Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Principles of Literal Bible Interpretation
Bible Truth ^ | Revised, Aug 2001 | Cooper P. Abrams, III

Posted on 10/29/2002 5:18:29 AM PST by xzins



TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: actual; allegorical; bible; figurative; interpretation; literal; real; symbolic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 501-516 next last
To: theAmbassador
I ask the simple question: "Are you saying there is death in the New Heavens and the New Earth?" I ask for a simple yes or no. Isaiah 65, Jean/Amba: YES or NO ??!!!

You and I both know that you have not answered the question. Yes or No, Amba?

I appreciate your calling me names. It simply proves, you are trying to find another strategy to avoid answering the question found in italics above

And so long as you avoid answering the question, you also confirm that it is legitimate for me to use available evidence to determine your answer.

61 posted on 10/29/2002 6:04:19 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: theAmbassador; Corin Stormhands; fortheDeclaration; Revelation 911; editor-surveyor; Woodkirk; ...
It isn't based on one passage of scripture.

It's based on 6 passages in Rev 20, 1 passage in 1 Co 15, Is 24, Is 65, 2 Pe 3, Jer 33, and every passage that speaks of God's promises to Israel.

The scripture about "baptism for the dead" in 1Co15 that is used by the Mormon Church to teach that you can baptize yourself for your great-great-great grandmother has ZERO other support in the bible unless you want to tell me about other verses that support it.

Now, would you please tell me the verse(s) that SAYS that the Messiah will not reign on the earth?

62 posted on 10/29/2002 6:13:45 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
Do you have scripture reference that the apostles believed in the real presence, or just history?

Becky

63 posted on 10/29/2002 7:20:54 PM PST by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
You are satisfied with your own interpretation and are also quite satisfied that it contradicts your beliefs about a bodily resurrection.

I don't believe that JESUS was dealing with the issue of ressurection in the original citation from the John 6 passage. Do you think He was ?

All I did was ask you if Jesus saying something is "spirit" means that it is "symbolic." You have not been able or willing to entertain the thought. You accept that "spirit" equals "symbolic" dogmatically. That is fine.

I don't believe I used the word 'symbolic' or entertained the concept. Do you think that I did ?

What I did do was to make the point that JESUS was encouraging and emphasizing SPIRITUALITY in the John 6 passage, as opposed to PHYSICALITY. He begins this emphasis in verse 26 of the passage and continues with it until the end of the chapter.


64 posted on 10/29/2002 7:37:43 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
1215 doctrine of Transubstantiation promulgated by Pope Innocent III as official dogma of the church. (it had been debated since the second century)

Not clear at all Chuck

65 posted on 10/29/2002 7:39:19 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Then the Jews started arguing with one another: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" they said. Jesus replied: "I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him."

A very good example. And there are some who take this passage as literal. You might be one of those but I do not know.

For those who do take this literally I ask the question..how am I to literally eat Christ's flesh and drink Christ's blood?

Answer...It can't be done literally so what do we have left?

66 posted on 10/29/2002 7:52:35 PM PST by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
1215 doctrine of Transubstantiation promulgated by Pope Innocent III as official dogma of the church. (it had been debated since the second century)

I am unaware of any controversy until the 9th century. Who was debating it in the second?

67 posted on 10/29/2002 7:59:01 PM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
Sure. The earliest Christians did believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The earliest Christians ? You must mean the apostles and their contemporaries. Interesting that not one of them wrote about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

The Romans considered them cannibals because of this.

The earliest Christians first lived among and were persecuted by the Jews. Interesting that Jewish objections to the Way did not include the issue of Christian canabalism.

What man-made traditions had arisen by the time of the Roman persecution ... I am not privy to.

This belief was passed down through Christ's apostles to the present.

Again I note, with interest, that none of Christ's apostles considered this belief to be worthy of documenting.

So to conclude that your interpretation is the only faithful one would be an historical inaccuracy.

My concern with any interpretation (understanding) of the written word is it's faithfulness to the written word.


68 posted on 10/29/2002 8:03:09 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I see it more now as "Don't use His name unless you really are serious about it."

What do you thinK?

But, good my brother,
Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven;
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads,
And recks not his own rede. -Ophelia to Laertes in Hamlet

69 posted on 10/29/2002 8:08:02 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: onedoug; xzins; RnMomof7
***Ophelia to Laertes in Hamlet ***

Whew... for a moment I though it was Grant Swank!
70 posted on 10/29/2002 8:11:25 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
I may not be understanding your point.Are you saying this to refute that we do not need anything but the bible for knowledge of God? or that we need something else to be saved?

I'm saying that to refute the doctrine of sola scriptura...in 2 Tim 3:16-17
71 posted on 10/29/2002 8:12:47 PM PST by Irisshlass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Quester
My concern with any interpretation (understanding) of the written word is it's faithfulness to the written word.

My rationale for the above ...

I can corroborate the written word (i.e. I can know that this is what was written by the apostles). Unfortunately, I cannot corroborate any similar basis for purely orally propogated tradition which may or may not hearken back to the time and tradition of the apostles.


72 posted on 10/29/2002 8:17:59 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Now, that's funny!
73 posted on 10/29/2002 8:26:51 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
No, this is funny!


74 posted on 10/29/2002 8:31:31 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: theAmbassador; xzins
...then take the Woody challenge

Been there. Done that. Got the vaccination.

75 posted on 10/29/2002 8:32:37 PM PST by Corin Stormhands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Concerning death in the New Heavens and Earth you ignored my Rev 21 proof that there would be.

Also you posted this on Literal interpretation?

Like spears spoken by the prophets being ballistic missiles?
The sort of hypocritical literalism that Jenkins and LaHaye used when modernizing every Old Testament prophecy?
Or how about the literal way soon doesn't mean soon?
At hand doesn't mean at hand, this generation is THAT generation, time is near means time is 2000 years when Daniels "Time is not yet" was only 700 years?

hypocrites
Nate
76 posted on 10/29/2002 8:34:18 PM PST by nate4one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Quester
I can corroborate the written word (i.e. I can know that this is what was written by the apostles). Unfortunately, I cannot corroborate any similar basis for purely orally propogated tradition which may or may not hearken back to the time and tradition of the apostles.

I can appreciate your position. Your security in what is authentic Christianity rests on a methodology you have created for yourself. Otherwise, you would have to have faith.

77 posted on 10/29/2002 8:34:58 PM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I like pew-jumpers even though I've never seen one.

Well, we don't really jump the pews...I just say that to get a rile out of the folks that need more fiber in their diets.

78 posted on 10/29/2002 8:35:35 PM PST by Corin Stormhands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
I can corroborate the written word (i.e. I can know that this is what was written by the apostles). Unfortunately, I cannot corroborate any similar basis for purely orally propogated tradition which may or may not hearken back to the time and tradition of the apostles.

I can appreciate your position. Your security in what is authentic Christianity rests on a methodology you have created for yourself. Otherwise, you would have to have faith.

My FAITH is in JESUS, nothing more, nothing less.


79 posted on 10/29/2002 9:03:28 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Quester
Again I note, with interest, that none of Christ's apostles considered this belief to be worthy of documenting.

Paul said to the Corinthians...

16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

The earliest Christians first lived among and were persecuted by the Jews. Interesting that Jewish objections to the Way did not include the issue of Christian canabalism.

Ignatius of Antoich on his way to maryrdom warned Christians not to be taken in by Gnostics...who denied the Real Presence..
80 posted on 10/29/2002 9:09:53 PM PST by Irisshlass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 501-516 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson