The two literal ways of reading the Bible

[Jonesboy]

There are two, not one, literal ways of reading the Bible. (The other way, but not my concern here, is to read it metaphorically/allegorically)

Look at this quote from John1.1 taken from the New International Version:
1. In the beginning was the Word

Now look at the same quote from the New Living Translation:
**2. In the beginning the Word already existed. **

The first way (1.) considers the “beginning” as an event that comes first. This is a popular Newtonian, non-Kantian, scientific reading of the Bible’s account of the “beginning”, where the “beginning” is the first fact.

The second way (2.) considers the same facts but spatio-temporally orders or arranges only those facts that are connected as facts. This is a neo-Kantian reading of the Bible’s account of a “beginning” not as the first fact, but as the atemporal (“already existed”) foundation for facts. In this case, 2., “Word” can be read as the foundation for all facts (spatio-temporal) but not a fact itself. If this is what the New Living Translation intended, of course.

It can be seen from these two examples that the scientist’s objection to the Bible’s historical account of creation can only be made against the Newtonian example, that is against only **one **of the two literal ways of reading the Bible.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

There are two, not one, literal ways of reading the Bible. (The other way, but not my concern here, is to read it metaphorically/allegorically)

Look at this quote from John1.1 taken from the New International Version:
1. In the beginning was the Word

Now look at the same quote from the New Living Translation:
**2. In the beginning the Word already existed. **

The first way (1.) considers the “beginning” as an event that comes first. This is a popular Newtonian, non-Kantian, scientific reading of the Bible’s account of the “beginning”, where the “beginning” is the first fact.

The second way (2.) considers the same facts but spatio-temporally orders or arranges only those facts that are connected as facts. This is a neo-Kantian reading of the Bible’s account of a “beginning” not as the first fact, but as the atemporal (“already existed”) foundation for facts. In this case, 2., “Word” can be read as the foundation for all facts (spatio-temporal) but not a fact itself. If this is what the New Living Translation intended, of course.

It can be seen from these two examples that the scientist’s objection to the Bible’s historical account of creation can only be made against the Newtonian example, that is against only **one **of the two literal ways of reading the Bible.

Your making a mountain out of a mole hill…

1. " In the beginning was the word "

May imply that the beginning as well “the word” …mutually
had a beginning. There is no inference or assertion in eternal or infinite God.

1. “In the beginning the word already existed” See the difference?

The worst thing a good Christian can do is read the Bible over and over and over. Without question the Bible is a type of sales pitch. The way of life is easily understood by kindergarten class as well the retarded.

So… why would there be a worry about how to read a book which really can be accepted and
fully understood by toddlers?

If I read a few books on the golf swing , understand and do the best I can with the drills…
do I then take the books out on the Golf Course…?

In both the golf swing, learning a musical instrument and life, if you are looking for problems you will find problems. The drills, in all… must be enjoyed and loved for merit …in form and order…
A fine mind is required here. Order and discipline is another subject.

Life is practice.

Fumbling about with the book may very well suggest an unconscious rejection of the Bible itself:

Procrastination to get with the easy as pie program…or a refusal to exercises discipline, in attention to the drills.:

Well its a beautiful day and I hope everyone enjoys it.

 

[secondeve]

There are two, not one, literal ways of reading the Bible. (The other way, but not my concern here, is to read it metaphorically/allegorically)

Look at this quote from John1.1 taken from the New International Version:
1. In the beginning was the Word

Now look at the same quote from the New Living Translation:
**2. In the beginning the Word already existed. **

The first way (1.) considers the “beginning” as an event that comes first. This is a popular Newtonian, non-Kantian, scientific reading of the Bible’s account of the “beginning”, where the “beginning” is the first fact.

The second way (2.) considers the same facts but spatio-temporally orders or arranges only those facts that are connected as facts. This is a neo-Kantian reading of the Bible’s account of a “beginning” not as the first fact, but as the atemporal (“already existed”) foundation for facts. In this case, 2., “Word” can be read as the foundation for all facts (spatio-temporal) but not a fact itself. If this is what the New Living Translation intended, of course.

It can be seen from these two examples that the scientist’s objection to the Bible’s historical account of creation can only be made against the Newtonian example, that is against only **one **of the two literal ways of reading the Bible.

I personally find this interesting. How would you read, for example, the story of Noah’s Ark?

 

[Jonesboy]

Your making a mountain out of a mole hill…

1. " In the beginning was the word "

May imply that the beginning as well “the word” …mutually
had a beginning. There is no inference or assertion in eternal or infinite God.

1. “In the beginning the word already existed” See the difference?

The worst thing a good Christian can do is read the Bible over and over and over. Without question the Bible is a type of sales pitch. The way of life is easily understood by kindergarten class as well the retarded.

So… why would there be a worry about how to read a book which really can be accepted and
fully understood by toddlers?

If I read a few books on the golf swing , understand and do the best I can with the drills…
do I then take the books out on the Golf Course…?

In both the golf swing, learning a musical instrument and life, if you are looking for problems you will find problems. The drills, in all… must be enjoyed and loved for merit …in form and order…
A fine mind is required here. Order and discipline is another subject.

Life is practice.

Fumbling about with the book may very well suggest an unconscious rejection of the Bible itself:

Procrastination to get with the easy as pie program…or a refusal to exercises discipline, in attention to the drills.:

Well its a beautiful day and I hope everyone enjoys it.

My question was:
Is the “Word” an event among other events, or is it a foundation forall events, and not an event itself?

 

[Jonesboy]

I personally find this interesting. How would you read, for example, the story of Noah’s Ark?

Simple. For those events that are linked causally read them as events, otherwise, read them as a foundation for events.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

My question was:
Is the “Word” an event among other events, or is it a foundation forall events, and not an event itself?

If you are speaking of Gods Word, becoming flesh among man…this is my thinking.(opinion)

It is neither as you say above… “an event among other events or…a foundation for all events , and not an event itself”

It is simply something which assists our free will. Self destructiveness has many forms.

The Word of course is a 'happening" Its purpose is fairly clear. Whole virtuous life is beneficial by way of conformity…to the biological aspects, of the human body.

The word actually promotes progressive evolution. Growth, un-impeded by way of sensitivity.
This is where fortitude fits in.

The Word is a happening… reflecting the Source of Creation…God.

The human mind always tries to categorize things…oh what does he do for a living …oh isn’t that interesting…where do you live…on and on and on and on.

Trying to fit everything in to a …useable, non-usable category. Then…how shall I use this
matter to my advantage. Whats the value…where is the …“free energy”

So my opinion is that we really cannot categorize anything. If the Word was an event…limitations contrary are somewhat implied through specificity.

If the Word was an event for all events and thus not an event itself…where does that leave all the
people prior to 2000 yrs ago…not to mention other Countries and so on…?

I don’t quite understand how this thinking could emerge all together.

 

[Jonesboy]

If you are speaking of Gods Word, becoming flesh among man…this is my thinking.(opinion)

It is neither as you say above… “an event among other events or…a foundation for all events , and not an event itself”

It is simply something which assists our free will. Self destructiveness has many forms.

The Word of course is a 'happening" Its purpose is fairly clear. Whole virtuous life is beneficial by way of conformity…to the biological aspects, of the human body.

The word actually promotes progressive evolution. Growth, un-impeded by way of sensitivity.
This is where fortitude fits in.

The Word is a happening… reflecting the Source of Creation…God.

The human mind always tries to categorize things…oh what does he do for a living …oh isn’t that interesting…where do you live…on and on and on and on.

Trying to fit everything in to a …useable, non-usable category. Then…how shall I use this
matter to my advantage. Whats the value…where is the …“free energy”

So my opinion is that we really cannot categorize anything. If the Word was an event…limitations contrary are somewhat implied through specificity.

If the Word was an event for all events and thus not an event itself…where does that leave all the
people prior to 2000 yrs ago…not to mention other Countries and so on…?

I don’t quite understand how this thinking could emerge all together.

You seemed to show a contradiction when you said that the Word is an event and yet is not a happeining.

The word is not an event (happening). It is the manifesting condition for all events. Just as the manifesting condition of a TV is not a property of a TV but is entertainment.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

You seemed to show a contradiction when you said that the Word is an event and yet is not a happening.

The word is not an event (happening). It is the manifesting condition for all events. Just as the manifesting condition of a TV is not a property of a TV but is entertainment.

This is off …I said the Word is a “happening period”. You phrased it differently …an event
among other events. Thats quite a bit different. Everything is basically a happening or event relative to our experience. You introduced a distinct depreciation…in “event among other events” Affording a clear common place reference.

now the new idea…

“The word is not an event (happening). It is the manifesting condition for all events. Just as the manifesting condition of a TV is not a property of a TV but is entertainment.”

I think Ive got an idea of what your saying.and agree if I understand correctly. I like to try and understand rather than say…oh what does that mean and give up. The idea could be helped if it was possibly explained differently. Or sometimes the inspiration for an idea, explains well.

 

[jochoa]

I would first like to say that I perceive your character as interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts for you have quite unique thoughts from my perspective. I am also following your “Can God make a weight he cannot lift?” topic.

I wonder why you choose not clearly state your intentions.
In your initial post, it seemed as though you were simply sharing concepts that had great observation and justification. However, in response to shared ideas, you indicate there is a question lying a midst all your factual statements:

My question was:
Is the “Word” an event among other events, or is it a foundation forall events, and not an event itself?

Yet, from your initial post you have already answered these questions.

Similar to the other topic of “Can God make…”, you initially asked a question to later state that it is not a statement.

In efforts to lessen your chances of spreading strife and distress in others, would you attempt to state clearer your intentions?

If you want a discussion, the state so. If you want to simply spread your knowledge, then state so.

Thanks for your consideration, and I hope you continue sharing your knowledge for it is very interesting to me!

 

[Jonesboy]

This is off …I said the Word is a “happening period”. You phrased it differently …an event
among other events. Thats quite a bit different. Everything is basically a happening or event relative to our experience. You introduced a distinct depreciation…in “event among other events” Affording a clear common place reference.

now the new idea…

“The word is not an event (happening). It is the manifesting condition for all events. Just as the manifesting condition of a TV is not a property of a TV but is entertainment.”

I think Ive got an idea of what your saying.and agree if I understand correctly. I like to try and understand rather than say…oh what does that mean and give up. The idea could be helped if it was possibly explained differently. Or sometimes the inspiration for an idea, explains well.

If the Word is a monadic or solitary event, then I can’t see it having a relationship or association with other events.

When we say “in the beginning was the Word”, then “beginning” can mean either “the first event” or it can mean the foundation for all events. The latter is the correct version. The Word underpins all events. So it cannot be regarded as a first event. It’s “beginning” is a non-temporal event.

 

[Jonesboy]

I would first like to say that I perceive your character as interesting. Thanks for sharing your thoughts for you have quite unique thoughts from my perspective. I am also following your “Can God make a weight he cannot lift?” topic.

I wonder why you choose not clearly state your intentions.
In your initial post, it seemed as though you were simply sharing concepts that had great observation and justification. However, in response to shared ideas, you indicate there is a question lying a midst all your factual statements:

Yet, from your initial post you have already answered these questions.

Similar to the other topic of “Can God make…”, you initially asked a question to later state that it is not a statement.

In efforts to lessen your chances of spreading strife and distress in others, would you attempt to state clearer your intentions?

If you want a discussion, the state so. If you want to simply spread your knowledge, then state so.

Thanks for your consideration, and I hope you continue sharing your knowledge for it is very interesting to me!

1. A question can look like a question (question mark, suggestive tone, etc) but to be bona fide its terms must be meaningful. A “weight that necessarily cannot be lifted” is not a meaningful term, so can’t be used in a question.

2.The idea “The word is not an event (happening). It is the manifesting condition for all events” is in line with what I was saying about the Word, in fact, it sums up my idea on what it is.

If the Word is not an event then that does not mean it can’t be a foundation for events. A foundation for events can’t be an event itself.

 

[jochoa]

1. A question can look like a question (question mark, suggestive tone, etc) but to be bona fide its terms must be meaningful. A “weight that necessarily cannot be lifted” is not a meaningful term, so can’t be used in a question.

2.The idea “The word is not an event (happening). It is the manifesting condition for all events” is in line with what I was saying about the Word, in fact, it sums up my idea on what it is.

If the Word is not an event then that does not mean it can’t be a foundation for events. A foundation for events can’t be an event itself.

I agree with some of your thoughts. I especially enjoyed learning the definition of bona fide.

Thanks for the discussion!

 

[PJM]

=Jonesboy;8064374]There are two, not one, literal ways of reading the Bible. (The other way, but not my concern here, is to read it metaphorically/allegorically)

Look at this quote from John1.1 taken from the New International Version:
1. In the beginning was the Word

Now look at the same quote from the New Living Translation:
**2. In the beginning the Word already existed. **

The first way (1.) considers the “beginning” as an event that comes first. This is a popular Newtonian, non-Kantian, scientific reading of the Bible’s account of the “beginning”, where the “beginning” is the first fact.

The second way (2.) considers the same facts but spatio-temporally orders or arranges only those facts that are connected as facts. This is a neo-Kantian reading of the Bible’s account of a “beginning” not as the first fact, but as the atemporal (“already existed”) foundation for facts. In this case, 2., “Word” can be read as the foundation for all facts (spatio-temporal) but not a fact itself. If this is what the New Living Translation intended, of course.

It can be seen from these two examples that the scientist’s objection to the Bible’s historical account of creation can only be made against the Newtonian example, that is against only **one **of the two literal ways of reading the Bible.

2nd. Peter 1: 16-21 “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

ACTS 8: 29-32 “And the Spirit said to Philip, “Go up and join this chariot.” So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: "As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.”

**Eph.3: 9 to 12 ** “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [SINGULAR: THEE CATHOLIC Church] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confidence of access through our faith in him.

**Phil.2: 2 ** “complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.”

**Eph. 4: 1-7 **“I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body WHICH MEANS ONE CHURCH] and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, **Meaning only One set of beliefs] **one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. MEANS UNDERSTANDING IS A GIFT FROM GOD NOT GIVEN TO ALL.

**Eph. 2: 18-22 **“ for through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord;

**John.10: 16 **“And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[DPMartin]

There are two, not one, literal ways of reading the Bible. (The other way, but not my concern here, is to read it metaphorically/allegorically)

Look at this quote from John1.1 taken from the New International Version:
1. In the beginning was the Word

Now look at the same quote from the New Living Translation:
**2. In the beginning the Word already existed. **

The first way (1.) considers the “beginning” as an event that comes first. This is a popular Newtonian, non-Kantian, scientific reading of the Bible’s account of the “beginning”, where the “beginning” is the first fact.

The second way (2.) considers the same facts but spatio-temporally orders or arranges only those facts that are connected as facts. This is a neo-Kantian reading of the Bible’s account of a “beginning” not as the first fact, but as the atemporal (“already existed”) foundation for facts. In this case, 2., “Word” can be read as the foundation for all facts (spatio-temporal) but not a fact itself. If this is what the New Living Translation intended, of course.

It can be seen from these two examples that the scientist’s objection to the Bible’s historical account of creation can only be made against the Newtonian example, that is against only **one **of the two literal ways of reading the Bible.

Jonesboy

My friend, despite what ever it is you are thinking in this, and for what ever reasons you are thinking it. There is only One Word of God that is of God. Therefore only One source is the Word of God from.

Hence it is impossible that there is more then one literal. But in the English language, there is more then one use of the language. It seem you confuse the use of language with literal.