Smallest seed

Tim Robbins

HI,
A question for Christians.
Mark 4:31 states that mustard seed is the smallest seed:
"It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:"

It clearly is not.
What way do you read this passage?
Tim

Excelsior

I read a parable about the Kingdom of God.

Am I missing something here? Do you want a full exegesis?

Tim Robbins

Excelsior wrote:

I read a parable about the Kingdom of God.

Am I missing something here? Do you want a full exegesis?

No, I am missing something. I thought to Christians the Gospels were supposed to be the truth. Can you explain the error of the Mustard seed being the smallest?
Thanks

Excelsior

Jesus is a Palestinian Jewish peasant talking to Palestinian Jewish peasants in the reign of Tiberius. He tells these farmers or at least people of the land a parable about the Kingdom of God being an initiative of the self-same God who brings everything into being "in its own time". The mustard seed may have been the smallest seed that they dealt with. The truth of the parable, which is a fictional tale, is about how the Kingdom of God starts small but will blossom bigger and larger than the human-mind can comprehend.

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote:

No, I am missing something. I thought to Christians the Gospels were supposed to be the truth. Can you explain the error of the Mustard seed being the smallest?
Thanks

Tim, is this a joke? The bible isn't a science book! I suggest read up on parables.

Regards,
Noel.

bonkey

kelly1 wrote:

Tim, is this a joke? The bible isn't a science book!

I'm guessing Tim was hoping one of the people who argue that science is wrong when it contradicts the truth of the bible would bite and offer an explanation similar to yours.

Scofflaw

It makes perfect sense if you have any teaching experience! If you found yourself saying...

"It is like the seeds of epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest, which, when it is sown in the earth (not that it is, because epiphytes actually grow on other plants), is less than all the seeds that be in the earth - although that's not a fair comparison, of course, as we've already said"

...then it is time to give up the messiah trade, because you're about to explain what a tropical rain forest and an epiphytic orchid is, and how you know about them, to a rapidly dwindling audience of people who were expecting to hear about the kingdom of heaven, and are instead receiving a lecture on comparative botany.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kelly1

Scofflaw wrote:

It makes perfect sense if you have any teaching experience! If you found yourself saying...

"It is like the seeds of epiphytic orchids of the tropical rain forest, which, when it is sown in the earth (not that it is, because epiphytes actually grow on other plants), is less than all the seeds that be in the earth - although that's not a fair comparison, of course, as we've already said"

...then it is time to give up the messiah trade, because you're about to explain what a tropical rain forest and an epiphytic orchid is, and how you know about them, to a rapidly dwindling audience of people who were expecting to hear about the kingdom of heaven, and are instead receiving a lecture on comparative botany.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Objection! Defense moves to strike evidence due to irrelevance!

Scofflaw

kelly1 wrote:

Objection! Defense moves to strike evidence due to irrelevance!

Why is it irrelevant? Jesus was teaching, yes? When you teach, you put the things you are trying to get across in terms that are comprehensible to your listeners. If their experience is that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, then you go with that, accurate or not, because you're not trying to teach them botany, so it's not important.

Besides, no-one has suggested, to my knowledge, that there actually were seven wise and seven foolish virgins.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

HI,
A question for Christians.
Mark 4:31 states that mustard seed is the smallest seed:
"It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:"

It clearly is not.
What way do you read this passage?
Tim

Tim, this is your final warning. One more piece of crap like this from you and you are banned for ever from this forum for as long as I mod it. If you don't like it, take it to feed back.
Grow up.
Asia

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

...then it is time to give up the messiah trade, because you're about to explain what a tropical rain forest and an epiphytic orchid is, and how you know about them, to a rapidly dwindling audience of people who were expecting to hear about the kingdom of heaven, and are instead receiving a lecture on comparative botany.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim, if a fellow atheist, Scofflaw, can understand why Jesus didn't feel an in depth botanical discussion was necessary to spread his message then I really can't understand why you have failed to grasp the same.

I think that most Christians here are accommodating to people who have genuine questions. And we try to answer these questions to the best of our abilities.

1 out of 10. Must try harder.

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

Tim, this is your final warning. One more piece of crap like this from you and you are banned for ever from this forum for as long as I mod it. If you don't like it, take it to feed back.
Grow up.
Asia

It was actually genuine question, Asia.
I was reading through the skepticsannotatedbible.
I know there are some bizarre claims in the OT, but wanted to see if their were any in the actual Gospels. I went to the Gospel of Mark and the clicked the Science and Technology link, which brought me to here:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/mk/sci_list.html

The first point there is:
# Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. (The smallest seeds are found among the tropical, epiphytic orchids.) 4:31

So I wanted to hear what the Christian or Theological interpretation of this was, as I didn't know.

It would seem in this case, the reference to the Mustard seed is consider a metaphor.
Do the creationists who read the Bible literally think a Mustard seed is the smallest seed?

Now I don't think I am violating the charter, perhaps you should point out where I am. Should we take this to feedback?

Rgds

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Tim, if a fellow atheist, Scofflaw, can understand why Jesus didn't feel an in depth botanical discussion was necessary to spread his message then I really can't understand why you have failed to grasp the same.

I think that most Christians here are accommodating to people who have genuine questions. And we try to answer these questions to the best of our abilities.

1 out of 10. Must try harder.

Well I didn't understand it and I am at a loss as why my question seems to have caused offense. Basically, the deeper question here which many atheists have, is the Bible claims to be an expert book on the metaphysical world but doesn't really say that much about the physical world. I think more people would believe in it, if it gave some accurate information about physical world.

Son Goku

A question for Christians.
Mark 4:31 states that mustard seed is the smallest seed:
"It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:"

It clearly is not.

He's just using a metaphor I'd imagine, surely the seed actually being the smallest or not doesn't matter. "Is less than all the seeds that be in the earth" is probably just there as a way of contrasting its starting size with its later size and it was the smallest seed people then, in that region, would have seen.

Tim Robbins

Son Goku wrote:

He's just using a metaphor I'd imagine, surely the seed actually being the smallest or not doesn't matter. "Is less than all the seeds that be in the earth" is probably just there as a way of contrasting its starting size with its later size and it was the smallest seed people then, in that region, would have seen.

Yes which begs the question: what is a metaphor and what is literal?

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes which begs the question: what is a metaphor and what is literal?

He was using it as part of a PARABLE. Check out his explanation of using parables after the Parable of the Sower to see what his intention was and how he was fulfilling Biblical prophesy by using parables.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes which begs the question: what is a metaphor and what is literal?

Please, let's not go down this tiresome route. Use your common sense, Tim.

I've only glanced at this site, but it may shed some light on a subject you seem to be inexplicably baffled by.

http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/mustard.htm

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

It was actually genuine question, Asia.

As are all you bring up, until that is, they deviate of on a tangent. Drink and crutch come to mind. And that is what I object to. You want to discuss a topic, mention the topic directly. You want to talk about the size of the seed, go talk to JC in in the Big Thread.

The first point there is:
# Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. (The smallest seeds are found among the tropical, epiphytic orchids.) 4:31

Tim, so what, it was not about the size of the seed. The size of the seed is your problem

So I wanted to hear what the Christian or Theological interpretation of this was, as I didn't know.

Interpretation of what, that is was not the smallest seed. We don't need one, we know it was not.

It would seem in this case, the reference to the Mustard seed is consider a metaphor.

Well done.

Do the creationists who read the Bible literally think a Mustard seed is the smallest seed?

They probably don't care to be honest. Here is one for you "less than all the seeds" is less referring to its size!

Should we take this to feedback?

We, will do nothing.
You, can do what you like.
I, will do, as I said I will do, if I feel, I need to do it.

Rgds to you too

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

As are all you bring up, until that is, they deviate of on a tangent. Drink and crutch come to mind. And that is what I object to. You want to discuss a topic, mention the topic directly. You want to talk about the size of the seed, go talk to JC in in the Big Thread.


Tim, so what, it was not about the size of the seed. The size of the seed is your problem


Interpretation of what, that is was not the smallest seed. We don't need one, we know it was not.



Well done.


They probably don't care to be honest. Here is one for you "less than all the seeds" is less referring to its size!


We, will do nothing.
You, can do what you like.
I, will do, as I said I will do, if I feel, I need to do it.

Rgds to you too

Well it appears I was out of depth in this thread.
However, may I say I was just echoing a statement from the skepticsannotatedbible which is respected amongst some quarters in these forums. I just wanted to hear Christians view of it which seems to be that the skepticsannotatedbible is straw manning on this issue.
My intentions was not to cause offense, I am a bit taken aback by some posts here. Please remember not all of us know the Bible as well of some of you lot and they only way some of us can learn is to ask questions.

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

they only way some of us can learn is to ask questions.

Exactly, by asking questions. Glad we agree, ask away.

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

Exactly, by asking questions. Glad we agree, ask away.

All I did was ask questions and then you had a right go at me.
Perhaps you could explain where I violated the charter?

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote:

All I did was ask questions and then you had a right go at me.
Perhaps you could explain where I violated the charter?

I don't think you would appreciate my explanation of how you violated the charter, and I don't feel there is anything more I need to say on the issue, nor bore the posters here with (My apologies all).
If you have questions about your mustard seed ask away, bearing in mind all that preceeded this post.
You are very welcome.
Asia

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote:

I don't think you would appreciate my explanation of how you violated the charter, and I don't feel there is anything more I need to say on the issue, nor bore the posters here with (My apologies all).
If you have questions about your mustard seed ask away, bearing in mind all that preceeded this post.
You are very welcome.
Asia

It doesn't matter, I'm not looking for a fight and that's the way I feel you've treated me. I'll pass thanks.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well it appears I was out of depth in this thread.
However, may I say I was just echoing a statement from the skepticsannotatedbible which is respected amongst some quarters in these forums. I just wanted to hear Christians view of it which seems to be that the skepticsannotatedbible is straw manning on this issue.
My intentions was not to cause offense, I am a bit taken aback by some posts here. Please remember not all of us know the Bible as well of some of you lot and they only way some of us can learn is to ask questions.

I would be amazed if the Skeptics Annotated Bible was respected in any quarters anywhere.

In fairness to Tim, the issue of the mustard seed has been discussed seriously elsewhere because of its implications for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. If the Bible is inerrant, then how can it make an error about any piece of information, including the size of a seed?

As explained here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/mustardseed.html it is speaking to the standpoint of the hearer in that the mustard seed was the smallest seed used in 1st Century Palestine.

I am surprised that Tim has been moderated so harshly when other posters have been permitted to raise a huge song and dance over the Bible speaking about the sun rising, setting or standing still - which is, after all, simply a variation on the same argument.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I would be amazed if the Skeptics Annotated Bible was respected in any quarters anywhere.

In fairness to Tim, the issue of the mustard seed has been discussed seriously elsewhere because of its implications for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. If the Bible is inerrant, then how can it make an error about any piece of information, including the size of a seed?

As explained here: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/mustardseed.html it is speaking to the standpoint of the hearer in that the mustard seed was the smallest seed used in 1st Century Palestine.

I am surprised that Tim has been moderated so harshly when other posters have been permitted to raise a huge song and dance over the Bible speaking about the sun rising, setting or standing still - which is, after all, simply a variation on the same argument.

As sometimes happens, I am not certain you are not being disingenuous here. The mustard seed example occurs in what is very obviously parable form - and the answer given both here and at your link is an immediately obvious answer. Other examples that get raised come from completely different contexts, where apparently factual information is being offered as part of a historical record.

Further, the inerrancy of the Bible is not called into question here at all - no-one asks "is this really what Jesus said?". What is being questioned is Jesus' omniscience - a charge that can be trivially dismissed, as we have seen.

Overall, if you asked me for an example that could be used to rebut the claims of Biblical skeptics, this would be high on my list. It doesn't truly question Biblical inerrancy, and the counter-argument is immediately obvious to all but an idiot - allowing me to leave my listeners with the comforting (but false) feeling that all Biblical controversies can be equally simply resolved, particularly if I were to claim that they're all "variations on the same argument".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

Further, the inerrancy of the Bible is not called into question here at all - no-one asks "is this really what Jesus said?". What is being questioned is Jesus' omniscience - a charge that can be trivially dismissed, as we have seen.

I would be of the opinion that Jesus' omniscience is not being called into question, whereas and the Bible's inerrancy is. I find the question and the reasoning very weak though. I think, PDN, this is probably the reason for the negative reactions (including mine).

Anyway, Scofllaw, my take would be that Jesus the man (not the God) was not omniscient (that's not to say he didn't have special knowledge). After all, in Luke 8:45 Jesus asks "Who touched me?" as a woman grabbed him as he stood in the middle of a crowd.

Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I would be of the opinion that Jesus' omniscience is not being called into question, whereas and the Bible's inerrancy is. I find the question and the reasoning very weak though. I think, PDN, this is probably the reason for the negative reactions (including mine).

Anyway, Scofllaw, my take would be that Jesus the man (not the God) was not omniscient (that's not to say he didn't have special knowledge). After all, in Luke 8:45 Jesus asks "Who touched me?" as a woman grabbed him as he stood in the middle of a crowd.

That's why I would say the Bible's inerrancy is not called into question - there's no reason to think the Bible is reporting Jesus' words inaccurately.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fanny Cradock

Scofflaw wrote:

That's why I would say the Bible's inerrancy is not called into question - there's no reason to think the Bible is reporting Jesus' words inaccurately.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes, I see your point.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

As sometimes happens, I am not certain you are not being disingenuous here.

It's nice to know I can keep you guessing.

Excelsior

Scoffie, I think PDN is right here. The issue raised is a challenge to the theory of Biblical inerrancy (which is a position I have never been able to grasp or comprehend). Strictly speaking I don't think you'll find anyone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth was omniscient. That would not be part of classical orthodox doctrine as far as I am aware (happy to be corrected by my masters in such things; PDN?).

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

It's nice to know I can keep you guessing.

Well, by default, honi soit qui mal y pense.

Excelsior wrote:

Scoffie, I think PDN is right here. The issue raised is a challenge to the theory of Biblical inerrancy (which is a position I have never been able to grasp or comprehend). Strictly speaking I don't think you'll find anyone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth was omniscient. That would not be part of classical orthodox doctrine as far as I am aware (happy to be corrected by my masters in such things; PDN?).

Er, yes and no. The question is certainly posed as a challenge to the theory of Biblical inerrancy, but it doesn't actually question Biblical inerrancy at all, but rather the omnisicience of Christ, which, as you say, is hardly a doctrinal position.

The only way the Bible can err here is if it fails to report Christ's words correctly, since that is what the context is. There's absolutely no reason to think that this is inaccurate reporting, though, unless you believe that Christ was personally omniscient (and a botany teacher), so the question immediately resolves into "why did Christ say that, when it's not actually correct?" - a question with a wide variety of very easy and believable answers.

It's like trying to injure someone with a soggy biscuit - I'm not sure if you can describe it as a 'straw man' exactly, unless you assume that the 'straw man ' in question is Christ's omniscience, but that isn't the overt challenge posed by the question.

If I were going to defend Biblical inerrancy in public, I would be absolutely delighted if this was the first "skeptical" question, and I'd use its easy dismissal to boost the confidence of the faithful for the harder questions.

That's why I would have strong suspicions of anyone who claimed that all questioning of the Bible's inerrancy is essentially the same as this question - because by doing so, one is using the stupidity of this question to weaken other, perfectly sensible questions. It's what I'd do, assuming I found myself defending Biblical inerrancy - the only difficulty would be finding someone stupid enough to ask the question in the first place.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Excelsior wrote:

Scoffie, I think PDN is right here. The issue raised is a challenge to the theory of Biblical inerrancy (which is a position I have never been able to grasp or comprehend). Strictly speaking I don't think you'll find anyone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth was omniscient. That would not be part of classical orthodox doctrine as far as I am aware (happy to be corrected by my masters in such things; PDN?).

As a fellow disciple I certainly agree that Jesus was not omniscient. Luke 2:52, for example, speaks of Jesus growing in wisdom as a child. Orthodox Christian theology teaches the kenosis, or emptying of God the Son in the Incarnation in line with Philippians 2:7.

Charles Wesley, in his hymn 'And can it be?', referred to this in the memorable phrase "Emptied Himself of all but love, and bled for Adam's helpless race." This conveys the idea that God the Son emptied himself of divine attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience & omnipresence - but that he retained God's moral attributes of holiness & love.

This, for me, would create a problem in the idea of Jesus making a false statement. As Scofflaw has pointed out, inerrancy could involve the Bible accurately reporting a false statement by someone else, and it is true that Jesus was not omniscient. However, in my opinion, humility is a moral attribute, and humility involves an awareness of your limitations. If Jesus, as God Incarnate, made a false claim about botany due to his limited knowledge then that would trouble me.

Scofflaw wrote:

That's why I would have strong suspicions of anyone who claimed that all questioning of the Bible's inerrancy is essentially the same as this question - because by doing so, one is using the stupidity of this question to weaken other, perfectly sensible questions. It's what I'd do, assuming I found myself defending Biblical inerrancy - the only difficulty would be finding someone stupid enough to ask the question in the first place.

I would certainly not argue that all questioning of inerrancy is essentially the same as this question. However, the use of phenomenological language, or accommodation to the limitations and perspective of the original hearers/readers, is of the same class.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

This, for me, would create a problem in the idea of Jesus making a false statement. As Scofflaw has pointed out, inerrancy could involve the Bible accurately reporting a false statement by someone else, and it is true that Jesus was not omniscient. However, in my opinion, humility is a moral attribute, and humility involves an awareness of your limitations. If Jesus, as God Incarnate, made a false claim about botany due to his limited knowledge then that would trouble me.

For myself, I would assume that had Jesus needed to know what the smallest seed really was, He would have done so.

PDN wrote:

I would certainly not argue that all questioning of inerrancy is essentially the same as this question. However, the use of phenomenological language, or accommodation to the limitations and perspective of the original hearers/readers, is of the same class.

Here, unsurprisingly, we part ways. While Jesus was speaking directly and personally to an audience of first-century Galileans, you are still using the Bible as a guide to your life in the 21st century. If the Bible is the word of God, and was written down as such, I see no reason for it to have accommodated itself to the limitations of its original audience at the expense of long-term clarity, unless God himself could not foresee that it would still be in use two millennia later.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

This raises an interesting question. What if Jesus had mentioned the smallest seed, and the people of Palestine did not understand that it was the smallest seed or could not relate to it? In a parable Jesus is trying to relate to the people, who obviously thought that the mustard seed was the smallest they could get.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

This raises an interesting question. What if Jesus had mentioned the smallest seed, and the people of Palestine did not understand that it was the smallest seed or could not relate to it? In a parable Jesus is trying to relate to the people, who obviously thought that the mustard seed was the smallest they could get.

Personally, if there was any physical law mentioned in the Bible, that nobody knew at the time, I would find it a a lot harder to reject the Bible as an accurate account of the creater of the universe.
If Jesus said Adam and Eve story was nothing but a myth and that species evolved through natural selection and would discover this someday through fossils and molecular analysis, I would find him a lot harder to reject.
I would actually think I had more "free will", because I would have more evidence to believe he may have been who he said he was and I still wasn't been forced to believe or worship. Right now, I see there being no better chance of Jesus being who he said he was, than Thor chasing me with his hammer.

neuro-praxis

Best scoot on outta the forum then so!

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

For myself, I would assume that had Jesus needed to know what the smallest seed really was, He would have done so.



Here, unsurprisingly, we part ways. While Jesus was speaking directly and personally to an audience of first-century Galileans, you are still using the Bible as a guide to your life in the 21st century. If the Bible is the word of God, and was written down as such, I see no reason for it to have accommodated itself to the limitations of its original audience at the expense of long-term clarity, unless God himself could not foresee that it would still be in use two millennia later.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The lessons we can learn from the Bible are timeless. In the case of teh smallest seed, we know it isn't the smallest seed, yet the lesson we learn from it continues.