Interpretation of the Bible

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
I do believe the Creation, Flood, Exodus, etc as stated in scripures. Why believe in Jesus and His miracles if you doubt the OT's veracity?.

Jesus miracles haven't been disproven. Adam and Eve have definitively been disproven. Noahs Ark has been definitively disproven. Rock solid science and archeology disprove them. Jesus miracles have not been disproven.

a reply to: FlyersFan

If you say so. There's no arguing with someone who is set in their ways. I guess that makes you right by default.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
If you say so.

Because proven science and archeology say so. Absolute, rock solid, proof.

There's no arguing with someone who is set in their ways.

... as evidenced by Christian fundamentalists who insist that Adam and Eve happened, and that Noahs Ark happened, when in fact they absolutely did not happen. No amount of truth can sink in through their indoctrination. Sad, really.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Geo-centricism, flat earth, those were both once "rock solid" ideas. I guess the hammer of truth put an end to that non-sense.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
Geo-centricism, flat earth, those were both once "rock solid" ideas.

No. They were just myths that were believed as real by uneducated peasants. They weren't 'science'. Astronomers and scientists have known about the round earth and the movements of the planets for thousands of years.

Rock solid unquestionable science proves Genesis and Noahs Ark didn't happen. Accepting reality doesn't change faith in God. Learn to deal with reality.

a reply to: FlyersFan
A reasonable amount of Genesis and the creation / flood story has been proven to be an interpretation of the even older Sumerian story. The flood myth is recorded by multiple ancient societies. It's actually possible that these things may have happened and that humanity is far older than we think.

The ancient radioactive city that was destroyed by what appears to be a nuclear blast in India is one archeological example that doesn't fit our current view for instance.

I believe God exists, and the bible stories have elements of truth but a from a time more than 6,000 years ago

a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts


I understand you questioning I mean no offense however I will not be answering your questionnaire as I don't see the reason to qualify my answer by my history.

The old and testimony scriptures are not what they appear to be.First and fore mostly it is NOT books that teaches morals and ethics of "how" to live life.The old testimony is mostly an outline of a history of a people called the nation of Israel.However it is not written in historical form.It is told from the perspective of the writers which are numerous and not clearly defined.The events and actions are not necessarily how things were.For example they attribute many of the things they did to a supreme being they called Yahweh.Many of these things are in complete contradiction to a "creator God".That is the core of the dilemma of the old testimony scriptures because they are extrapolations of a perspective of the Israelites history to fit their religious agenda whatever it may be.

The religious doctrine in it is not being "prescribed" to all men they are only documentation of wha they believed and did.For example just because they eventually created 613 ordinances that does not mean all men are to follow them.Those ordinances were creations by the Israelites for their people no one else.That is why it appears to be teaching a method of how to live by morals and ethics but it it is not. However that doesn't discount the things wrote.It just means they are not iron clad "Laws" of how to live life by a religious method of a nation of people that no longer exist.

The TRUTH of the old and new testimony scriptures are very basic..It has one and one purpose only.It is a testimony that testifies of Yahoshua..which means Yahweh(the creator God) IS salvation …which means deliverance.That is ALL Yahoshua ever said and did ..he "proclaimed" by statements of Truth the coming of the Kingdom of God through Yahoshua which is the deliverance from the realm of death.The old testimony testifies of the "nation of Israel" which is the archetype of ALL of mankind..the creator Gods "chosen people.Their history is all of mankind's history.From meager chaotic beginnings to enslavement to freedom to religious enslavement then to destruction and then one day resurrection to LIFE..the deliverance from the realm of death.

Yahoshua did NOT teach a method especially not a religion.Those are ALL extrapolations he called the traditions of men.It should be obvious he was not teaching because he clearly stated to his disciples in the prologue to the parable of the seed and soils that everything he taught was in parables and a parables purpose was so everyone except his disciples would not understand what he said because it was only "given" to them to "know"…and that is just the same and as true today as it was yesterday.

What Christians believe is being taught and told to them was only being given to" know"(not believe) to the disciples.All the things they believe was being said to them was only being said to the disciples.The only thing he said was for everyone else was that some would "believe" the apostles testimony of the Truth that only THEY "knew".All the others things are only spoke directly to the disciples to "know".They are the firstfruits of the firstfruit Yahoshua who is the seed…the living word of the creator God.That is as close to mysticism it gets.The disciples did their job and the Good news has survived YET it is not being preached by Christians.Christianity only preaches bad news such as …..unless you "believe" such and such doctrines of "my" religion (which are legion) you WILL NOT be saved AND you will be punished in torment of hell for eternity.That is the most heinous doctrine ever conceived of by man.

That is the dilemma of the scriptures.It appears to be something it is not even though it clearly states what it is… a "testimony"…a witness of the truth…..Yahoshua…the deliverance of ALL mankind from the realm of death and that is MORE than sufficient as good news.The religious teachings extrapolated from the scriptures are all just the "doctrines of men" that make void the living word of the creator God(which btw is Not the bible)..History has provided ample evidence of what that perversion has done.

However the fact is men will continue to worship the bible and their "religion as an idol as if it were "the word of God".They will make up doctrines that were formed through their faith of their "Belief System which is their religion.That is mankind's nature.They can only believe through their Belief system.It is impossible to "know" Truth through it…. only "belief".. which is NOT knowing.That is the double edged sword dilemma.

Fortunately it is all the process of "salvation"…deliverance from the realm of death or the realm of imperception(the meaning of hades).The apostles where the only ones (the few are chosen) that were delivered from their "religion" Belief System……then died…everyone else will die then eventually be completely delivered from their Belief System because the apostles were the only ones that "knew" Yahoshua.They were "sanctified" in the creator Gods word which is Truth.

The apostles were not morally and ethically superior.Yahoshua said the last will be first.They are the servants of all.The fact is ALL of mankind will be delivered they were just "delivered first" from their "religion".My suggestion to anyone is the scriptures have one purpose and do not take them as anything more.They testify to The Good news which is you will be delivered from the realm of death.To make it anymore than that is folly of religion and great heartache.The only way to "truly" knows what it means is to be delivered from your Belief System and that is not going to happen until after the physical death.

Salvation/deliverance is a process not an event.For "the many" it begins in the physical realm.They are growing"through the stages of the seed in the parable of the seed and soils.It is a "conception" not unlike the physical conception from seed (spermatozoon) to zygote to embryo to fetus to delivery/birth.Just as in the physical conception there is no way to "know" what stage you are in or do anything to cause it to happen or even be aware of the process at all because it is not being caused by you it is happening To you and ALL of it is being caused byThe Creator God. and THAT is a guarantee it will be completed and brought to fruition.

The Good News is ALL that is needed to know for the physical realm life.The scriptures only testify of the Good News they are NOT the good news.

a reply to: FlyersFan

It wasnt the peasants who persecuted Gallileo.

Newer data actually indicateds that the Earth has been slowely expanding at a rate of 0.06mm per year, that there are vast amounts of subterainian waters that play a roll in a specific class of diamond formations. We know that radio-active decay is not always consistent, and that evolution does not take millions of years. Also, mitochondrial dna indicates that Eve did exist.

There are no true constants in science, only perscieved constants. All of that blows a gaping hole in your "rock solid" science.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
All of that blows a gaping hole in your "rock solid" science.

Only in your fantasy. Noahs Ark and Genesis ... proven not to have happened by rock solid science. Your attempts to make excuses and cling to that which absolutely isn't true ... well, that's really baffling.

originally posted by: Words
a reply to: SpaceGoatFarts

As far as I know, nothing in the Bible tells me to interpret it literally, nor that it is the literal word of God. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

As far as you know, does anything in the Bible tell you to interpret it metaphorically?

Lol yes, it's a spiritual book, not a science manual. Also 2000 years of Christian theology and study by people much smarter than you and I, and they all talk about the importance of a correct interpretation of an old, translated text that was destined for a certain audience in a certain time.


Now that all of you have conveniently escaped my question by turning it around, let me ask you again:

Why would you read the Bible literally? Is it tradition? Is it because someone told you to? Or is it really a personal choice?

originally posted by: borntowatch
Maybe I got confused by you using the bibles inerrancy as a position and then adding literalism as an issue.
I believe it is inerrant but cant be taken literally as a whole, better?

I believe it is written by man and inspired by God, I believe God hasnt revealed everything within its words, what is written is enough. It is Gods word.

It's exactly my position too. Hence why this thread where I ask why some people think all of it should be read literally. As you pointed it, it's contradictory because some passages are obvious allegories. In that case, how can anyone say with 100% certainty that Genesis is literal and that the earth is 6000 years old, as the observation contradicts it. My questions were for them essentially, not the more "moderate" Christians.

originally posted by: Rex282

Great post, thanks

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: FlyersFan

It wasnt the peasants who persecuted Gallileo.

Galileo wasn't "persecuted" by the church. Galileo and other astronomers were highly regarded by the Vatican. The mistake Galileo was to mock the pope in a book via a character named "simplicio" (moron), and by refusing to apologize and change it.

It's a common anti-catholic belief to think the Church is against science but it's untrue. As stated before, countless priests and monks made great scientific discoveries.

Check this:

It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.

This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo.



Anti-scientific?

The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.

Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.



Clinging to Tradition?

Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.

Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.

Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.

During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.

Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.



Galileo "Confronts" Rome

Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.

At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.



Tortured for His Beliefs?

In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.

As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.

Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.

Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).

Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.

The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.

As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.



Infallibility

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.