Originally posted by heart
My whole point was that I think it is pretty darn convenient of you to interpret what you deem figuratively and exaggerated etc... You pick and choose. If something doesn't make sense to you..you fall back on .."well this isn't what so and so meant"...or.."this is not a literal translation". In my correspondence with you, it appears you only do this when something doesn't "jive" with you and your beliefs.
You look at "the Bible" in general, but from this overview perspective you make generalizations about interpretation which are unfair. If you give me a specific passage I will tell you why I interpret it like I do. If I genuinely failed to reach a plausible interpretation, you and M*W wouldn't have had such a problem with it.
For instance, Genesis is a creation account. That means nobody was there to witness it, and its structure and meaning is subject to faith and its teaching has to be subject to faith. There are various such myths, but they have to be interpreted on their own merits. Miracles are different, since they depend on the experience of those who saw and believed them to be miracles. If Jesus "walked around" the water like you say, why did Peter sink when he went to Jesus? Of course it has spiritual implications, but they depend on the authenticity of the event.
How do you know that Jesus' miracles were literal? How do you know for fact his resurrection was? You pick and choose, that's how
Your not going to like my answer, but I'll give it anyway: I know it by faith. Not blind faith, mind you, but faith in God's ability to create the world (since all miracles are acts of authority over creation), faith in the integrity of the witnesses, and faith that God fulfilled what was prophesied. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead by God, I have gained nothing but lost everything. Either way it's no loss to you. But if God did create life, raised Jesus from the dead, and
exists, you are missing something you weren't supposed to miss.
originally posted by Medicine*Woman
If you don't mind my asking, when were you converted to Xianity or were you raised in it? Your "literal" interpretations of the Bible just don't jive with your reference to "language and writing styles" of the Bible. How can one be taken literal then the others need to be interpreted based on the writer's style? We really don't know for sure who the gospel writers are! As you can see, I'm trying not to be so hateful in my posts to you. It didn't work anyway. But now I'm "seeing you" in a different light. It seems you are desperately trying to prove to everyone that the Bible is true. Something tells me that you have doubts of your own and you're trying real hard to pretend that you believe it's all true, when I don't think you do. That's why I asked about your conversion to Xianity. What is it that that makes you believe it? I don't think you're trying to "prove" it to the rest of us, I think you're trying to "prove" it to yourself! There's just no logic or reason or understanding of your posts. I just don't think you're sincere.
I appreciate your effort to be civil. It does make it easier to respond. I was raised Christian, as were my parents and their parents - I think I am at least eigth or ninth generation Christian.
If you read my reply to heart, it answers your question about interpretation at least in principle. You say for instance I don't know who the gospel writers are, but just like you can form an opinion about me by what I say and how I say it, we can form an opinion of the writers by their work.
I'm not trying to prove the Bible is true. How can I do that? You either believe one side of the story or the other. That's a personal preference. There are many scholars who do in-depth studies of the life and times of people while others deny they even existed.
Yes I have many doubts. But they are like someone who doubts whether or not he can do what he knows he should. They are recognitions of my own fallibility and lack of knowledge. Having said that, that I can have such faith as I have must seem like a terrible discrepancy to you. How can I
know? everybody asks. But lack of knowledge does not have to be ignorance. If I can't learn from my doubts, I have no business doubting. From your doubt, you can discount thousands of years of religion and yet be certain of your own. People say I trust too easily, but my experience is that you can't ever trust God
enough.
Very often I
am trying to prove things to myself. I would form a theory or take something as "true" and then see how long it can be credibly maintained by what it proposes to be. Walking in the truth is a lot like walking on lilies in a pond, seeing which hold up and which don't. In the end no truth can harm me, but missing one always has unpleasant consequences. In that vain let me say this: God has never disappointed me. Looking at Jesus is like looking at the horison, expecting the sun to come up any moment because you know it has never failed to rise.