***@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 26, 8:44=A0pm, Jason <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It doesn't "imply" it assumes. It is THE major presupposition of
>>> scripture... That God exists.
>> I guess I just disagree with this premise. =A0After all, God states to Mo=
> ses "I Am" in Exodus. =A0Is this not literally saying God exists?
>
> Both my wife and I and the boys also for that matter, have long since
> concluded that most people today simply are not critical thinkers.
This is an Ad hominem fallacy.
> They haven't trained themselves to step back and look at all the
> issues involved.
>
> Again, God declaring His name is not an apologetical statement. He
> doesn't seek to prove His existence. That is already assumed by those
> to whom Moses is going to declare His name to. Even the Egyptians
> believed in the existence of a god (BTW, contrary to common belief,
> the Egyptians were monotheistic. However, they were modalistic in
> their exhibition.)
>> I would go further to say if God did not exist there would be no Bible. =
> =A0Therefore it is begging the question to say the Bible does not state God=
> exists.
> And this is cause for our conclusions concerning critical thinking...
> This has nothing to do with the point of discussion. If you are not
> aware of it, what you are doing is presenting an exaggeration,
> overstating the argument in seeking to dismiss it. No one said
> anything thing about God not existing. The point was that it was
> assumed. i.e. a biblical presupposition not presented or defended.
> (Rom 1:20)
I guess it would help if I told you where I am coming from. I was not
a believer. I was probably on the atheistic side of agnostic. Many
would have considered me an atheist. But I've always tried to be
objective about things. One of the things that makes children great
learners is that they go into things without preconceptions, I've
always striven for this.
Anyway, when I was in college I studied rhetoric, history, and
politics. I soon recognized the Bible as the most influential book in
history. So I decided to read it, even Leviticus. And I tried to read
it objectively, and often you cannot believe what people say about
other people or things. I was not looking for god, all I was
interested in was how the Bible has influence mankind. However, during
that time I somehow became a believer. It wasn't a certain verse, or
chapter, or book, but somehow when I was done I was a believer. Since
then I have read the Bible again and again.
Now I am hearing that you have to presuppose there is God before
reading the Bible. I thought I had found something in the Bible, but
it appears I had not. I could not have because I read the Bible
objectively rather than presupposing anything.
>>> It nowhere attempts to proves His
>>> existence. The point was, equally, literalism is assumed. It is the
>> Even if we accepted that the Bible only assumes God exists, why then does=
> it follow we also assume to take it literally? =A0What makes those equal?
> I was not concluding that because God's existence is assumed that it
> necessarily follows that literalism in assumed. Rather, I was
> presenting a parallel illustration. Do you see this now?
A false analogy.
>> To take your assumption premise further, couldn't this open up the Bible =
> to all kinds of things, like saying homosexuality is a miracle
> And this is what classification of logic?
A parallel illustration of a false analogy.
>> or you have to do a hand stand in a blizzard or anything anybody wants, a=
> ll by saying it is assumed in the Bible. =A0Not that I believe those things=
> and not saying you do, but the line of reasoning is the same.
>> Furthermore, the Bible says it is prefect. =A0If we are to believe that, =
> how can we assume or presuppose anything.
> God is perfect, is He not? Do all (who have not hardened themselves)
> assume His existence?
Yes. I have found those who have hardened themselves at both ends of the argument.
>> I would appreciate further explanation of this, as I am sure that I do no=
> t understand. =A0It seems to say that the Bible should not be read as a new=
> spaper or textbook then go on to say that Jesus did so.
> Well yes and no.
>
> Yes... in that we read the bible as we read the newspaper, literally,
> seeking to gain an understanding of what has been reported. You and I
> and everyone else here write our replies and read the replies of other
> in a literal fashion, do we not? Now what if I suddenly began
> allegorizing someone's reply? All confusion would break out. First
I, however, do not presuppose that my words are the inspired words of
God. If someone took my words as an allegory, but understood the
meaning, I'd be OK with that. If they didn't understand, I'd be happy
to write a reply. Are you making a parallel between this newsgroup and
the Bible?
There are parts of the Bible which are much more perfect if take as an
allegory. Take the creation. Nature tells us energy, followed by
matter, followed by structure in the universe, paralleling the Bible;
and nature also tells us, plants followed by animals, followed by man.
Regarding the part of the Bible that deals with the creation of
animals, we see birds created among the earliest animals. For those
who study these things now find in nature that birds are the legacy of
dinosaurs. Could that be attributed as random chance? Looking at it
this way nature is a tool of evangelism. I have even been able to have
an atheist admit that this is a remarkable parallel (although I am
still working on him).
Further in the Bible the creation story in Gen 1 is not in agreement
with the creation story in Gen 2.
> off, what is the justification for it? Literalism is the elemental
> means of communication. If there is to be a deviation from the
> elemental/fundamental methodology, then one had better be prepared to
> give an adequate defense for such.
>
> No.. in that all scripture is inspired & written by the Holy Spirit
> and as such requires His illumination to understand it. It is not
> humanly (unregenerate man or the regenerate man operating in the
> flesh) discernible.
If it is indiscernible by man how can you be so sure of literalism?
>> How about this http://www.theflatearthsociety.net/
>> They have 78 reasons from the Bible why the world is flat. =A0Old testame=
> nt and new testament, Jesus references and all. =A0Should we believe this?
>>From a false or inadequate analysis of the text. David certainly
> declares that the earth is a sphere. You present a fools errand.
The point is, and I should have expanded further, that people have
used the Bible to "prove" all kinds of things in the name of
literalism. The Earth is flat, the sun goes around the earth, there is
no N & S America, there are no viruses or bacteria, justification for
slavery. When have these ever proved true?
>> Yes, I agree. =A0Unfortunately, the Bible is read and taught by people wh=
> o are not perfect.
> It's not about being perfect. Christianity is not about man becoming
> perfect in this existence. It is about Christ's perfection. And
> because we are not perfect we do well to heed the historical position
> of the Church. For instance, from the time of the NT writers until
> very late in the 2nd century, Millennialism was uncontested. It
> wasn't until the introduction of the allegorical methodology (never
> consistently applied even by todays format) that the amil doctrines
> began to rise. "A" should essentially be understood as "Augustinian
> millennialism" in that he pretty much single handedly fixed that
> understanding.
>
> The historic position of the Church is to be regarded yet not to go
> untested or unreviewed. Hence the Reformation which, as Paul's eyes
> discarded their scale, discarded the scale of paganism which had crept
> into the church and its ecclesiastical pseudo justifications.
>> My intent was not imply shallowness, and I apologize if you took it as so=
> .
> You must understand something and it is this, the common presentation
> of arguments against literalism are void of any understanding of just
> what literalism is and is not. No need to apologize. It is very
> similar to those who argue against Fundamentalism. What are the
> "fundamentals" and which fundamental are you in disagreement with?
> One of the classic reasons for apostasy and heresy is ignorance. This
> is why the Pauline mandate to "make a maximum effort to present
> yourselves approved to God as a workman (craftsman) who does not need
> to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of God." ( 2 Tim 2:15)
> One of the ways of doing this is learn the fundamentals of
> interpretation which most certainly includes an understanding of
> interpretative methodology. i.e. hermeneutics Another means is noted
> by Paul in 1 Tim 6:20 and 2 Tim 1:12-14. cp Tit 1:1, 9
>> My intent is only rational dialog. =A0I would like to understand where it=
> comes from because I don't find it in the Bible.
> Again, it is assumed just as I am assuming that you read my reply
> literally and you assumed that I would read your reply literally. Is
> this not a fundamental principle of communication?
>> I have found in the Bible where it says faith is important, I have found =
> where it says love (emotion) is important, I have found where it says the l=
> aw (God's authority) is important.
> How can God or His law prove important if it neither can be
> appreciably communicated?
>> =A0But I have not found where it says fact is important and I really hate =
> to assume anything.
> ???? You intent in this declaration escapes me. Do you have access
> to a theological library? If so it would serve you well to read a
I have access to one on the top 10 University libraries in the USA,
including Warfield's works. I also have a pile of books a few feet
high next to my bed, to the annoyance of my wife. If I put a book at
the top, or middle, or even at the bottom I would like to be sure it
is worth it. From what I have heard so far about literalism, it could
be concluded there is little substance, it seems to be based on
assumptions that superceed the Bible, and it is riddled with
fallacies. But maybe I am not understanding.
> brief chapter written by BB Warfield in vol 9 of his "Works" titled
> "On Faith in its psychological aspects." A few excerpts:
>
> "... it is clear that the supposition in question is not a thing
> believed in accordance with fact and is therefore not a belief but a
> 'supposition'; not a 'conviction' but a conjecture. "Belief,' 'faith'
> is the consent of the mind to the reality of the thing in question;
> and when the mind withholds its consent to the reality, 'belief,'
> 'faith' is not present. . . .There is no 'faith,' 'belief' possible
> without evidence or what the mind takes for evidence; 'faith,'
> 'belief' is a state of mind grounded in evidence and impossible
> without it." [vol 9 p. 318]
This could be a red herring.
I would disagree with this. Faith is something believed without proof.
It is possible. Just because somebody says it doesn't make it true,
unless of course it is from God and in the Bible.
>
> Very brief excerpt. But this is the classical Reformed explanation.
> As I think as I've already noted, there are three aspects to saving
> faith.
>
> 1. notitia: the facts of the case; the fundamentals of the gospel
> 2. accentia: the recognition that the notitia are, indeed, true
>
> Now at this point, all one has equipped himself to be is a demon...
> James 2:19
>
> 3. feducia: the placing of one's full weight upon, ie trust in the
> evidence revealed
>>> BTW, which method did you employ in reading
>>> this reply and which method do you presume
>>> your replies will be read in? =A0One =A0sure fire way
>>> of proving a position is whether or not it can be
>>> consistently lived / applied.
>> This is written with the knowledge that I am imperfect, and my knowledge =
> is incomplete (for now we see dimly reflected in the mirror).
>> It is written as part of what I hope to be a rational Christian dialog. =
> =A0I truly appreciate your input as part of that.
> But you didn't directly answer the question. You side stepped the
> point made. Jude 4 Greek word which is translated "crept" is used of
> a clever lawyer or politician who beguiles his jury/subjects with
> flowery speech in the hope to disguise its lack of content. It is a
Another red herring, possibly an ad hominem too.
> covert action by nature. Literally the Greek word means "to come down
> along side of" i.e. sneaky
Yes, I didn't answer the question as you asked, thanks for asking
again. Yet, I answered the question with the intent of my writing. I
would make no presumption that my words are the inspired work of God,
therefore it is of little difference whether one takes them literally
or figuratively. I would like to think the message is the important
thing and would hope that that would be conveyed either way. But I
know I am imperfect and my knowledge is incomplete. If you are unsure
of what I mean, please ask and I will answer, in writing.
>
> Also, one can only hope for an introduction to a topic in a NG. Long
> long ago I posted lengthy explanations of the literal methodology.
That's what I am looking for, just trying to understand the basics of
it to consider further pursuit.
> There are many books you can read to gain a more learned appreciation
> of it if you really want to "show yourself approved." I do not
> believe these forums are capable of in-depth explanations and
> analysis. Have you ever thought of pursuing a formal education in
> Bible theology? Perhaps you should.
> -L
>
> BTW, what is with these NG verifications? They suk. Most of them I
> have to guess at.
Please elaborate. I am kind of new to NG.
Again, thanks so much for your insight.
J.