|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 5, 2021 3:11:31 GMT
Is the literal historical interpretation of scripture an "essential doctrine"? If someone doesn't interpret all of scripture as literal history, is he/she "not a real Christian," unorthodox, or heretical?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2021 16:07:15 GMT
Is the literal historical interpretation of scripture an "essential doctrine"? If someone doesn't interpret all of scripture as literal history, is he/she "not a real Christian," unorthodox, or heretical? Is "Jesus son of god" an allegory or is it literal? The "metaphor" gambit has been overused by Christians, each time something is proven wrong it becomes an "allegory", we're used to it. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 5, 2021 19:44:27 GMT
Is the literal historical interpretation of scripture an "essential doctrine"? If someone doesn't interpret all of scripture as literal history, is he/she "not a real Christian," unorthodox, or heretical? The Apostles treated Scripture as true. True, Paul did use allegory but he also emphasized that it was allegory. When it comes to these matters I trust the ancients more than I do modern scholars. There is too much political sway in how some scholars today interpret Scripture. We must be careful not to treat the word of God with contempt. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 5, 2021 21:39:25 GMT
Is the literal historical interpretation of scripture an "essential doctrine"? If someone doesn't interpret all of scripture as literal history, is he/she "not a real Christian," unorthodox, or heretical? The Apostles treated Scripture as true. True, Paul did use allegory but he also emphasized that it was allegory. When it comes to these matters I trust the ancients more than I do modern scholars. There is too much political sway in how some scholars today interpret Scripture. We must be careful not to treat the word of God with contempt. You persist in dichotomizing "true" and "allegories." "Allegory" is not the opposite of "true." |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 6, 2021 0:39:50 GMT
The Apostles treated Scripture as true. True, Paul did use allegory but he also emphasized that it was allegory. When it comes to these matters I trust the ancients more than I do modern scholars. There is too much political sway in how some scholars today interpret Scripture. We must be careful not to treat the word of God with contempt. You persist in dichotomizing "true" and "allegories." "Allegory" is not the opposite of "true." If the Flood is allegory then the Flood is not true. That is not what Scripture says. This allegory business came from Darwinists who only want to make the Bible conform to their desires. Genesis chapters 1--11 are not allegory. Its true history. But perhaps you feel more intellectual about yourself by denying these things and reinterpreting these accounts as mythical folktales. But God doesn't lie. Its man who lies. It all boils down to who you're gonna trust: God or man? Obviously the Torah is God approved on Mt.Sinai. I really don't think that God's foreknowledge would allow people to believe a lie thinking it was true. God doesn't lie. Evolutionists lie. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on May 6, 2021 1:26:00 GMT
You persist in dichotomizing "true" and "allegories." "Allegory" is not the opposite of "true." If the Flood is allegory then the Flood is not true. That is not what Scripture says. This allegory business came from Darwinists who only want to make the Bible conform to their desires. Genesis chapters 1--11 are not allegory. Its true history. But perhaps you feel more intellectual about yourself by denying these things and reinterpreting these accounts as mythical folktales. But God doesn't lie. Its man who lies. It all boils down to who you're gonna trust: God or man? Obviously the Torah is God approved on Mt.Sinai. I really don't think that God's foreknowledge would allow people to believe a lie thinking it was true. God doesn't lie. Evolutionists lie.
Where'd all the water go again?
|
|
|
|
Post by CadesCove on May 6, 2021 1:35:03 GMT
If the Flood is allegory then the Flood is not true. That is not what Scripture says. This allegory business came from Darwinists who only want to make the Bible conform to their desires. Genesis chapters 1--11 are not allegory. Its true history. But perhaps you feel more intellectual about yourself by denying these things and reinterpreting these accounts as mythical folktales. But God doesn't lie. Its man who lies. It all boils down to who you're gonna trust: God or man? Obviously the Torah is God approved on Mt.Sinai. I really don't think that God's foreknowledge would allow people to believe a lie thinking it was true. God doesn't lie. Evolutionists lie.
Where'd all the water go again?
All the animals drank it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 6, 2021 13:32:05 GMT
You persist in dichotomizing "true" and "allegories." "Allegory" is not the opposite of "true." If the Flood is allegory then the Flood is not true. That is not what Scripture says. This allegory business came from Darwinists who only want to make the Bible conform to their desires. Genesis chapters 1--11 are not allegory. Its true history. But perhaps you feel more intellectual about yourself by denying these things and reinterpreting these accounts as mythical folktales. But God doesn't lie. Its man who lies. It all boils down to who you're gonna trust: God or man? Obviously the Torah is God approved on Mt.Sinai. I really don't think that God's foreknowledge would allow people to believe a lie thinking it was true. God doesn't lie. Evolutionists lie. Once again (probably for the third or fourth time?), "truth" and "allegory" are not opposites. There are other options between "historical fact" and "allegory." I guess I'll start a new thread on that. That is not the point of the thread. The point is at what point is your interpretation of scripture a determiner of the validity of your faith? |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on May 6, 2021 17:22:48 GMT
All powerful beings that send messages that are up to interpretation that help you determine if you spend eternity in fire. Plenty of entries are are plainly untrue.
Hardly beings worth any worship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2021 17:30:37 GMT
All powerful beings that send messages that are up to interpretation that help you determine if you spend eternity in fire. Plenty of entries are are plainly untrue. Hardly beings worth any worship. These bozos all crap the same kind of stuff but each of them think that their crap doesn't stink. It's funny how each people with a particular religion will look upon anybody who has even a slightly "different truth" like they are talking shit while two minutes of awareness would make them realize that they are ALL the same. Religious twits of the world, unite, you are all the same, whether you think that god impregnates virgins of that he seduces women by turning into a swan. You're full of the same shit!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 6, 2021 18:44:17 GMT
All powerful beings that send messages that are up to interpretation that help you determine if you spend eternity in fire. Plenty of entries are are plainly untrue. Hardly beings worth any worship. Any text is subject to interpretation. That is one of the valid observations of postmodernism, although I'm not sure how far you can take the idea that "authorial intent does not exist." The issue of authorial intent, however, is something that needs to be grappled with. Of course, a Christian understanding of biblical interpretation must include the role of the Holy Spirit (which should overcome the "authorial intent" problem). It's also worth noting that the Christian Church pre-existed any New Testament text. As for "determining if you spend eternity in fire"...I guess if you want to hold to medieval interpretations of the texts at the expense of what the texts meant to the original authors (which, of course, should inform what they mean today)? And, making the "problem of your eternal destiny" the centre of the meaning of the text is also somewhat of a medieval construct. If that was the whole point, you'd think the biblical authors would have spent a lot more time on it. The problem is that we're preconditioned to read the text through that lens because of the influence of medieval theology. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 8, 2021 17:32:03 GMT
Any text is subject to interpretation. That is one of the valid observations of postmodernism, although I'm not sure how far you can take the idea that "authorial intent does not exist." You will find some weirdos saying this, but serious postmodern theorists don't. The modernist movement generally said that the correct way to interpret a text was to understand the author's cultural background and use that to determine the meaning of the text. The postmodern movement said that interpretation always has two parts: the author and the reader. Since reading necessarily entails interpretation by the reader, we can't say that authorial intent is the sole legitimate way to read a text. Since various readers can and will interpret text in different ways, reader interpretations are also legitimate subjects of study. This insight undergirds ideas like queer legal studies, feminist hermeneutics, and plenty of other things that sound absurd at first hearing. A postmodern take is that this is a reality more than a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 8, 2021 20:55:08 GMT
Any text is subject to interpretation. That is one of the valid observations of postmodernism, although I'm not sure how far you can take the idea that "authorial intent does not exist." You will find some weirdos saying this, but serious postmodern theorists don't. The modernist movement generally said that the correct way to interpret a text was to understand the author's cultural background and use that to determine the meaning of the text. The postmodern movement said that interpretation always has two parts: the author and the reader. Since reading necessarily entails interpretation by the reader, we can't say that authorial intent is the sole legitimate way to read a text. Since various readers can and will interpret text in different ways, reader interpretations are also legitimate subjects of study. This insight undergirds ideas like queer legal studies, feminist hermeneutics, and plenty of other things that sound absurd at first hearing. There may be more weirdos saying this than you think. I first heard it from an immediate family member who has a Master's degree in English. And yet, given the extant texts that predate medieval theology, it's possible to go back and question what we've inherited. |
|
