I, for one, will be sitting upon my ivory tower lobbing insults at those below me.
I, for one, will be sitting upon my ivory tower lobbing insults at those below me.
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Are you saying it is impossible for the Bible to have been written purely with symbolic meaning? Symbolic meaning does not mean it's without value or carefully (divinely) calculated effect. I find no logical reason to rule it out, which means that I have to stay open to this possibility, until logic says otherwise. The scientific understanding of reality today makes for a rather complex totality, and the extent of this complexity is still unclear (all that "dark energy" etc). This modern understanding does not rhyme well with what the Bible actually says. So if the former is a more accurate description of reality (despite not covering God yet), and the Bible is still without fault, then I must forget about interpreting the latter in the literal sense. In what sense can it still be true then? I say symbolically. That's a theoretical possibility of how true the Bible is. Just thought that could be of interest for the author of the OP, if no-one else.
GNOTHI SEAUTON (Know Thyself) - precept inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Greece
MEDEN AGAN (Nothing To Excess) - another precept inscribed in the aforementioned place
How many people believe something has absolutely no bearing on whether it's true, so "lots of people believe x" cannot be used to determine how true the bible is.
By this reasoning, I could take any book to be purely symbolic without having to provide a reason as to why I believe it to be so. You seem to be arguing from the premise that the bible is without fault to start with, which defeats the entire point of the thread. If I believe that Harry Potter, for instance, is without fault, I could frame wizards and hogwarts and voldemort as symbolic representations of reality too, but until I'd provide evidence or at least a compelling reason why it's true, I doubt any sane person would agree with me that Harry Potter contains some kind of deep truth.
#JusticeForCookie #JusticeForCal #JusticeForAkar #JusticeForAthelchan
You seem bent on misreading my input. If you can't do better, it would be a waste of time to continue this discussion with you.
Philosophically, I can assume something to be true without acknowledging it to be true, just to see what the line of thinking takes me. Are you not familiar with the concept? Common take in philosophical discussions at academic levels.
I have already stated two reasons why the Bible could be interpreted in the symbolic sense. Quite plainly, too, for those who want to see it. I'll try again. The question was: How true is the Bible? First reason came from this line of thought (more spelled out here): (1) the world looks like a very complex thing; (2) the capacity for the average person to understand complex things at the time when the Bible was written is likely to have been less than that of the average person today; (3) if there's anything divine about the creation of the Bible, then its primary target ought to be the people who lived closest to the time of its creation, and any person of similar mindset (later generations of different understanding could be addressed by other scriptures later); (4) the account of complex truths must be simplified for audiences not capable of grasping complex things; and (5) one way of simplifying things is to use symbols. Second reason came from this line of thought: if modern scientific understanding says that the Bible cannot be true in the literal sense, and the former understanding is correct, then in what manner can one imagine the Bible to still be true? Answer: symbolically. If you can think of an other way, with a greater likelihood of it being true, I'm all ears.
May I remind you again that holding a theory of the Bible being true in a literal sense or a theory about the Bible being true in a symbolic sense does not necessarily mean that one believes the theories to be correct.
But I suspect this will be my last words on the matter in this thread.
GNOTHI SEAUTON (Know Thyself) - precept inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Greece
MEDEN AGAN (Nothing To Excess) - another precept inscribed in the aforementioned place
What you've done here is answer the question "How can/could the bible be true?", which is an entirely distinct question from "How true is the bible?" I appreciate your effort in trying to clear up your position, but the answer is the same as last post. Since apparently I failed to convey what I meant, here's a more abstract formulation: Providing a justification for how the bible could be true cannot be used to determine how true the bible is. An utterly symbolic work could not be literally true, but it could still be completely true if one accepts that texts can have a deeper meaning than what is literally written, which clearly you do since you've been talking about symbols and their meaning for the last three posts.
#JusticeForCookie #JusticeForCal #JusticeForAkar #JusticeForAthelchan
From a strictly historical perspective, it’s unlikely that the numbers in Genesis were chosen for any reason other than their symbolic significance. In the Mesopotamian sexagesimal system, six is the number of wholeness and completion, a synonymous expression of one whole unit or a complete rotation. Whereas seven is a divine number, the first to be inexpressible as a finite sexagesimal fraction, the seven celestial bodies, the seven Mesopotamian deities who create, and the seven notes of their musical scale (each note based on a measurement corresponding to each deity’s number). Rather than representing distant memories (as is widely believed), the author(s) of Genesis were fully aware of Mesopotamian religious ideology, which was deliberately engaged with and repurposed. Mesopotamian deities were represented as simply inanimate objects (the sun, the moon, etc.) created by Yahweh, whereas their divine aspects (such as creation) were attributed to Yahweh.
Well it won't come as any surprise that I believe the Bible to be the word of God as if He Personally did the writing Himself. Therefore it is inerrant in its formation, its instruction and its promises. There are two ways in which it is read, one by the dead letter and two by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The very first thing man has to understand about it is that it is all about God first and foremost. Man is but a bitpart player in the story yet an essential part. As the story unfolds it becomes apparent that God determines every single aspect of not only our lives but all creation as time goes on. He is in total control of everything that happens on our planet as well as the others. Indeed in His time all things have been brought together and finished yet we are in our timeframe still working through His story. So, like any good thriller we have goodies and baddies and in this one the whole world is caste as baddie, dead in its sin. The good part is that a " goodie " will come to rescue many from their sin which happened by Jesus Christ, the Son of God becoming a man to make a once only sacrifice for sin that covers all time but not all mankind. This He did at Golgotha by paying the price of sin, dying and rising again to life. This was also symbolic of what regeneration does for the new believer. From the beginning of time or the fall of man the world has come up with all sorts of counter beliefs but not one offers what God and His word offer, why? Because there is only One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit Who made us.
I forget in the Bible where it clearly states God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same being. Would you share the verse please? Not an interpretation too please. The actual verse where it clearly says it. Thx
It doesn't. The whole trinity nonsense is a creation of the later church.
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
John 1. John 1:1 says the Word was God, John 1:14 said the Word became flesh and lived among us, while John 1:15 identifies this being and John 1:30 identifies this being as Jesus. Saying 1 + 1+ 2 is the thing as saying 4. Most of us are smart enough to know that 2 + 2 is the same thing as 4. But a few are not as capable, and their limited understanding prevents thrm.from.realizing that 2 + 2 is the same as 4.
1 John 5:7 "For there are 3 that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these 3 are one"
Note Genesis clearly says God created the world, yet John 1 clearly states the world was made by the Word (Jesus). In Genesis 1:26 God said."Let us make man in our image", not "Let me make man in my image" There is evidence of the Trinity in the Old Testament https://crossexamined.org/the-trinit...stament-part1/ http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html. Note how the Hebrew word for absolute oneness, yachid, is never used in reference to God (Elohim). The Hebrew word that is far by the most often translated God is Elohim, which is ther plural form.. Of the 2845 time God is used in the Old Testament, 2607 times Elohim (plural) form is used. The Old Testament had "I am the Lord your God (Elohim) who lead you out of thr land of Egypt. You shall have no other gods (Elohim) before Me" Exodus 20:2-3
There are numerous statements made by Jesus about Jesus where he claims attributes that only are applicable God. Jesus claims authority to forgive sins, which only God can do, and performs a miracle ro prove he has that authority. He accepts worship, which is reserved to God (Elohim) alone.
Last edited by Common Soldier; August 10, 2020 at 01:43 PM.
The old saying, " You can take a horse to the water but you cannot make it drink, " comes to mind when dealing with such people dead in their sin. It's not that they cannot see it it is just that they do not want to see it because by doing so they would have to admit that they are resposible to Someone, in this case God.
Saying nonsense like "dead in their sin" makes you sound like a nutter to anyone who hasn't already bought into your apocalyptic .
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Physician, heal thyself.
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Still waiting on the trinity evidence. Amazing how the early church debated this and came up with “its in there if you imagine hard enough”. There was intense and often violent debate specifically because the Trinity explicitly isn’t in the Bible. Ask Nestor and Arius. That the Roman state which truly determined the Trinitarian nature of Jesus was his greatest opponent in life and whose apparatus ordered his death is one of the tastiest ironies in all of history.
He'd be rolling in his grave if he was the type to stay there for more than three daysThat the Roman state which truly determined the Trinitarian nature of Jesus was his greatest opponent in life and whose apparatus ordered his death is one of the tastiest ironies in all of history.
Check out the TWC D&D game!
Message me on Discord (.akar.) for an invite to the Thema Devia Discord
Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan
Last edited by Common Soldier; August 11, 2020 at 10:12 AM.
wanderwegger,
When Jesus Christ states that He and the Father are One is only one of many. " Before Moses was I AM, " is another. When speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well Jesus told her that He was the One that her religion believed would come. When He said that " He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, " He was declaring His Divinity. Oh there are many others far too much for your brain to take in but then the Bible tells plainly of people like you so there's no disputing that. As for the Bible, my favourite is the KJV for it's the one that led me to my conversion. Is it true? You can bank on it being true.