Biblical literalism

[lolbert]

Regarding the New Testament, any embellishment would have occurred fairly early after Jesus' ministry. A good case cannot be made for a 2000 year embellishment. I would think that all scholars, non-believing and believing, would say that the texts that we have collected and translated as the New Testament, are pretty close to the original documents that existed from which they came. Speaking more directly about just the Gospel accounts, any embellishment would have occurred in the oral versions of the events before being committed to redacted documents. So pretty much what we read today has not been embellished at all from the original writings. There are a handful of verses and small passages that don't match up across all the available manuscripts, but in what those portions add that would be unique and the quantity in total where there are such questions, the counter arguement is more likely regarding time and the consistency of the New Testament. It hasn't changed.

There are many who believe that the accounts we have of Jesus were embellished just after His death by His disciples. However, I have found the academic study of that goes something like this: The Gospel accounts tell of many supernatural events regarding Jesus. We know that supernatural events can't happen, therefore what portions of the Gospels are really about the real Jesus and what sayings that we possess are actually His sayings. What should be evident is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus are criticized from a rationalist approach which amounts to a huge bias in this particular subject.

lolbert, do you have any major questions in life that you haven't found satisfactory answers for yet? Perhaps one is why Christians would believe in the New Testament literally regarding the accounts of Jesus and that is why you are here. I have faced that question (and other even more important questions, like creation or not) as an unbeliever before and believed I had settled on satisfactory answers, but I still found myself engaged in conversation about it very frequently and very much enjoyed defending my satisfactory answers. So much so I did it over, and over, and over again for many years to as many Christians that I could lock horns with. That in and of itself became a question of sorts to me.

I daresay historians would disagree with the statement that the gospels have not been changed. *Firstly, because no one knows what the original sources look like. *The earliest manuscripts we have date to no earlier than the second century, and there is ample evidence of tampering in the centuries that follow (whether intentional or not is not really important). *The argument regarding the supernatural occurrences is not really "they're supernatural, so we know they didn't happen." *It's more along the lines of the old adage "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and there just happen to be no accounts written by people who were not followers of Christ that corroborate his claimed miracles. *Any independent sources which mention Jesus seem to refer to him mostly as a Jewish trouble-maker, rather than a genuine-miracle worker. *And, as I've already mentioned, the documents which do claim he worked miracles (the gospels) were written by followers and then suffered centuries worth of tampering and transcription errors by various churchmen.

Sure, I have plenty of questions I haven't found satisfactory answers for. *But I don't think making a leap to Christianity is going to provide a satisfactory answer for them.

[Frederick]

The bible has a lot of literal meaning. Some see most of it as symbolic, i do not believe it is.

The only sure guide to understanding what is literal and what is symbolic is the Holy Spirit. If anyone thinks there is some kind of technique other than the leading of the Holy Spirit then i believe they are deceived.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

And if the Holy Spirit leads one person to interpret literally a passage, and another to interpret allegorically?

[watchinginawe]

I daresay historians would disagree with the statement that the gospels have not been changed. *Firstly, because no one knows what the original sources look like. *The earliest manuscripts we have date to no earlier than the second century, and there is ample evidence of tampering in the centuries that follow (whether intentional or not is not really important).

Well, if we have those manuscripts you mention (which we do), where is the tampering for 2000 years? My Bible compares favorably to the second century manuscripts. Therefore, no embellishments for 1750 years at least. The study of the which manuscripts are oldest and which manuscripts are most like the originals is done by believers and non-believers alike, but not by "historians". As I offered already, there is a remarkable consistency among all manuscripts and where they differ does not lend credence to your statement of being "extremely embellished over the last 2000 years".

*The argument regarding the supernatural occurrences is not really "they're supernatural, so we know they didn't happen." *It's more along the lines of the old adage "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and there just happen to be no accounts written by people who were not followers of Christ that corroborate his claimed miracles.

lolbert, there is the same lack of independant evidence for the non-supernatural things that Jesus did. For example, being baptized by John the Baptist. However, the study of whether that actually happened is considered. But the voice from heaven that was heard afterward is rejected out of hand and labeled myth or embellishment. The evidence for either is not the criteria for consideration.

I think we can look to an example. You wrote: "I put no more stock in stories of his supernatural nature, than I do in similar stories about Sathya Sai Baba...". See? You just plain ole don't put stock in ANY stories of the supernatural. There is no supernatural. That is your belief, right? Regardless, it is one thing to say that one hasn't seen any evidence which might indicate the supernatural, but clearly another to believe that such evidence does not and cannot exist. Let's take another example. Even though we have no conclusive evidence that life developed spontaneously on Earth, one might believe even in the absence of such evidence that life did develop spontaneously on Earth. Now to ME, THAT would be equivalent to my version of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But for one believing this, they would believe that the evidence actually does exist or can ultimately be demonstrated, but it just hasn't been discovered yet. Even more, they might extend their belief, even in the absence of evidence, to include a belief that life, being able to develop spontaneously, must therefore be present in abundance elsewhere in the universe. See how far a belief can take you in the absence of evidence? Even a belief without even the shred of doubt?

In summary, to one who believes that life arose spontaneously on Earth, the supernatural claims of Jesus are myth because there is no supernatural, not because of some "extraordinary claim" business. The criteria for either claim as a belief is one's philosophical worldview.

*Any independent sources which mention Jesus seem to refer to him mostly as a Jewish trouble-maker, rather than a genuine-miracle worker.

So I wonder how we are here 2,000 years later talking about Jesus? Do you suppose that there will be an active religion based on the claims of Sathya Sai Baba's disciples 2,000 years from now? ( I think I'll think better of asking you if there is a Sathya Sai Baba forum. )

Sure, I have plenty of questions I haven't found satisfactory answers for. *But I don't think making a leap to Christianity is going to provide a satisfactory answer for them.

Maybe not. But I am glad you are here discussing Christianity anyway.

[Desperaux]

I do to. Well said.

People who do not believe God exists cannot believe anything in the bible like this. But when someone actually believes God exists and that God is GOD then these things become nothing extraordinary.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Amen from me also!

Those who have not come to belief in Jesus Christ have not received the revelation that the word of God is a powerful, living document. Nothing we can say in our own strength can convince them of that. Only God can by His Spirit, just as He has done with everyone who knows Jesus personally.

[BroRog]

I daresay historians would disagree with the statement that the gospels have not been changed. *Firstly, because no one knows what the original sources look like. *The earliest manuscripts we have date to no earlier than the second century, and there is ample evidence of tampering in the centuries that follow (whether intentional or not is not really important). *The argument regarding the supernatural occurrences is not really "they're supernatural, so we know they didn't happen." *It's more along the lines of the old adage "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and there just happen to be no accounts written by people who were not followers of Christ that corroborate his claimed miracles. *Any independent sources which mention Jesus seem to refer to him mostly as a Jewish trouble-maker, rather than a genuine-miracle worker. *And, as I've already mentioned, the documents which do claim he worked miracles (the gospels) were written by followers and then suffered centuries worth of tampering and transcription errors by various churchmen.

Sure, I have plenty of questions I haven't found satisfactory answers for. *But I don't think making a leap to Christianity is going to provide a satisfactory answer for them.

The leap is infinity large for those who don't want to jump.

[Adstars]

And if the Holy Spirit leads one person to interpret literally a passage, and another to interpret allegorically?

The Holy Spirit does not give two different people conflicting messages. It is only ever the case that one person is saying the truth while the other person is not in this case.

Sometimes it may be that a portion of scripture has both a literal meaning and an allegorical meaning. But when tihs happens the two will not be in conflict with each other.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[Desperaux]

The Holy Spirit does not give two different people conflicting messages. It is only ever the case that one person is saying the truth while the other person is not in this case.

Sometimes it may be that a portion of scripture has both a literal meaning and an allegorical meaning. But when tihs happens the two will not be in conflict with each other.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

This is correct!

[teddyv]

The Holy Spirit does not give two different people conflicting messages. It is only ever the case that one person is saying the truth while the other person is not in this case.

Sometimes it may be that a portion of scripture has both a literal meaning and an allegorical meaning. But when tihs happens the two will not be in conflict with each other.

This is correct!

Then why are there regular discussions and debates on Biblical meaning? Perhaps we should be a lot more careful when we unequivocally state that our personal interpretation is of the Holy Spirit.

[Desperaux]

Then why are there regular discussions and debates on Biblical meaning? Perhaps we should be a lot more careful when we unequivocally state that our personal interpretation is of the Holy Spirit.

Yes we should. Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. There are those who hear Him and those who hear only their own minds speaking out of human wisdom. there is a third group, who hear another voice altogether---a seductive one---and following that one leads to a prison of error, and contains another kind of power that can keep ne trapped there unless Holy Spirit opens one's eyes to the truth.

We have to be wise as serpents!

Matthew 10:16
“Look, I am sending you out as sheep among wolves. So be as shrewd as snakes and harmless as doves.

[lolbert]

Well, if we have those manuscripts you mention (which we do), where is the tampering for 2000 years? My Bible compares favorably to the second century manuscripts. Therefore, no embellishments for 1750 years at least. The study of the which manuscripts are oldest and which manuscripts are most like the originals is done by believers and non-believers alike, but not by "historians". As I offered already, there is a remarkable consistency among all manuscripts and where they differ does not lend credence to your statement of being "extremely embellished over the last 2000 years".

lolbert, there is the same lack of independant evidence for the non-supernatural things that Jesus did. For example, being baptized by John the Baptist. However, the study of whether that actually happened is considered. But the voice from heaven that was heard afterward is rejected out of hand and labeled myth or embellishment. The evidence for either is not the criteria for consideration.

I think we can look to an example. You wrote: "I put no more stock in stories of his supernatural nature, than I do in similar stories about Sathya Sai Baba...". See? You just plain ole don't put stock in ANY stories of the supernatural. There is no supernatural. That is your belief, right? Regardless, it is one thing to say that one hasn't seen any evidence which might indicate the supernatural, but clearly another to believe that such evidence does not and cannot exist. Let's take another example. Even though we have no conclusive evidence that life developed spontaneously on Earth, one might believe even in the absence of such evidence that life did develop spontaneously on Earth. Now to ME, THAT would be equivalent to my version of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". But for one believing this, they would believe that the evidence actually does exist or can ultimately be demonstrated, but it just hasn't been discovered yet. Even more, they might extend their belief, even in the absence of evidence, to include a belief that life, being able to develop spontaneously, must therefore be present in abundance elsewhere in the universe. See how far a belief can take you in the absence of evidence? Even a belief without even the shred of doubt?

In summary, to one who believes that life arose spontaneously on Earth, the supernatural claims of Jesus are myth because there is no supernatural, not because of some "extraordinary claim" business. The criteria for either claim as a belief is one's philosophical worldview.

So I wonder how we are here 2,000 years later talking about Jesus? Do you suppose that there will be an active religion based on the claims of Sathya Sai Baba's disciples 2,000 years from now? ( I think I'll think better of asking you if there is a Sathya Sai Baba forum. )

Maybe not. But I am glad you are here discussing Christianity anyway.

I am not an expert on the historical manuscripts and am not equipped to provide you with an exhaustive list of differences, but one should suffice to demonstrate my point.

The oldest version of John, which we have, has a verse that reads "There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one." *This was altered by the fourth century to read "There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one in Christ Jesus, and there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one." *The explicit Trinitarianism of the 4th century passage bears little resemblance to the earlier one. *Even if you argue that the original hints at Trinitarianism, then you at least have to admit that it was altered to be more explicit, after Trinitarianism was already an established doctrine of the church. *If you admit to ideological tampering of this sort, it follows that other tampering can be expected. *As it turns out, there is ample evidence of additions to the gospels and back-dating of concepts that were adopted by the later church. *There is ample reading material available on this topic, if you are interested. I would recommend "A History of Christianity," by Paul Johnson.

I reject stories of the supernatural, not because they can never be proved, but because none of them have ever been proved and the only "evidence" for any of them is entirely anecdotal. *I don't buy into Sathya Sai Baba's claims of supernatural power, because all of his "miracles" that appear on youtube are cheap parlor tricks that could be easily reproduced by David Copperfield. *Did Jesus perform similar parlor tricks? *Maybe, maybe not. *Either way, a 2000 year-old game of telephone would be more than sufficient for whatever his real-life actions may have been to be transformed into stories of genuine miracles. *Evidence of the supernatural can exist. *If I saw a man wave his hand across the prosthetic limb of a war veteran and see that prosthetic leg suddenly become a real one, I would instantly be a believer. *Unfortunately, there is no evidence of anything like this having occurred. *Anecdotes are all we have, and eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. *It's a shame that eye-witness testimony is considered a silver bullet in criminal cases.

We know that life arose at some point in the history of Earth, because it exists now. *How it arose is another question, and "spontaneous" is not the likely answer. *It's more likely that macro-molecules came to exist purely from natural forces (this has been mimicked in the lab, by the way), and then began to replicate. *Where to draw the line between "replicating organic molecule" and "living organism," is not easy to tell, for the same reason that zoologists frequently debate about what species to call some newly discovered fossil. *Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the explanation is, with respect to this conversation. *All that really needs to be understood here is, "Life exists. *Therefore, it arose by some method at some point in the past."

Will people be talking about Sathya Sai Baba in 2000 years? *Who knows? *No one could have predicted, 2000 years ago, that we'd still be talking about Jesus. *Christianity came pretty close to extinction. *However, it's longevity is not proof of its truth value. *We're still talking about Muhammad, 1400 years later, and I daresay people will still be talking about him in another 600. And, by the way, Islam is a quickly growing religion, while Christianity is in decline. *Hinduism is older than any other existing religion, yet neither you nor I put any stock in that.

To your last statment: Thanks. *I'm glad that you are willing to have a calm, civil conversation about this.

[Desperaux]

John 20:24-31

Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 One of the twelve disciples, Thomas (nicknamed the Twin), was not with the others when Jesus came. 25 They told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he replied, “I won’t believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.”

26 Eight days later the disciples were together again, and this time Thomas was with them. The doors were locked; but suddenly, as before, Jesus was standing among them. “Peace be with you,” he said. 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!”

28 “My Lord and my God!” Thomas exclaimed.

29 Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”

Purpose of the Book
30 The disciples saw Jesus do many other miraculous signs in addition to the ones recorded in this book. 31 But these are written so that you may continue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing in him you will have life by the power of his name.

[watchinginawe]

I am not an expert on the historical manuscripts and am not equipped to provide you with an exhaustive list of differences, but one should suffice to demonstrate my point.

The oldest version of John, which we have, has a verse that reads "There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one." *This was altered by the fourth century to read "There are three which bear witness, the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are one in Christ Jesus, and there are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one." *The explicit Trinitarianism of the 4th century passage bears little resemblance to the earlier one. *Even if you argue that the original hints at Trinitarianism, then you at least have to admit that it was altered to be more explicit, after Trinitarianism was already an established doctrine of the church. *If you admit to ideological tampering of this sort, it follows that other tampering can be expected. *As it turns out, there is ample evidence of additions to the gospels and back-dating of concepts that were adopted by the later church. *There is ample reading material available on this topic, if you are interested. I would recommend "A History of Christianity," by Paul Johnson.

Sure, I am aware of that. There is a note in my Bible regarding it (I have a KJV). The KJV was translated in 1611 from the manuscript which is highly Trinitarian. 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. There is a note in my Bible at verse 7 which reads: It is generally agreed that v. 7 has no real authority, and has been inserted. The note means inserted into the manuscript from which the KJV used to translate from.

But I have a more modern New Revised Standard Bible (1989) which puts the passage as: 1 John 5:7 There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

I have already admitted that the manuscripts which we have do not agree in every aspect word for word. In some instances, there are differences that do not add up to mere copyist's errors. However, all of that is out in the open and there is no evidence of 2000 years of embellishment. Indeed, the example I gave above shows that the most recent Bible translations appear to be more accurate in these instances. (Note, not everybody agrees. The "science" used to determine what manuscript is most like the original document is called textual criticism. Textual criticism rejects the manuscript used in the KJV translation above in preference to one which does not have the suspected addition.) Even where there are these differences, in totality they do not approach "accounts that have been extremely embellished over the last 2000 years". Nor do they amount to a history of centuries of tampering with. The translations of the Bible are as accurate as they can be given the manuscripts that we have and are very reliable. Now, as I offered originally, any point of embellishment would have happened before what we have in the way of manuscripts. The manuscripts we have don't support your claim.

I kind of think we are going round and round on this one though.

I reject stories of the supernatural, not because they can never be proved, but because none of them have ever been proved and the only "evidence" for any of them is entirely anecdotal. *I don't buy into Sathya Sai Baba's claims of supernatural power, because all of his "miracles" that appear on youtube are cheap parlor tricks that could be easily reproduced by David Copperfield. *Did Jesus perform similar parlor tricks? *Maybe, maybe not. *Either way, a 2000 year-old game of telephone would be more than sufficient for whatever his real-life actions may have been to be transformed into stories of genuine miracles. *Evidence of the supernatural can exist. *If I saw a man wave his hand across the prosthetic limb of a war veteran and see that prosthetic leg suddenly become a real one, I would instantly be a believer. *Unfortunately, there is no evidence of anything like this having occurred. *Anecdotes are all we have, and eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. *It's a shame that eye-witness testimony is considered a silver bullet in criminal cases.

I will demonstrate my point regarding this in your next quote.

We know that life arose at some point in the history of Earth, because it exists now. *How it arose is another question, and "spontaneous" is not the likely answer.

You know, we should probably agree to quit disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Here is a definition of spontaneous: "coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned". (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spontaneous ) Now compare that to your explanation:

*It's more likely that macro-molecules came to exist purely from natural forces (this has been mimicked in the lab, by the way), and then began to replicate. *Where to draw the line between "replicating organic molecule" and "living organism," is not easy to tell, for the same reason that zoologists frequently debate about what species to call some newly discovered fossil. *Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the explanation is, with respect to this conversation. *All that really needs to be understood here is, "Life exists. *Therefore, it arose by some method at some point in the past."

Sounds spontaneous to me. Biology has a criteria for life, but certainly all life can be categorized as "replicating organic molecules". However, using "organic" in that explanation might be a bit awkward. But organic seems a transient word now anyway.

Now the point. Even though we don't have evidence that "life arose", you assume that the mere presence of life now proves it. What if life came about supernaturally? Turn your mind loose a minute and consider this. All that really needs to be understood here is, "Life exists. Therefore, life was created by some method at some point in the past." Why not? Can we get life to occur naturally today? Expanding the thought, we might offer: That since we know that life cannot start spontaneously, and because life exists now, then... Right? But that is impossible by your thinking. Your thinking is controlled by something, let's call it a judgment process, which incorporates data into what it is you might believe. Likewise, the supernatural accounts of Jesus are assumed to be myth because "we know the supernatural does not exist".

To your last statment: Thanks. *I'm glad that you are willing to have a calm, civil conversation about this.

And thank you likewise. It is healthy for each of us to expose our beliefs to critical examination.

[Adstars]

Then why are there regular discussions and debates on Biblical meaning? Perhaps we should be a lot more careful when we unequivocally state that our personal interpretation is of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corrinthians 11
18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you.

There must be differances. So that the truth can come out and be seen to be the truth.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[Frederick]

The Holy Spirit does not give two different people conflicting messages. It is only ever the case that one person is saying the truth while the other person is not in this case.

The holy spirit has informed me that the holy spirit does indeed give two different people conflicting messages. Neither of us can demonstrate "I am correct and the other is wrong". Because of this, "holy spirit" is useless in any practical sense. It's just a fluffy religious way of saying, "this is what I believe on faith" (remember faith is belief without evidence and in many cases despite contrary evidence).

That's the problem with relying on what you call "the holy spirit". It's just anecdotal things often influenced by the desires of the individual. It kind of goes back to the reality that everyone's God is their own personal God, at least when it concerns this amorphous thing described in the judeo/christian/islamic religions. I've found from discussions with religious individuals that "god" is formed in ones own image, not the other way around.

Sometimes it may be that a portion of scripture has both a literal meaning and an allegorical meaning. But when tihs happens the two will not be in conflict with each other.

How exactly does this work? Either Genesis, for example, is allegorical or it is literal, is it not?

[Desperaux]

Holy Spirit is a Person. He reveals the truth about all things. He will never reveal one truth to one and something else to another. That would make God a liar. No--when there are diametrically opposed beliefs, one is not hearing from God.

That said, a person who is walking in the Spirit will have a revelation that is personal from the word of God, that speaks personally to his or her own life situation---that is called Rhema. Another person can read the same passage in the bible and receive a totally other Rhema--that is something different. But God will never oppose Himself. When we see opposition, we know someone is wrong, and it ain't God.



.