Who gets to decide what should be literal.

 

Some of my closest friends in Eastern KY growing up went to Snake Handling churches. Scripture says we can do it. I don't take that literally, they do . . . who is correct.

 

BTW what does "God breathed" mean? To me it means that God's 'influence' is in all of it - does that mean it is literally true . . . see again, I don't think so.

 

Grab a snake and we'll see. (sorry about that one)

 

God-breathed, to me, means inspired of God or that God is the source. Obviously, humans put pen to parchment and in some ways brought their own personality into the writing, but God was the ultimate source.

 

Some Scripture is not intended to be taken literally (some prophecies, for example). Then there are some stories (like Jonah) that many believe to be more an allegory than an actual historical event (I see it as the latter).

 

What gets me, though, is the reasoning behind why some view certain stories as not literally taking place. As someone said earlier--maybe LBBC?--if you can believe that God created the world by speaking it into existence, surely to goodness it can be believed that He can create a special fish to swallow a man or make water flood the world or make dead people come back to life.

Ladies, or how to avoid a life that would not be what...oh, avoid HELL!

 

Jesus speaks of Hell more than any figure in the scriptures, We are still studying Revelations and it wakes you up. Book of Life, your name in it people, if not there is a MARK you will have on your forehead.

 

We are told in scripture to warn others of their Sins, if they listen and repent great, if not they were told and you will be blessed for trying to tell them.

 

This verse is so important that the LORD repeats it soon in the same chapter and again 30 chapters later.

 

Not meaning to be picky AL (or maybe I am ) but Revelation only has 22 chapters. How can it be mentioned again 30 chapters later?

Grab a snake and we'll see. (sorry about that one)

 

God-breathed, to me, means inspired of God or that God is the source. Obviously, humans put pen to parchment and in some ways brought their own personality into the writing, but God was the ultimate source.

 

Some Scripture is not intended to be taken literally (some prophecies, for example). Then there are some stories (like Jonah) that many believe to be more an allegory than an actual historical event (I see it as the latter).

 

What gets me, though, is the reasoning behind why some view certain stories as not literally taking place. As someone said earlier--maybe LBBC?--if you can believe that God created the world by speaking it into existence, surely to goodness it can be believed that He can create a special fish to swallow a man or make water flood the world or make dead people come back to life.

 

You just said that some scripture is not intended to be taken literally. I agree. LBBC has repeatedly said it's all 100% true and literal, which absolutely can't be the case. There are too many instances where the Bible contradicts itself. So my question is, which parts are meant to be literally interpreted, and which aren't?

You just said that some scripture is not intended to be taken literally. I agree. LBBC has repeatedly said it's all 100% true and literal, which absolutely can't be the case. There are too many instances where the Bible contradicts itself. So my question is, which parts are meant to be literally interpreted, and which aren't?

 

and who decides?

While I am getting older and older each day, I was not involved in the picking of the 66 books of the Bible. So, I cannot accurately say.

 

I have read in several different areas that the books had to pass several tests before they were included or excluded.

 

Had to be written close enough to the actual life of Jesus that those who were alive during that time could say yea or nay to the factualness of the book.

 

Read that a book had to have universal acceptance from the leaders of the early church (that would be the Apostles and some that were voted to other apostles.) They would accept the book because they were there when it happened and could say yea to the factualness. (not sure if that is a word but I assume you know what I mean.)

 

Well, the thing is, they did pass the "tests" to be included. They were included in the original versions of the Bible (and continue to be included in Catholic Bibles), but they were removed from most Protestant Bibles following the Reformation.

Hatz, I gave some space, and was talking about Ezekiel 3:15 and chapter 35/36, my bad.

 

We have been studying Revelation since the summer and we are on Chapter 15, I read ahead and know whats coming. Somewhere on here I mentioned the Book of Life.

Hatz, I gave some space, and was talking about Ezekiel 3:15 and chapter 35/36, my bad.

 

We have been studying Revelation since the summer and we are on Chapter 15, I read ahead and know whats coming. Somewhere on here I mentioned the Book of Life.

 

I just thought you were caught up in Revelation. :lol:

 

I was just giving you a hard time. It's all cool. :thumb:

You just said that some scripture is not intended to be taken literally. I agree. LBBC has repeatedly said it's all 100% true and literal, which absolutely can't be the case. There are too many instances where the Bible contradicts itself. So my question is, which parts are meant to be literally interpreted, and which aren't?

 

Please list where the contradictions occur.

You just said that some scripture is not intended to be taken literally. I agree. LBBC has repeatedly said it's all 100% true and literal, which absolutely can't be the case. There are too many instances where the Bible contradicts itself. So my question is, which parts are meant to be literally interpreted, and which aren't?

 

and who decides?

 

Literal is not what I meant and if I said literal, I was using the wrong adjective.

 

I believe that what is written in the Bible is what occurred.

 

If I chose to believe that there was actually a person named Noah who was on an Arc than I don't have much leg to stand on when I want people to believe in Jesus.

 

Cause the religion is NOW MINE because I am picking and choosing what is truthful and what is not.

 

It is no longer Christianity but rather what I BELIEVE. And it can't be that.

Not everything is intended to be 100% literal (gouge out your eyes & cut off your hand being examples).

 

Actually this is a good example of what I am talking about in those who quote (and not saying RP is an example of this just using his post) but don't quote the entire Scripture.

 

If you just pick out the Scriputes of gouge your eyes or cut your hands off, than you get a WHOA moment.

 

But if you read the next line after each of those Scriptures, it changes it as an illustration that gives you advice and emphasis.

 

It says "It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

 

And emphasis to show the importance of striving to stay away from sin instead of actually gouging your eyes and cutting your hands off.

 

But of course, this Scripture also causes problems for Ace who believes no one will go to Hell but here is Jesus' own words about people possibly going to Hell if they don't stay away from sin.

Literal is not what I meant and if I said literal, I was using the wrong adjective.

 

I believe that what is written in the Bible is what occurred.

 

If I chose to believe that there was actually a person named Noah who was on an Arc than I don't have much leg to stand on when I want people to believe in Jesus.

 

Cause the religion is NOW MINE because I am picking and choosing what is truthful and what is not.

 

It is no longer Christianity but rather what I BELIEVE. And it can't be that.

 

It doesn't have to be either or, you choose to make it either or. Even the quoted scripture somewhere above talks about what the Bible should be used for, and that is teaching about righteousness. Did the sun, which doesn't move, actually stand still in the sky?

 

There are two different creation stories. That is a contradiction. Both could not have happened exactly the way each says they did.

 

Only one of the four gospels talks about a virgin birth - if it is important, why not all of them. Each gospel has Jesus saying something differen on the cross. I'll look up more to be more specific.

Actually this is a good example of what I am talking about in those who quote (and not saying RP is an example of this just using his post) but don't quote the entire Scripture.

 

If you just pick out the Scriputes of gouge your eyes or cut your hands off, than you get a WHOA moment.

 

But if you read the next line after each of those Scriptures, it changes it as an illustration that gives you advice and emphasis.

 

It says "It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

 

And emphasis to show the importance of striving to stay away from sin instead of actually gouging your eyes and cutting your hands off.

 

But of course, this Scripture also causes problems for Ace who believes no one will go to Hell but here is Jesus' own words about people possibly going to Hell if they don't stay away from sin.

 

Never said no one was going to "hell" just a matter of what hell is, and whether or not people can be redeemed after this life.

Well, the thing is, they did pass the "tests" to be included. They were included in the original versions of the Bible (and continue to be included in Catholic Bibles), but they were removed from most Protestant Bibles following the Reformation.

 

For anyone interested, I think its worth noting that the Jews themselves do not consider the Apocryphal (for lack of a better term) writings to be canon. They do not include them in their Bible. The status of these writings has been debated for centuries.

 

Both sides have reasons for their decisions regarding them. I would suggest to anyone who is interested or concerned with this to investigate and do a little research on their own to make an informed decision about how they should be viewed and treated.

No, I do not feel comfortable stating that, but I do feel comfortable stating that I do not know everyone that I will see in heaven either.

 

I can agree with that and think Scripture indicates that where Jesus answers people who are aligned with the goats, I think it was, and said that Jesus we did things in your name and He replies that He never knew them.

Sorry, but I haven't been able to sit down at the computer over the last week and give this the time it demanded. Everyone is still asleep on this Saturday morning and I can give it more time.

 

I had two long drives to basketball games by myself this week and pulled out some CD's of the Bible to listen to. Couldn't make up my mind mind what Bible book to listen to but was drawn to Romans that I never remember reading all the way through.

 

So, I chose it and lo and behold it was loaded with Scriptures that seemed to address many of the questions in this thread. I am starting a new thread on it.

 

Check it out for some of the questions or musings that have been posted in here.