Posted on 03/18/2024 5:34:35 PM PDT by grumpa
Some things Christians believe are curious to me. For example, many conservative evangelical Christians, the group which I generally consider myself to be a part, proudly say, “We take the Bible literally.” Indeed, they use this statement as a test for orthodoxy. Well, here are few questions I’d like to ask them:
• When Jesus said that He is the vine (John 15:5), did He mean that He is a plant?
• Is God literally a rock (2 Samuel 22:3; Psalm 18:2, etc.)?
• Should we literally hate our mother and father so that we can be Jesus’ disciple (Luke 14:26)?
• If your eye causes you to sin, should you literally pluck it out, as Jesus said (Mark 9:47)?
• Must we sell everything we have and give it to the poor in order to inherit eternal life (Luke 18:18-22)?
• Is it necessary to literally eat Christ’s body in order to have life (John 6:53)?
• Did the mountains and the hills really break into song and the trees clap their hands (Isaiah 55:12)?
• Is it literally true that serpents and scorpions cannot harm Christians (Luke 10:19)?
• Would the moon literally turn to blood before the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:31)?
• When God judged Babylon, an event in actual history, did the stars and sun literally stop giving their light (Isaiah 13:10) and the heavens literally tremble (Isaiah 13:13)? When God judged Edom, did the sky literally roll up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4)? When God judged Israel, according to Micah 1:2-16, did the mountains literally melt and the valleys split? When God judged Egypt, did He literally come riding on a cloud (Isaiah 19:1)? Read these passages and numerous others like them in the Bible (for example, Isaiah 24:23; Ezekiel 32:7; Amos 5:20; 8:9; Zephaniah 1:15)
This is especially pertinent to Bible prophecy. In light of the last bullet point above, consider what do you think of Matthew 24:29-31 which describes Jesus’ Parousia (“Second Coming”) with similar language: sun will be darkened, stars falling from heaven, Jesus riding on a cloud, etc. This is what theologians call “Hebraic apocalyptic language.” It is poetic language usually used when YHWH (or Jesus) judged people or nations.
It is a rational inference that given the non-literal nature of the similar Old Testament passages, that similar New Testament passages are also non-literal. Such New Testament passages are about Jesus coming “in judgment” against apostate old covenant Israel in AD 70―similar to how YHWH came in judgment in the Old Testament―and not about a literal bodily appearance. This is reinforced by the numerous time statements that limit the Second Coming to the first century.
Some Christians may insist that, indeed, even these passages are to be understood “literally.” But certainly at least some of these are examples of how the Bible uses a variety of language techniques to describe real things in NON-literal language.
I have a conservative view of the Bible and believe that it is the inspired Word of God in its entirety—and that it communicates a literal sense even when it employs non-literal genres. But that does not mean that every word or phrase was meant to be taken in a wooden literal sense. The fact is that nobody is a consistent literalist, nor should anyone be!
In our everyday language, we use figures of speech so often that we do not even think about them. We sing metaphorically “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.” We say things like “I could eat a horse,” “cat got your tongue,” “the four corners of the earth,” “the sky is falling,” “coming apart at the seams,” “he has a yellow streak down his back,” etc. We use hundreds of such idioms that are not literal, but people in our culture understand exactly what is meant.
The Bible too uses a variety of literary devices. It uses parables, poetry, hyperbole, allegories, metaphors, and many other figures of speech. In particular, it is common in the Bible to use astronomical language to describe important prophetic events. These events are often when God “came down” in judgment against the Jews or their enemies.
Hebraic terminology may be unfamiliar to us but was clearly understood by first-century Jews. Certain events prophesied in the Bible in Hebraic apocalyptic language we know for certain have already been fulfilled, such as God’s judgments upon Babylon and Edom (above).
Are there times when we should understand the Bible literally? Of course! But, should we really interpret the Bible “literally” in every instance? Of course not. It is more faithful to Scripture to interpret each passage the way it was INTENDED in its context and understood by its original audience.
Theologians call this “audience relevance.” An example is Matthew 24:34 where Jesus spoke of the timing of certain prophesied events: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Here Jesus is speaking to his disciples who asked a question in response to Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple and the close of the old covenant age―at his Parousia: “Tell us, when will things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and the close of the age?” (Matthew 24:3) Many Christians today futurize “this generation” to mean some future generation. But clearly Jesus’ disciples would have understood that the things Jesus predicted would happen while some of those living in the first century were still alive.
Another important interpretive technique is using “Scripture to interpret Scripture.” For example, related to Matthew 24 is the statement Jesus made in Matthew 16:27-28― “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming his kingdom.” This passage demands that Jesus’ Parousia would occur while some of those living in the first century were still alive―Scripture interpreting Scripture.
One can attempt to explain these things away. But this is so clear and so powerful that if Jesus failed to return when He said He would, Jesus is reduced to a false prophet and Christianity falls―as opponents of Christianity charge. Either Jesus was a false prophet, or else many Christians have a mistaken understanding of the nature of the Second Coming. A correct understanding of biblical language proves the critics of Jesus wrong. He did come in the nature and timing that He predicted.
I’m fully aware that this is new information for some. But what’s at stake is the authority of Jesus and the inerrancy of the biblical writers. At my website I have several articles going into more depth about the timing and nature of the Second Coming. I hope you find these articles helpful:
Yup.
If we accept what the scientific establishment in the realm of physics tells us, we have no logical choice other that that there must be a supernatural realm.
How many sheep did Jesus have?
Lol
No.
It’s obvious you ‘believe’ that’s the case, but you are speaking gibberish.
All of them.
In the realm of physics, we find that mass, energy, time and space—and all physical laws—had a beginning.
If they had a beginning, then there is a realm above and beyond the material.
God of the gaps argument.
Immediately BS.
Here’s another one for you.
All the material in the human body—on a molecular and atomic level—is gradually replaced. The estimate seems to be that every 7 to 11 years, your body is made of different material than it was prior to that period.
If your body doesn’t stay with you, then you’re not your body.
Still pimping your blog site after you’ve been discredited??
You high?
I believe the hebrew audience was adept at understanding words to have multiple meanings and application so that a statement is capable of being true in multiple ways.
If I were high, my thinking would be clouded and I would only be able to come up with personal attacks and other retorts without substance.
Here’s one I got from someone else. Its brilliance is in its conciseness and that it’s logically irrefutable:
To be an atheist, you must believe in “the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything.” -Ray Comfort
Two out of three ain’t bad.
Actually it is bad now that I think about it.
Maybe you didn’t see I was making a veiled reference to the quality of your own posts.
If you are high, then stop it.
Not knowing the scientific answer to something does not make your religious beliefs true. It merely means we don’t know.
Cmon this crap goes back thousands of years.
Maybe you didn’t see that I was referring to your clouded thinking and responses without substance as being the two things.
Sure we haven’t personally insulted one another, but you have demonstrated the other two.
Do you know that knowledge which is self-evident is not a direct product of a scientific process, yet it is considered to be equally valid?
How do you determine if thinking is clouded, or if a given comment has substance?
People who think invisible goblins control things we don’t yet understand, isn’t an equally valid argument.
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.