Do You Interpret the Bible Literally?

Middletown Church website ^ | Unknown | George Zeller

[fortheDeclaration]

Bump for read

[ksen]

I answered yes to all six questions, do I pass? ;^)

[fortheDeclaration]

I answered yes to all six questions, do I pass? ;^)

Amen! You get an 'A'! :>)

[maestro]

GREAT ARTICLE.....................GREAT READ.....................BOOKMARKED

Thanks for posting this!!
m

Maranatha!

:-)

[Commander8]

The Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It is infallible and without error.
Is there any other way to interpret God's Word.

[xzins]

I am a literalist. I am not versed in point #5. I didn't even know it was an issue, and to be honest, had never thought about it.

Point number 1 is the hardest and the easiest at the same time for me. The implications of the Intelligent Design data have actually clarified the debate for me. The number of awesome design variations among and within the intelligently designed order of plant and animals (life) is so great as to make the "theistic evolution" position a bit ridiculous. If God were "guiding evolution" He would be intervening every day, every minute, every second, every nano-second to "create or make" another necessary evolutionary leap.

It's easier to believe that He'd just wrap it all up in one week long creative explosion.

[drstevej]

Re #5.

Dispensationalists see these sacrifices during the MK as a memorial. Israel having embraced the Messiah looks back to the cross as they had formerly pointed ahead to the cross.

Those who see the Church as the new Israel opt for a figurative interpretation.

[DouglasKC]

I agree with all six, but then there's number 7: Did God really bless and sanctify the 7th day? And did he ever remove his his blessing or sanctification or transfer it to another day that he created? :-)

[xzins]

sacrifices...memorial

Gonna cause a lot of trouble if any PETA members make it into the MK. :-)

[Bat_Chemist]

Is not that in high pride to prefer your own understandings before the wisdom of the Spirit of God, who indicted the Scriptures? Should not a humble man rather say, doubtless both are true though I cannot reconcile them.

Wow...I have not heard it said better or more succintly...wow. Humble repentance-of-pride BUMP!

[fortheDeclaration]

agree with all six, but then there's number 7: Did God really bless and sanctify the 7th day? And did he ever remove his his blessing or sanctification or transfer it to another day that he created? :-)

The Sabbath day was given as a sign for Israel (Eze.20:12) and is not repeated in the commandments as restated by Paul in Romans 13.

Moreover in Romans 14:6 he writes, One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike; let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind

[fortheDeclaration]

The Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It is infallible and without error. Is there any other way to interpret God's Word.

Amen brother!

[DouglasKC]

The Sabbath day was given as a sign for Israel (Eze.20:12) and is not repeated in the commandments as restated by Paul in Romans 13.

Yah, but then why did God create it at the beginning?

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made. And He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made.
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He had rested from all His work which God created to make.

Since it was blessed and sanctified (set apart) at the beginning, long before Israel, a literal interpetation of the bible would indicate that it's still blessed and sanctified because it was never deblessed or desanctified by God.

Moreover in Romans 14:6 he writes, One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike; let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind

Paul never mentions the sabbath in that verse or the chapter. In context, the whole chapter is about eating and drinking. What Paul is probably referring to is fasting. Some jews at the time thought they were holier than others cause they fasted on certain days of the week that others didn't. This is made clear in the next verse:

Rom 14:6 He who regards the day regards it to the Lord; and he not regarding the day, does not regard it to the Lord. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, does not eat to the Lord, and gives God thanks.

[jswift]

Since we are interpreting the Bible literally, what does this literally mean:

“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (Exodus 20:11).

What does it mean to say the Lord rested? Was He tired? How is what He did on the day He rested different from what He did the other days? Is God different when resting than He is when busy? If He was different on the seventh day (resting) from the other six days (not resting) didn't he change between the sixth and seventh days? Does God change?

You think there's an outside chance this is not literal? If it is literal, don't you have to know what it means to say God rested. If you don't know what it means, well then you don't, but what do you believe? "Well, I don't know what it means, but it must mean something and whatever it means, even though I don't know it, I believe it."

js

[xzins]

If I remember correctly, it says somewhere that God "rested from his labor." If that's the case, then that explains your question.

He was no longer doing the work of creation.

[fortheDeclaration]

The issue of accepting the literal interpetation is that we take a passage as literal unless the context demands otherwise.

We recognize that there are figures of speech in Scripture as in any other form of writing.

However,the literal meaning should always be the primary way of reading a passage unless the context demands a figurative approach.

God 'resting' is such a case, 'resting' meant He was done, Creation was complete and 'very good'

Moreover, 'resting' does not have to mean one is tired.

Lawyers 'rest' their case when they are done.

[Woodkirk]

Well I think there is #7 -- and this one will really separate the literalists from the figuratives. Revelation 22:15 regarding the New Jerusalem -- "For outside are DOGs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolators. . . . ."

My dog here wants to know why he can't be inside, particularly if he is house-trained. Why would he have to be out there with all those unsavory people. What did he do that was so bad. And does that mean "cats" too -- or do they get to go inside. It's just not fair.

I told him that it may not be fair, but it is literal. Needless to say he is now a preterist amillenialist and reading Gary North books.

[fortheDeclaration]

Yah, but then why did God create it at the beginning? Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made. And He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He had rested from all His work which God created to make. Since it was blessed and sanctified (set apart) at the beginning, long before Israel, a literal interpetation of the bible would indicate that it's still blessed and sanctified because it was never deblessed or desanctified by God.

Why was it then that only Israel was informed of the Sabbath?

It does not show up with Abraham, Issac or Jacob!

God told Moses about the Sabbath because it was always meant for Israel, since 'resting' on that day and giving the land its rest was to show complete dependence on God's provision, not man's efforts.

Moreover in Romans 14:6 he writes, One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike; let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind Paul never mentions the sabbath in that verse or the chapter. In context, the whole chapter is about eating and drinking. What Paul is probably referring to is fasting. Some jews at the time thought they were holier than others cause they fasted on certain days of the week that others didn't. This is made clear in the next verse: Rom 14:6 He who regards the day regards it to the Lord; and he not regarding the day, does not regard it to the Lord. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, does not eat to the Lord, and gives God thanks.

I see no commandment there indicating that the Sabbath was still to be observed.

The Lords day for the Christian would be Sunday (due to the Resurrection) but that is not the Sabbath day (7th day)

[fortheDeclaration]

Well I think there is #7 -- and this one will really separate the literalists from the figuratives. Revelation 22:15 regarding the New Jerusalem -- "For outside are DOGs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolators. . . . ." My dog here wants to know why he can't be inside, particularly if he is house-trained. Why would he have to be out there with all those unsavory people. What did he do that was so bad. And does that mean "cats" too -- or do they get to go inside. It's just not fair.

Someone has been giving your dog bad theology!

Those are only bad dogs outside of the New Jersusalem, all good dogs go to heaven (they are under a works system of salvation) :>)

I told him that it may not be fair, but it is literal. Needless to say he is now a preterist amillenialist and reading Gary North books.

Gary North is an excellent economist (Austrian School) but a terrible theologian (Dominion theology).

Get him on Larkin or Scofield!