
...and assert the Old Testament just generally wrong about factual/literal stuff across the board.

Wrong about and I quote:
"a thousand other scientific facts"

This was your wording friend. Look --



I think you should ask yourself whether such a far reaching conclusion is correct. Use your skeptical ability in a beneficial way (to yourself) by examining your own thoughts/argument there.

Whoa! I did not say or imply that the Old Testament is generally wrong. I said that it is wrong only if read literally. There is a big difference. And my statement still stands.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't claim that the new house is radically different from the old. It could be, though.

I did not say that you did. It could be, but it likely will not be. However, you are claiming that the new house of the earth is radically different from the old and without any real evidence. The passage of the Bible is a claim.

 

[halbhh]

Whoa! I did not say or imply that the Old Testament is generally wrong. I said that it is wrong only if read literally. There is a big difference. And my statement still stands.

Then as a friendly thing: you really need to change that wording in the OP (or alternatively just remove that extraneous side topic possibly to another thread).

If I read it that way, then probably about 1/3-1/2 of people will (or maybe more), and you just defeat yourself with your wording you used.

...

About the Old Testament: the clear thing that becomes apparent when we read through all of it with good listening is that a very large number of things are clearly meant to be figurative or metaphorical in wording.

But many other things are not. And there's is plenty of good discussion possible. Boatloads.

Or should I say "Arkloads".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you need to change your wording in the OP.

If I read it that way, then probably about 1/2 of people will, and you defeat yourself with your wording you used.

About the Old Testament: the clear thing that becomes apparent when we read through all of it with good listening is that a very large number of things are clearly meant to be figurative or metaphorical in wording.

But many other things are not. And there's is plenty of good discussion possible. Boatloads. But your OP is shooting itself in the foot as initially worded.

Or you could just not take a phrase out of context. I like to point out that if one does that the Bible itself refutes God's existence since fifteen different times it says "there is no God".

One thing that happens in debates is that people will very often read a post in the way that they want to no matter how clear it is. The statement is accurate and still stands. You put a very very strange interpretation on it which threw me at first.

 

[halbhh]

Or you could just not take a phrase out of context. I like to point out that if one does that the Bible itself refutes God's existence since fifteen different times it says "there is no God".

One thing that happens in debates is that people will very often read a post in the way that they want to no matter how clear it is. The statement is accurate and still stands. You put a very very strange interpretation on it which threw me at first.

I definitely read it the same way a large portion of all readers will read it.

Just attempting to help you see how it will sound to a lot of people.

You can imagine it is just me, just my interpretation alone, you can, and tell yourself that narrative.

That's up to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I definitely read it the same way a large portion of all readers will read it.

Just attempting to help you see how it will sound to a lot of people.

You can imagine it is just me, just my interpretation alone, you can, and tell yourself that narrative.

That's up to you.

People that are bound and determined to misread a post will do so no matter what.

 

[halbhh]

People that are bound and determined to misread a post will do so no matter what.

heh...I'm thinking now, that since you won't won't change the wording to more clearly say what you suggest it means, that instead it must be that you prefer it has that extra message that comes across in the wording.

This one that is clearly visible:

...refute those particular beliefs. For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally.

You want it to just communicate that the entire Old Testament is just full of invented stuff and entirely "refute"d in details about actual events that could be miraculous anywhere and everywhere generally, not just some sections, but all of them everywhere.

In other words, now I'm thinking your OP post is not at all about the putative topic: what should be read literally and what should be read figuratively.

You may as well have simply said, "By golly, no miraculous thing ever happens, and that's all!"

heh heh....

Well, ok then.

I discovered to my surprise that God exists, and He does sometimes do God-like miracles. It took me a long time to accept that reality, even after a lot of personal events showing it.

So, I think I get where you are at, there.

 

[JerryMyers]

As defined by scripture - separation from God. "Saved" is complete unity with God that produces wholeness, sprit, soul and body.

Correct. Then again, it also means you are not taking it literally because, literally, death IS when you stop breathing, your heart and your brain have stopped functioning permanently. So, why would you say you are taking it ‘very literal’ when clearly you are not?

You understand death as when you stop breathing.

Not really. I don’t take the scripture literally, but I understand the words by their context.

 

[Wrangler]

There are quite a few Christians that insist that it was a historical fact. That all of the Earth was flooded.

It is an uncontested fact. If you look into ice ages, the worst one, indeed had ice cover the whole of the Earth.

Earth was a frozen Snowball when animals first evolved

 

[Wrangler]

The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

The Bible is a highly metaphorical book. This is a great argument against the necessity of literal translations. Not to say none of it is to be taken literally. The Bible is meant for believers who accept guidance from the Spirit, have Spiritual discernment and the humility to realize they are not to rely on their own understanding.


Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
Proverbs 3:5

 

[Subduction Zone]

heh...I'm thinking now, that since you won't won't change the wording to more clearly say what you suggest it means, that instead it must be that you prefer it has that extra message that comes across in the wording.

This one that is clearly visible:


You want it to just communicate that the entire Old Testament is just full of invented stuff and entirely "refute"d in details about actual events that could be miraculous anywhere and everywhere generally, not just some sections, but all of them everywhere.

In other words, now I'm thinking your OP post is not at all about the putative topic: what should be read literally and what should be read figuratively.

You may as well have simply said, "By golly, no miraculous thing ever happens, and that's all!"

heh heh....

Well, ok then.

I discovered to my surprise that God exists, and He does sometimes do God-like miracles. It took me a long time to accept that reality, even after a lot of personal events showing it.

So, I think I get where you are at, there.

Like I said, those that are bound and determined to misinterpret a post will do so regardless of how it is written. Thank you for supporting my claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is an uncontested fact. If you look into ice ages, the worst one, indeed had ice cover the whole of the Earth.

Earth was a frozen Snowball when animals first evolved

During the current ice age only limited parts were covered by ice. The ice age in that article was in the Precambrian. Long long long before man ever evolved Why even bring it up? By the way, the ice from that is long gone. That is not the ice that refutes the flood myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is a highly metaphorical book. This is a great argument against the necessity of literal translations. Not to say none of it is to be taken literally. The Bible is meant for believers who accept guidance from the Spirit, have Spiritual discernment and the humility to realize they are not to rely on their own understanding.


Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
Proverbs 3:5

I never said that none of it was to be taken literally. Unfortunately many literalists are all or nothing thinkers. They tend to think if one part of it is wrong that it all has to be wrong and no one has claimed that.

 

[Wrangler]

During the current ice age only limited parts were covered by ice.

The ice age I included a link to was of the entire Earth covered with water. Say it. You'll feel liberated.

I never said that none of it was to be taken literally.

Agreed.

Unfortunately many literalists are all or nothing thinkers.

Agreed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The ice age I included a link to was of the entire Earth covered with water. Say it. You'll feel liberated.

Do you think that it means that? No, There was land, much of it covered by snow and ice but not liquid water. That is not a flood or even close to it. Now do you wonder how the fact that ice floats refutes the Noah's Ark story?

 

[Kenny]

Correct. Then again, it also means you are not taking it literally because, literally, death IS when you stop breathing, your heart and your brain have stopped functioning permanently. So, why would you say you are taking it ‘very literal’ when clearly you are not?


Not really. I don’t take the scripture literally, but I understand the words by their context.

I disagree. You are viewing it without the proper definition.

It is OBVIOUS it isn't talking about physical death. If it was, Paul's body would still be alive.

 

[Thief]

If you asked proper questions you would get proper answers.

you can't control dialog in this manner
no one owes you the question you want

 

[Subduction Zone]

you can't control dialog in this manner
no one owes you the question you want

Actually you can. There is no point in answering dishonest questions. If someone cannot ask proper questions they do not deserve answers.

 

[Thief]

here you go

ok....but.....

if salt water rises enough to be ankle deep on farm land......

that would be enough to kill.....a LOT of people