Sometimes I find a lot of comfort in solipsism.

I don't like not knowing, and unfortunately there's a helluva lot more that I don't know than what I do.

Interesting question. I started a response to this, but then deleted it. The more I think about it, the more I wonder about what pieces of implicit interpretive framework I use without realizing. Some more introspection is probably warranted before I can give an honest answer. I'd love to say that science and reason drives my world view, but I think that neglects some basic and inherent human qualities which I think I'm probably guilty of having.

Some great and honest responses so far. Thanks for diving in to a difficult and pretty vulnerable question. a few thoughts below, interacting a bit with the other posts, but no single post, per se.

Science and Literature
It seems that the primary area of interest or field for those who have posted is science (I could be wrong about that, but that's the way it seems), and hence the authority, frameworks, and understandings of the world that rise out of a scientific worldview. To be sure, I grant much of the same authority to scientific investigation, with a detailed look at the evidence being necessary when competing conclusions are provided. Furthermore, those conclusions that seem to reflect the reality of our lived experience probably resonate as true even more. We become more and more certain of what we know the more we apply that conclusion to different situations and find that they "work" whatever that might mean. Of course, as has been noted, there are many things which we simply do not know and may never know, especially with certainty.

Yet, as one whose main object of study is literary texts, I find that I also grant authority to texts that seem to do similar things as scientific investigation. Whatever genre a piece of literature may be, or whether it is fiction or non-fiction, those books that I gravitate toward, remember the most, and even allow some authority in the way I view the world are those that seem to make sense of the world as I have experienced it. Perhaps even the same could be said of movies. These artistic works (literature and films) take us to other worlds in order to help us understand our own. These works help us understand abstract concepts like love, mercy, justice, hope, etc. often in imagined yet concrete terms. They help us understand and explain perhaps a different aspect of our lived experience that scientific investigation does not. To put it simply, perhaps too simply, if science gives us what our world is, other fields of study can give us the why behind the what.

Validity and Certainty
Within the literary world, I think E. D. Hirsch has provided some good language for understanding our ability to understand the meaning of a text and its significance. In his book The Validity of Interpretation, Hirsch argues in line with his title, that certainty in interpretation is nearly impossible but that we can reduce our options to a set of valid interpretations. In other words, it is often easier to say what a text does not mean than to say what a text does mean. In so doing we can (rightly) limit the interpretation of a text to a number of valid interpretations. Within this set of interpretations, we can find "the right answer" but we may not know when we have found the right answer. Thus, we can know the meaning of a text, but may not know it with certainty. It seems to me that there is an analogy here to scientific investigation. There are certain valid interpretations of the evidence based on the questions asked and the instruments used, but certainty is far more difficult to come by.

The conversation gets interesting when a set of valid interpretations from one area of study precludes or conflicts with the set of valid interpretations provided by another area of study (say the literature that we trust vs. the scientific investigation we have done). This, of course, is often how religion and science are brought together in conversation (e.g. religion vs. science, biblical interpretation vs. scientific method, creation vs. evolution). This does not have to be the case, but it often is. An extremely important question, and perhaps the heart of most controversies, then, is what we do when the authority structures and the interpretive frameworks we use come in conflict.

Bible as Authority
So, to actually answer the question (a little) . . . I do submit to the Bible as an authority for interpreting the world. For me this is neither a stance based on blind faith, nor a matter of certainty in my interpretation. Based on my understanding of history and interpretation of the text, I trust the testimony to be true that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and I believe the death and resurrection of Jesus took place "according to the Scriptures." Furthermore, I find that as I study the Bible, the Bible simply makes sense of the world that we currently inhabit, of what it means to be human, and of more abstract concepts like love, mercy, justice, and hope. To put it simply, I resonate with the story being told and how that story interprets the world I have experienced. I believe it not only because I see it, but by it I can see the world (I think rightly).

In keeping with the distinction between validity and certainty, as well as the humility made explicit in the other responses on this thread, I cannot prove that it is true and so I doubt at times. But there is a weight of evidence that continues to pile up and tip me in the direction of the Bible being true. In addition, the Bible is not the only authority for interpreting the world, but it is my starting point.

quote:

---

Interesting question. I started a response to this, but then deleted it. The more I think about it, the more I wonder about what pieces of implicit interpretive framework I use without realizing. Some more introspection is probably warranted before I can give an honest answer. I'd love to say that science and reason drives my world view, but I think that neglects some basic and inherent human qualities which I think I'm probably guilty of having.

---

Looking forward to your thoughtful response

quote:

---

Sometimes I find a lot of comfort in solipsism.

I don't like not knowing, and unfortunately there's a helluva more that I don't know than what I do.

---

Hear, hear

quote:

---

This does not have to be the case, but it often is. An extremely important question, and perhaps the heart of most controversies, then, is what we do when the authority structures and the interpretive frameworks we use come in conflict.

---

Which is why I think it best not to put too much stock into authority itself, but rather the evidence and critical thought that those authorities can produce. Authority figures come into conflict all the time, often in matters far less controversial than religion. Typically when this is the case we are less concerned with the authority itself than the arguments and evidence of each authority. Authority in and of itself is mostly useful in matters of general consensus, rather than controversy. It is in my estimation a poor tool in such circumstances (except in so far as their ability to point a laymen toward information). And if we have authorities in conflict and neither can produce terribly convincing arguments or evidence we generally take an agnostic (wait and see or we don't know) attitude, rather than stick tightly to our positions.

quote:

---

So, to actually answer the question (a little) . . . I do submit to the Bible as an authority for interpreting the world.

---

I guess I would ask why and to what extent? You answered that a little by saying you believe the Resurrection and it resonates with how you experience the world. But that's just a small section of a large bible. AstroAg touched on a similar point. Why should the bible (or any other religious work) be considered an all encompassing authority ("interpreting the world") without showing an all encompassing competence? Could we not and should we not conclude that a diverse book written by many different men in many different times is of widely varying quality, subject, accuracy, relevance, authenticity, ect?

quote:

---

For me this is neither a stance based on blind faith, nor a matter of certainty in my interpretation. Based on my understanding of history and interpretation of the text, I trust the testimony to be true that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and I believe the death and resurrection of Jesus took place "according to the Scriptures."

---

It's interesting that you quote that. Because even on this board we have many who think jesus rose from the dead but that the scriptures got certain bits wrong when taken literally. As I said before, it's a diverse book, why if you believe mark for instance, do you necessarily throw in exodus? Why extend that to canon in general and all subjects covered both in areas of competence and those in which there doesn't appear to be much working knowledge by the author at all.

quote:

---

Furthermore, I find that as I study the Bible, the Bible simply makes sense of the world that we currently inhabit, of what it means to be human, and of more abstract concepts like love, mercy, justice, and hope. To put it simply, I resonate with the story being told and how that story interprets the world I have experienced. I believe it not only because I see it, but by it I can see the world (I think rightly).

---

I think this is probably quite true for you. I think a mormon, muslim, hindu, and jew would speak similarly. How and why should we treat your experiences and interpretation of the world differently?

quote:

---

Isn't it true that an authority on one subject is not necessarily an authority on another? The understanding you gain from the bible about abstract human concepts does not imply that the bible is correct in all things. If I claim to be an expert on tax law and on fish, and I can tell you all about tax law but I can't demonstrate knowledge of fish, I shouldn't be regarded as a fish expert. The understanding of the natural world demonstrated in the bible is primitive at best, even if the authors demonstrated an advanced understanding of things related to the everyday human experience.

---

I absolutely agree with the point you're making. which is why I intentionally use plurals for "authority structures" and "frameworks."

I can see how my statement that the Bible is the starting place for me to interpret the world could be taken to mean that the Bible is an authority on the natural world as you are saying, but that's not how I meant it. I can be clearer on that point. To be as clear and succinct as possible, the Bible is not an authority on science, nor is science an authority on literary or historical investigation. Both can help us interpret the world in different ways. They are mutually interpretive, not mutually exclusive. Within the current conversation, I'm adding another layer to the frameworks, not eliminating one.

quote:

---

quote:

---

This does not have to be the case, but it often is. An extremely important question, and perhaps the heart of most controversies, then, is what we do when the authority structures and the interpretive frameworks we use come in conflict.

---

Which is why I think it best not to put too much stock into authority itself, but rather the evidence and critical thought that those authorities can produce. Authority figures come into conflict all the time, often in matters far less controversial than religion. Typically when this is the case we are less concerned with the authority itself than the arguments and evidence of each authority. Authority in and of itself is mostly useful in matters of general consensus, rather than controversy. It is in my estimation a poor tool in such circumstances (except in so far as their ability to point a laymen toward information). And if we have authorities in conflict and neither can produce terribly convincing arguments or evidence we generally take an agnostic (wait and see or we don't know) attitude, rather than stick tightly to our positions.

quote:

---

So, to actually answer the question (a little) . . . I do submit to the Bible as an authority for interpreting the world.

---

I guess I would ask why and to what extent? You answered that a little by saying you believe the Resurrection and it resonates with how you experience the world. But that's just a small section of a large bible. AstroAg touched on a similar point. Why should the bible (or any other religious work) be considered an all encompassing authority ("interpreting the world") without showing an all encompassing competence? Could we not and should we not conclude that a diverse book written by many different men in many different times is of widely varying quality, subject, accuracy, relevance, authenticity, ect?

quote:

---

For me this is neither a stance based on blind faith, nor a matter of certainty in my interpretation. Based on my understanding of history and interpretation of the text, I trust the testimony to be true that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, and I believe the death and resurrection of Jesus took place "according to the Scriptures."

---

It's interesting that you quote that. Because even on this board we have many who think jesus rose from the dead but that the scriptures got certain bits wrong when taken literally. As I said before, it's a diverse book, why if you believe mark for instance, do you necessarily throw in exodus? Why extend that to canon in general and all subjects covered both in areas of competence and those in which there doesn't appear to be much working knowledge by the author at all.

quote:

---

Furthermore, I find that as I study the Bible, the Bible simply makes sense of the world that we currently inhabit, of what it means to be human, and of more abstract concepts like love, mercy, justice, and hope. To put it simply, I resonate with the story being told and how that story interprets the world I have experienced. I believe it not only because I see it, but by it I can see the world (I think rightly).

---

I think this is probably quite true for you. I think a mormon, muslim, hindu, and jew would speak similarly. How and why should we treat your experiences and interpretation of the world differently?

---

Great thoughts

A few remarks in response . . .

1. I agree that we must discuss why we choose our authority structures and interpretive frameworks, which is why I included that aspect in the original question. Evidence and critical thought must be used in determining our authority structures and interpretive frameworks. The evidence we use to determine authority depends on the area in which one is claiming authority as AstroAg17 said earlier. My submitting to biblical authority is based on historical and literary evidence, as well as critical thought and discussion within the community of biblical scholars from various backgrounds and ways of thinking about the text.

2. On literal interpretation, I think it depends on what you mean by taking the Bible literally. For example, what does it mean to take the poetry of the psalter literally? I think interpreting a text should always be in light of the way an author intended his or her text to be read by his or her intended audience. In my opinion, this interpretive task is very difficult and is often done poorly, but that's perhaps a story for another thread. The main point here is that I think the Bible is true for what the authors intend to say to their audience through the text they have written.

3. The question of canon is a great one. To take the question as you have posed it, I would say I don't have to throw in the Exodus if I believe the Gospel of Mark. But there is a prior question to be asked, which is something like why were Exodus and Mark ever offered as part of an authoritative canon in the first place? I think if we start there the conversation could be much more fruitful regarding canon. Perhaps another thread discussion there.

4. You're probably right about the Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, and Jew. A significant factor in the competing metanarratives offered by these religions' scared texts is the question of historical reliability. Again, likely good fodder for another thread because detailed discussion would be incredibly wide ranging and tedious.

quote:

---

Science and Literature
It seems that the primary area of interest or field for those who have posted is science (I could be wrong about that, but that's the way it seems), and hence the authority, frameworks, and understandings of the world that rise out of a scientific worldview. To be sure, I grant much of the same authority to scientific investigation, with a detailed look at the evidence being necessary when competing conclusions are provided. Furthermore, those conclusions that seem to reflect the reality of our lived experience probably resonate as true even more. We become more and more certain of what we know the more we apply that conclusion to different situations and find that they "work" whatever that might mean. Of course, as has been noted, there are many things which we simply do not know and may never know, especially with certainty.

Yet, as one whose main object of study is literary texts, I find that I also grant authority to texts that seem to do similar things as scientific investigation. Whatever genre a piece of literature may be, or whether it is fiction or non-fiction, those books that I gravitate toward, remember the most, and even allow some authority in the way I view the world are those that seem to make sense of the world as I have experienced it. Perhaps even the same could be said of movies. These artistic works (literature and films) take us to other worlds in order to help us understand our own. These works help us understand abstract concepts like love, mercy, justice, hope, etc. often in imagined yet concrete terms. They help us understand and explain perhaps a different aspect of our lived experience that scientific investigation does not. To put it simply, perhaps too simply, if science gives us what our world is, other fields of study can give us the why behind the what.

---

I find myself, in a very general sense, nodding along to much of the first paragraph. I think we are compelled to grant some amount of authority, for example, to the scientists and engineers that build airplanes by virtue of the fact that they can reliably and predictably send a giant hollow aluminum tube and a few hundred people through the air at 600 mph and land them safely at a destination half way around the planet. A lot of this authority we give to science is through necessity, I think. It is not possible for any of us to simultaneously be a scientific expert in every technology that we use as participants of a modern world. Most of us have a general trust of the 'system' because we see it work although we may not understand all the reasons why it works.

I kept the second paragraph above, because I think it touches on why I originally had trouble answering this question. I enjoy reading and agree that it can have the affect of helping us make sense of the world and to understand our emotions. I hesitate to label the arts as an authority. . . or at least would say that I think that the authority I give them is very much personal. I'll try to fumble through an explanation of what I mean.

The way I interpret the world and the frameworks I rely on for that interpretation, I believe, are very much influenced by individual nature and nurture. My upbringing, where I grew up, my family and friends, and my experiences of literature and art, etc. inform my world view. My personality, sensitivities, imagination, introversion, and other personality traits also inform my world view. Given the range of personality types and experiences by people across the world, why should we have any expectation that our own interpretation of anything that isn't grounded in hard empiricism to be reliable as anything other than a unique and personal condition? In this way, I agree that art and literature are important for our emotional and psychological development as individuals, but I don't like the idea of prescribing objective truths or the term 'authority' to anything of this sort.

I guess this is my way of saying that I have emotional and psychological frameworks and authorities that inform my world view. . . . but I don't trust them. Or at least I don't trust them to be true for anyone other than myself.

When I was 9-ish years old sitting in religious studies class at my Catholic grade school, I remember learning about Hell. It wasn't a lesson full of fire and brimstone and it wasn't a lesson designed to scare anyone, but I knew from the second I heard it that I wholly rejected the idea of it. I think I've given an honest try to understanding it, but I simply find it irreconcilable with absolutely everything I know about love, mercy, purpose, fairness, reason, and logic. By the time I was about 19, I had a list going of things within my faith that I could not reconcile and so I dropped my faith. I was not angry and I did not have any negative feelings toward those who remained faithful. . . .But I knew that this religion was not compatible with me.

Its a strange thing to go from having a God as a supernatural moral authority to not having a moral authority at all. Having to re-question my moral positions on just about everything, I think has had the affect of helping me to understand or evaluate different moral positions without the burden of having to judge everything as objectively black or white. I think that holding moral absolutes on divine authority makes it hard for people to relate to one another. It divides us into those that are 'right' and those that are 'wrong'.

And maybe I am wrong about Sister Edwards' lesson on Hell. Maybe there is a Hell and her account of the topic was spot on. I can change the way I think or act about it, but I can't change who I am and I can't force myself to feel a certain way.

I think that all of this is my way of saying that I don't accept one absolute moral authority. Not because I fear accountability or because I wish to do whatever I want, but because I think that to accept a moral authority that is beyond reproach denies us some amount of our individualism.

Its late and its possible that everything above is nonsense. If you hadn't noticed, I have a bad habit of being long winded from time to time.

quote:

---

Its late and its possible that everything above is nonsense. If you hadn't noticed, I have a bad habit of being long winded from time to time.

---

Nonsense. This is a great thread. I relate to your viewpoint even though I am a believer in Christ. I'll have to add my own views when I get a block of time today.

Good, more points of view please. . . . its starting to look like the Reason Rally up in this thread.

Going to try this out without sounding pompous, crazy, or weird. I will probably fail miserably at all three.

I think we all have to start from scratch at our own thoughts and experiences. Because if we can't trust those, then the rest of this is an exercise in futility. I've had an experience in my life where I felt the power of God first-hand. It was completely overpowering, but it also had a certain "flavor" (for lack of a better word). Whenever I am in a situation, my first instinct is to try to mull over the options and identify if any of them echo that "flavor". I've heard a lot of Christians talk about "being guided by the Spirit", but that's what it looks like to me.

In the absence of clear direction (or sometimes unclear direction), I fall back on "What Would Jesus Do?", and I base that on my own reading of the Gospels, with somewhat less but still significant influence from the rest of the NT and OT. I trust pastors, speakers, priests, and those who study the Bible, but on serious issues I want to do the prayer and study for myself. Some of it is probably an indepedent, rebellious streak, and some of it is me not wanting to outsource my moral judgement and responsibility.

For largely non-moral issues like most scientific, historical, or political questions, I tend to trust the experts mostly out of laziness. They have clearly spent more time and effort learning about a particular subject than I have, and I respect that. However, if I am truly interested or curious, then I will find the source material and make my own judgements based on that. It doesn't bother me that I can read the same evidence as someone else and come to a different conclusion, and in my experience that tends to happen as often as not. But I try to keep my conclusions narrowed to the exact small thing I researched.

quote:

---

I trust pastors, speakers, priests, and those who study the Bible, but on serious issues I want to do the prayer and study for myself. Some of it is probably an independent, rebellious streak, and some of it is me not wanting to outsource my moral judgement and responsibility.

---

On any of those serious issues, do you reach conclusions or judgement that differ from your pastor, church, or 'conventional' Christian theology? If so, how do you resolve the difference / is it important to have that resolution?

I often disagree with those people in authority on little and big issues. Same as with non-moral issues, it doesn't bother me when we look at the same things and disagree. For example, my pastor firmly believes that all non-Christins will suffer unceasing conscious torment for eternity. I think that the very idea is horrible, evil, and false. However, we respect and love each other. He is incredibly saddened by the thought, so much that he has dedicated his life to "rescuing people from hell." He is a good person with a good heart, and I have no trouble following his lead despite our disagreements.

AstroAg17 said:

---

I must have misunderstood you, my mistake. The literal text of the bible and prevailing scientific theories are at odds, however. One must either reconcile that somehow (usually by interpreting passages as allegory), or choose between them. To paint them as authorities which can coexist in non-overlapping domains, one has to view parts of the bible as allegorical, as far as I know. I don't know of any other method of reconciliation.

---

Sorry I didn't see this when you originally posted it.

Interpreting texts can be tricksy. As a text, there is greater complexity to interpreting the Bible than just literal vs. allegorical methods.

For my money, I think authorial intent matters for the meaning of a text, that is, meaning relates to what an author intends to say to an audience through the text he or she has written. This would include studying the literary, historical, cultural, and even theological context.

Let's briefly dive into the implications of interpreting Genesis 1-3 in light of authorial intent for the creation/evolution debate. Perhaps the most obvious observation to make is that Genesis 1-3 was written before evolutionary theory. That being the case, the context within which or the background against which we should interpret the meaning of the text is not evolutionary theory. To interpret the meaning of Genesis 1-3 with modern categories or as though Genesis 1-3 is seeking to answer our scientific questions violates the author's intent. He is not providing a scientific account of creation.

Against the backdrop of the ancient Near East, especially in comparison to other Egyptian and Mesopotamian creation narratives, he is providing an alternative definition of God, humanity, and the purpose for which humanity and the rest of the world exists. When set against the backdrop of other ancient creation narratives, it doesn't seem that the conclusion and ancient reader would come to is "Man, those must have been six literal 24-hour periods." Nor would they think it important if they were literal, figurative, allegorical, long, short, or just a literary convention to organize the material. After reading this account of creation, the question an ancient reader would likely be asking is, "Hey, could we discuss the fact that it seems that there is one God doing all this. I'm not sure I get that" because all other creation narratives involve multiple gods in a polytheistic culture. Or, they might be asking about humanity functioning as the image of God and the fact that work is valuable and honorable over against other ancient narratives in which humanity is created to do work because the gods are tired of doing their laborious tasks.

Literarily they would also likely notice the parallel structure of the six days of creation. This is a structure that reveals days 1-3 as God creating realms and 4-6 as creating rulers for those realms, with humanity ruling over creation and God ruling over all things. In light of that, they would likely recognize the language of God "resting" as his resting on his throne after setting up his kingdom, not as needing a nap. (I could expand on all this, but might be better to do in a new thread?)

In light of all this, it seems to me that Genesis 1-3 is answering the questions of why the world exists, but answering them in the categories an ancient audience would understand. It seems to me, therefore, highly unlikely that the author provides a scientific account (as we would think of it) in this context.

We could also ask the question of what does it mean that God said they would surely die if they ate of the tree? Are Adam and Eve the first two people on the earth? Are they intended to be historical figures according to the genre? Does the Hebrew word for "create" necessarily mean creation out of nothing? And one could go on. The way we come to valid answers to these questions is not "Should we interpret literally or allegorically?" I think the question is something more like, "What did the author intend to communicate to his audience through the text?"

I'm not sure that this way of interpreting things would fall into what is generally labeled as literal or allegorical. But I do think it's the way we get at the meaning of the text. Once we've come to some valid interpretations of the text, then we can begin to talk about the significance of those interpretations for the creation/evolution debate, or more generally, the religion vs. science conversation.

Also, loving all the responses. Keep em rolling in!

For another thread, but:

If there is a personal God that has revealed himself to mankind, it seems reasonable that it would not be expected of individuals to be simultaneously experts in literary analysis, history, language, anthropology, theology, dead languages, and a host of other fields of study.

I accept your post above as well thought out and reasonable given a certain worldview, but I would question whether or not the author also intended for subsequent readers to be so systematic and analytic of so many variables.

Like I said, this is a derailment, but I wouldn't mind this topic going on 'the list'.

Quote:

---

In light of all this, it seems to me that Genesis 1-3 is answering the questions of why the world exists, but answering them in the categories an ancient audience would understand. It seems to me, therefore, highly unlikely that the author provides a scientific account (as we would think of it) in this context.

---

If we replace the word scientific with "historical" it seems that the author may have actually intended this. I grant that genesis lends itself more toward allegory than other stories (which despite your seeming reservations about the word seem appropriate toward your interpretation-perhaps meaningful allegory?). But the text doesn't make a seamless transition between possibly historical narratives and allegory if you view it this way. Perhaps Noah, babel, sodom, and those genealogies are allegories also. But despite historical evidence against it, exodus and the conquest is widely taken literally, and the davidic kingdom onward is almost universally taken literally (and starts conforming to archaeological evidence).

Viewed in the context of a world without much scientific knowledge, one might conclude that the author was making no attempt at a historical narrative (and it certainly makes sense as you noted, that he wasn't talking about evolution). But we could also conclude the author was making his best effort at a historical narrative based on the understanding at the time, even if he had a simultaneous, or even more important goal of imparting knowledge about the relationship between jews/mankind and YHWH.

So to go back to the topic at hand. It seems ill advised to view a document with much authority and take firm opinions on it's overall meaning when it's very purposes, and the knowledge/intent of the authors seem clouded by the fog of ancient history.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I often disagree with those people in authority on little and big issues. Same as with non-moral issues, it doesn't bother me when we look at the same things and disagree. For example, my pastor firmly believes that all non-Christins will suffer unceasing conscious torment for eternity. I think that the very idea is horrible, evil, and false. However, we respect and love each other. He is incredibly saddened by the thought, so much that he has dedicated his life to "rescuing people from hell." He is a good person with a good heart, and I have no trouble following his lead despite our disagreements.

---

It's fairly uncommon for a Messianic Jew (if I've incorrectly described you, I apologize) to be an annihilationist, correct? Or, am I off base?

JJMt said:

---

Mark:

Although the first 3 chapters of Genesis were not written as scientific texts, isn't it clear that they were written as historical texts? And doesn't the rest of the Bible, including David and Christ himself, treat them as reliable history?

And the argument that those chapters should be interpreted in light of their historical context - wasn't that method of interpretation developed only lately and solely in an attempt to reconcile those chapters with modern science?

And what do we truly know of those chapters' historical context? Isn't our knowledge of the societies of 4,000 years ago derived almost entirely from sparse items left in those societies' garbage dumps?

And if you give them anything other than a literal historical interpretation, on what intellectually honest basis do you give any of the rest of the Bible a literal historical interpretation? Should Christ's life and resurrection be viewed as a literal historical event, or is it also only a literary device to be considered in its historical context?

---

A question I've been wondering for those who take the Bible literally is how do you reconcile a literal interpretation and the fact that various ancient Canaanite Gods show up in the OT?

Satan did all of it?

I think you'll have a hard time finding much of any consensus among "messianic jews" on any topic, including what we want to be called (i favor hebrew roots christian at the moment).

But I think most of us are pretty skeptical about hell. After all, heaven is mentioned and described multiple times in the OT spanning over a thousand years, but to my knowledge hell isn't described once. Kind of a big oversight.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I think you'll have a hard time finding much of any consensus among "messianic jews" on any topic, including what we want to be called (i favor hebrew roots christian at the moment).

But I think most of us are pretty skeptical about hell. After all, heaven is mentioned and described multiple times in the OT spanning over a thousand years, but to my knowledge hell isn't described once. Kind of a big oversight.

---

Interesting regarding lack of consensus. I didn't realize that.

And I agree it's strange that hell appeared so late in the timeline. I would think some of the early Jews would have been more likely to follow the rules if they knew about hell.