- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Where does the Bible say it is fiction?
Where did I say that the bible said it was fiction?
Where does the Bible say it is fiction?
The issue of rather the bible is fiction or not is a RedHarring and doesn't pertain to the question of the OP at all.
Well, it pertains somewhat (although tangentially) to the OP because the only reason to think that Mat 16:28 could mean anything other than Jesus saying that some of the folks standing around at the time would live to see his second coming, is because that was two millenia ago, and most folk aren't inclined to believe that there are 2000+ year old people wandering around.
Of course if it is fiction than it is reasonable to think that either there are in fact 2000+ year old folk wandering around, or that Jesus was wrong or lying.
But if one's entire evaluation of existence depends on the Bible being the Absolute Truth, and is unwilling to accept that there could be some living people who are a couple millenia old, it leads them to look for another explanation for the passage rather than its immediately apparent and obvious meaning.
Personally I don't need the Bible to be Absolute Truth in order to validate my existence, but neither am I going to completely discount the notion that the homeless guy across the street might by a few thousand years old.
I think that the meaning in Mat 16:28 is unambiguous, and clearly states that some of the folks who were listening to Jesus that day would still be alive when the second coming came around. I am still waiting to see a compelling argument for either the Ressurection or the Transfiguaration.
Or an alternative interpretation if someone wants to bring something new to the table...
Where did I say that the bible said it was fiction?
Lets say that the bible was thought up and printed last year; Let's say that everyone shakes hands and agrees that it's obviously a work of pure fiction.......that's still what the book says.
obvious enough?
Well, I have nothing new to bring. I accept the bible as true and credable (though I don't know who you were referring to by "....one's entire evaluation of existence depends on the Bible being the Absolute Truth...", nore do I know what "Absolut Truth", capitole A and T, is, be it a document or whatever) and I read that passage as literal; and don't see the general, seculer idea of a person living for thousands of years to be out of the relm of possability....current medical knowledge, yes, but I also assume that Jesus knew allot more then than we do today.
though I don't know who you were referring to by "....one's entire evaluation of existence depends on the Bible being the Absolute Truth...", nore do I know what "Absolut Truth", capitole A and T, is, be it a document or whatever
My take is this: As I see it, the life which is commonly referred to in the bible is clearly not life as we understand it, being the life of the body. Christianity is about the soul, that which is assumed to be there that makes life more than just the functioning of human organs. When we speak of eternal life, obviously no one's body lives forever, so obviously that's referring to something else. We live through God, God is a real force that is everywhere and in everything, and our bodies are simply tools by which we have means of interacting with God, and when our bodies die what remains of us is the effect our bodies had while under our control. By this notion, obviously many of the people who were with Jesus Christ are still alive and well today, despite the obvious death of all of their bodies.
I'm not sure I get where you're going here. Resurrection of the body could be possible, I've certainly never seen it, but I think the reference to resurrection when it comes to Christ is that they killed his body and he still lived, which became apparent once they started to get past the mourning of the death of his body (thusly he was resurrected unto them, as they realized the life he lived was not one of his body).
obvious enough?
erg I need to finish our conversation in that other thread don't I.. been busy.Furthermore, if people don't really die, because their spirit keeps on existing, then the Serpent didn't lie when she told Eve "you shall not surely die" and God did lie when he told Adam that he would.
16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
So what do all y'all Christian folk think?
Common attempts to explain this apparent discrepancy are that it refers to the transfiguration, the fall of Jeruselam in 70 AD, the Pentacost, the Ressurection, or the spread of the Gospel.
The immediatly apparent meaning is that "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works" while some of the folks he was saying this to are still alive.
I think the most defensible position is that there is some 2000 year old dude still wandering around, probably listening to Led Zepplin on his ipod right now, waiting for Jesus to come back and reward every man according to his works.
This is the way I see it.....Furthermore, if people don't really die, because their spirit keeps on existing, then the Serpent didn't lie when she told Eve "you shall not surely die" and God did lie when he told Adam that he would.
Please come back when you can follow the conversation. :2wave:
ANSWER: It is amazing to me how many "Christians" out there don't understand or even read their Bible. Also, it is nearly impossible to translate the Bible when verses are taken out of context. With that being said, if you read the next two verses and you will learn that three of the disciples went with Jesus up a high mountain and he was transfigured before them. TA-DA!
16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
So what do all y'all Christian folk think?
Common attempts to explain this apparent discrepancy are that it refers to the transfiguration, the fall of Jeruselam in 70 AD, the Pentacost, the Ressurection, or the spread of the Gospel.
The immediatly apparent meaning is that "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works" while some of the folks he was saying this to are still alive.
I think the most defensible position is that there is some 2000 year old dude still wandering around, probably listening to Led Zepplin on his ipod right now, waiting for Jesus to come back and reward every man according to his works.
Perhaps if this "truly I say to you" business was regularly used to separate one topic from another this would have some merit, but "truly I say to you" is overwelmingly used in the New Testement to emphasise a topic which is already being discussed.
A few examples to start with...
Mat 6:5
Mat 6:16
Mat 8:10
Mat 10:42
Mat 17:20
Mat 21:21
Mat 25:45
Mark 9:41
Luke 12:37
If you could show how "truly I say to you" is used to indroduce a new topic in any of these, that would be great. Or if you prefer, you could find a similar list of examples of the phrase being used to introduce a new topic elsewhere in the New Testement.
I think the phrase is clearly and overwhelmingly used to emphasize what was said in the earlier verse, and as such suggests that Mat 16:28 is in direct reference to Mat 16:27, which is clearly referring to the Second Coming.
This is the way I see it.....
In context, "die" meant a literal, phisical death.
The choice:
A. Eat from the Tree of Life and literaly live forever with God; or
B. Eat of the Tree of Knowledge and end up dieing.
Eve came to Adam and was like "yo, check this sh!t out", and Adam was all "is all good dawg, les jus chill", Eve's all "no fruit, no sex", and Adam was like "daYmn", and the rest is history.
Now, the serpent's diseption layed in what would happen if Adam and Eve ate the fruit, as the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge itself wasn't responsible for Adam and Eve dieing. The fruit didn't kill them, just as the serpant said it wouldn't.
But God didn't say that the fruit would kill them, He said that they would die if they ate it; see the diference there?
Adam and Eve ate the fruit, and the fruit didn't kill them, just like the serpent said, but Adam and Eve were denied access to the Tree of Life as a consiquence, and so they died a natural death of old age, just as God said they would.
I agree.
With you so far...
See, now in all the versions I have read God said "in the day you eat thereof." Now it seems to me that Adam and Eve did not die "in the day they ate thereof" but rather they died thousands of days after that.
Sounds like your quoting King James. I'm partial to NIV myself, simply because I have a hard time reading old english...imagin my frustration in highschool when we had to read, understand and memorize shakspear....
Genesis 2:17
"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Genesis 3:3
"but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
BibleGateway.com - Keyword Search: die
I suggest that this is an issue of translating the Hebrew into any of the many styles and dialects of English.