The Exodus

Pompey Magnus

Do Christians really believe the story of the Exodus out of Egypt? I mean even those who believe the Bible is innerant must surely be a little unsure about this story?

The whole thing just never made sense to me, I mean where did these so-called slaves get all their gold from that they could build a statue to worship, what kind of slaves are allowed by their masters to keep gold? How on earth could it take all those people 40 years to walk just 250 miles? That is a rate of under 6 miles PER YEAR or 0.0007 miles per hour! I would call that snail's pace but I think that would be insulting to snails because from a quick calculation I would make it that a snail would travel the same distance in roughly 13 years (without taking a break, admittedly). Also how could a few million people travel across a desert for close to half a century and not leave a shred of archaeological evidence to prove the journey actually took place?

Can Christians actually take this story seriously or would you accept that the story of Moses leading the Jews to the Promised Land is either mostly or entirely fictional?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Do Christians really believe the story of the Exodus out of Egypt?

Yes.

I mean where did these so-called slaves get all their gold from that they could build a statue to worship, what kind of slaves are allowed by their masters to keep gold?

Er, didn't you think of actually reading the account of the Exodus before attacking it?

"So I will stretch out my hand and strike the Egyptians with all the wonders that I will perform among them. After that, he will let you go. And I will make the Egyptians favorably disposed toward this people, so that when you leave you will not go empty-handed. Every woman is to ask her neighbor and any woman living in her house for articles of silver and gold and for clothing, which you will put on your sons and daughters. And so you will plunder the Egyptians." (Exodus 3:20-22)

"Now the LORD had said to Moses, "I will bring one more plague on Pharaoh and on Egypt. After that, he will let you go from here, and when he does, he will drive you out completely. Tell the people that men and women alike are to ask their neighbors for articles of silver and gold." The LORD made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and Moses himself was highly regarded in Egypt by Pharaoh's officials and by the people. (Exodus 11:1-3)

The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians. (Exodus 12:34-36)

BTW, it is entirely possible that the Israelites already had gold before this act. You are making the mistake of assuming that 'slavery' in the Ancient Near East was like the North Atlantic slave trade of the 1700s. In fact it was often much more benign with slaves owning property and carrying on commerce.

How on earth could it take all those people 40 years to walk just 250 miles? That is a rate of under 6 miles PER YEAR or 0.0007 miles per hour! I would call that snail's pace but I think that would be insulting to snails because from a quick calculation I would make it that a snail would travel the same distance in roughly 13 years (without taking a break, admittedly).

In Numbers Chapters 13 and 14 the Bible describes how the Israelites walked those 250 miles in a very short space of time. Then they sent out some spies to scout out the land. The spies spent 40 days doing this, and then brought back a discouraging report about the strength of the occupants of the Promised Land. The bulk of the Israelites, on the basis of this report, refused to obey God's instruction to enter the land. As a punishment for their belief God said that generation would wander in the wilderness for 40 years, one year for every day that they scouted out the land. So the 40 years, as any child in our Sunday school classes could tell you, was a punishment, not the actual time it took to travel from Egypt to Canaan.

Again, don't you think it would make sense to read the text you are attacking rather than spending your time making calculations about the speed of travel of snails?

Also how could a few million people travel across a desert for close to half a century and not leave a shred of archaeological evidence to prove the journey actually took place?

Hmm, so you are a supporter of arguments from silence? A nomadic people in a desert environment tend not to leave too much behind that we would expect to find thousands of years later.

JimiTime

Indeed. I think its getting to the stage with so many people, that the bible is so much of a joke to them at this stage, that everything is up for being cannon fodder. I mean, if one doesn't believe in God, then all its writers were complete liars, so why would you believe anything from it.
I remember seeing a historian talking about Babylon on the TV a few years back saying 'The bible describes Babylon as a godless people. How wrong it is, as we see they had many Gods.':rolleyes: Talk about completely missing the point! I can see how someone may then say, 'Well historians say the bible was wrong about babylon being godless'.
Good post though PDN.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

I mean, if one doesn't believe in God, then all its writers were complete liars, so why would you believe anything from it.

Ye gods, jimi, take it easy! Just because I think that god doesn't exist, doesn't also mean that I think the bible was written by a pack of liars, any more than I think that Homer was a liar for writing the Odyssey.

There is a reasonable middle ground between the two extreme and untenable positions that everything in the bible is true, and everything in the bible is false.

Galvasean

I'm thinking maybe 40 days instead of 40 years sounds more reasonable. Could have been a mistranslation or something.
I certainly don't believe the parting of the red sea bit, but certainly they may have been able to take advantage of a shallow ford or something.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm thinking maybe 40 days instead of 40 years sounds more reasonable. Could have been a mistranslation or something.
I certainly don't believe the parting of the red sea bit, but certainly they may have been able to take advantage of a shallow ford or something.

If you read everything that happened in those 40 years then it would be absolutely impossible for them to have happened in 40 days. Why create an issue over translation when the text makes it clear that they spent 40 years in the wilderness and explains just why they had to spend 40 years there?

As for the shallow ford? In that case I will praise God for the even bigger miracle he performed by drowning the entire Egyptian army in a shallow ford! Why, that sounds like an even bigger miracle than the parting of the Red Sea!

AtomicHorror

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Do Christians really believe the story of the Exodus out of Egypt? I mean even those who believe the Bible is innerant must surely be a little unsure about this story?

The whole thing just never made sense to me, I mean where did these so-called slaves get all their gold from that they could build a statue to worship, what kind of slaves are allowed by their masters to keep gold? How on earth could it take all those people 40 years to walk just 250 miles? That is a rate of under 6 miles PER YEAR or 0.0007 miles per hour! I would call that snail's pace but I think that would be insulting to snails because from a quick calculation I would make it that a snail would travel the same distance in roughly 13 years (without taking a break, admittedly). Also how could a few million people travel across a desert for close to half a century and not leave a shred of archaeological evidence to prove the journey actually took place?

Can Christians actually take this story seriously or would you accept that the story of Moses leading the Jews to the Promised Land is either mostly or entirely fictional?

You're focusing on the time element while ignoring the small matter of the parting of the Red Sea? I view the content of the bible as any other collection of primary and secondary sources, with suspicion. However, I don't see much in the exodus journey itself to be especially skeptical of. The time of its occurrence is not clear so pinning down the archeological evidence could be tricky.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Hmm, so you are a supporter of arguments from silence? A nomadic people in a desert environment tend not to leave too much behind that we would expect to find thousands of years later.

I would be a supporter of an argument from silence when we are talking about 600,000 men, plus presumably an equal number of women and then an even greater number of children, all within a relatively confined space simply couldn't help but leave massive evidence for their presence. I mean how many hundreds of people would die every single day, the desert should be filled with mass burial grounds, broken pottery etc.

AtomicHorror

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I would be a supporter of an argument from silence when we are talking about 600,000 men, plus presumably an equal number of women and then an even greater number of children, all within a relatively confined space simply couldn't help but leave massive evidence for their presence. I mean how many hundreds of people would die every single day, the desert should be filled with mass burial grounds, broken pottery etc.

Really depends on how large the area actually is (were they actually confined in any manner at all other than being unable to return to Egypt or enter Israel?) and how long ago it occurred. The date range is from about 3000 BC to 1000 BC.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

If you read everything that happened in those 40 years then it would be absolutely impossible for them to have happened in 40 days. Why create an issue over translation when the text makes it clear that they spent 40 years in the wilderness and explains just why they had to spend 40 years there?

Fair enough.

PDN wrote:

As for the shallow ford? In that case I will praise God for the even bigger miracle he performed by drowning the entire Egyptian army in a shallow ford! Why, that sounds like an even bigger miracle than the parting of the Red Sea!

Flash floods are nowhere near as common as someone using divine powers to part a sea.

Pompey Magnus

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Really depends on how large the area actually is (were they actually confined in any manner at all other than being unable to return to Egypt or enter Israel?) and how long ago it occurred. The date range is from about 3000 BC to 1000 BC.

Well when I say confined I really meant it is a pretty well defined area where they were, the Sinai desert between Egypt and Israel, the Jews could not go too far off course because of coastal boundaries. The entire Sinai peninsula is a good bit smaller in area than Ireland. Imagine dumping a few million people in the Galway and have them wander around for 40 years before they manage to find Dublin, they would have to leave some mark of their presence.

In Numbers Chapters 13 and 14 the Bible describes how the Israelites walked those 250 miles in a very short space of time. Then they sent out some spies to scout out the land. The spies spent 40 days doing this, and then brought back a discouraging report about the strength of the occupants of the Promised Land. The bulk of the Israelites, on the basis of this report, refused to obey God's instruction to enter the land. As a punishment for their belief God said that generation would wander in the wilderness for 40 years, one year for every day that they scouted out the land.

Well that sort of makes sense. Of course it leaves the question open as to why they the Jews were so afraid of what could only have been relatively small tribal communities present in the Promised Land after their God had just obliterated the entire army of the global Superpower of the time, Egypt.

I also wonder how that event affected the regional power structures at the time, for Egypt to suffer such a devastating blow as losing its military might presumably left it wide open to external invasion and perhaps slave revolt, I wonder if there is any evidence in history for any of these things happening?

AtomicHorror

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well when I say confined I really meant it is a pretty well defined area where they were, the Sinai desert between Egypt and Israel, the Jews could not go too far off course because of coastal boundaries. The entire Sinai peninsula is a good bit smaller in area than Ireland. Imagine dumping a few million people in the Galway and have them wander around for 40 years before they manage to find Dublin, they would have to leave some mark of their presence.

That area is more like three quarters that of Ireland. 600,000-1,200,000 people in an area the size of the Republic. Had they settled we'd certainly expect to find evidence but nomadic peoples tend to leave little evidence of their existence behind even when they persist for hundreds of years. These guys were about for just 40 years. A passing moment in archeological terms.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Well when I say confined I really meant it is a pretty well defined area where they were, the Sinai desert between Egypt and Israel, the Jews could not go too far off course because of coastal boundaries. The entire Sinai peninsula is a good bit smaller in area than Ireland. Imagine dumping a few million people in the Galway and have them wander around for 40 years before they manage to find Dublin, they would have to leave some mark of their presence.

I don't see that such evidence would be expected to remain after thousands of years. Your argument from silence here is as about as convincing as when the Creationists talk about missing links. Maybe you've been spending too much time reading the Creationism thread?

Well that sort of makes sense. Of course it leaves the question open as to why they the Jews were so afraid of what could only have been relatively small tribal communities present in the Promised Land after their God had just obliterated the entire army of the global Superpower of the time, Egypt.

They were afraid of giants and of walled cities such as Jericho. Of course they should have believed God, but lack of faith is frequently irrational, isn't it?

I also wonder how that event affected the regional power structures at the time, for Egypt to suffer such a devastating blow as losing its military might presumably left it wide open to external invasion and perhaps slave revolt, I wonder if there is any evidence in history for any of these things happening?

As with any civilisation, the ancient Egyptians suffered invasion, rebellions and periods of unrest and collapse. Various attempts have been made to link some of these with the Israelites. I believe Josephus made some such attempt by trying to identify the Israelites as the Hyksos people.

I know some have identified Pepy II as the pharaoh who opposed Moses. This would place it at the end of the Old Kingdom (around 2200 BC) when there was political turmoil, famine, a cessation of trading with Egypt's trading partners, and economic collapse which included the abandonment of perfectly viable mining operations. I don't pretend to know enough about Egyptian history or chronology to say whether they have a point or whether they are talking junk.

Pompey Magnus

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That area is more like three quarters that of Ireland. 600,000-1,200,000 people in an area the size of the Republic. Had they settled we'd certainly expect to find evidence but nomadic peoples tend to leave little evidence of their existence behind even when they persist for hundreds of years. These guys were about for just 40 years. A passing moment in archeological terms.

How many nomadic communities are made up of a couple of million people? They are usually made up of a small number of families. Anyways, it isn't really up to me to prove that the Exodus didn't happen, as with all historical claims it should be up to those who say it did happen to provide resonable proof for it. Absence of evidence may not be proof that an event didn't happen but it certainly doesn't help the claim that it did happen.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

How many nomadic communities are made up of a couple of million people? They are usually made up of a small number of families. Anyways, it isn't really up to me to prove that the Exodus didn't happen, as with all historical claims it should be up to those who say it did happen to provide resonable proof for it. Absence of evidence may not be proof that an event didn't happen but it certainly doesn't help the claim that it did happen.

If you come on to the Christianity forum and start trying to tell us that the biblical account is clearly fictional then the burden of proof certainly lies with you. So far you have offered three arguments:

1. Where did the gold come from? (Answer: Already explained in Exodus)
2. Why did it take them 40 years to reach Canaan. (Answer: Already explained in Numbers)
3. An argument from silence based on the lack of evidence left behind by nomads over 3000 years ago.

Then you try to tell us we have to prove something? No way Jose.

Bduffman

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Really depends on how large the area actually is (were they actually confined in any manner at all other than being unable to return to Egypt or enter Israel?) and how long ago it occurred. The date range is from about 3000 BC to 1000 BC.

I didn't realise that those were the kind of dates that exodus was (supposed) to have taken place. So if people take exodus literally - then I presume they also take genesis literally as well, yes? Which means that the earth may only have been 1,000 years old at the time of exodus? So...um...where were the dinosaurs?

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

I didn't realise that those were the kind of dates that exodus was (supposed) to have taken place. So if people take exodus literally - then I presume they also take genesis literally as well, yes? Which means that the earth may only have been 1,000 years old at the time of exodus? So...um...where were the dinosaurs?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you are being serious and not trolling.

1. Plenty of Christians treat Exodus as literal history but read the opening chapters of Genesis as a metaphorical description. This is due to their differing literary characteristics.

2. Plenty of Christians read Genesis as literal history but do not subscribe to Young Earth Creationism. In other words they believe that the earth may be much older.

3. If you want to discuss dinosaurs without earning infractions then turn left on the way in and join the Creationism thread.

Have a nice day.

PDN

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you are being serious and not trolling.

1. Plenty of Christians treat Exodus as literal history but read the opening chapters of Genesis as a metaphorical description. This is due to their differing literary characteristics.

2. Plenty of Christians read Genesis as literal history but do not subscribe to Young Earth Creationism. In other words they believe that the earth may be much older.

3. If you want to discuss dinosaurs without earning infractions then turn left on the way in and join the Creationism thread.

Have a nice day. PDN

No - I was being (reasonably) serious. But your reply above does show the vast - and I really mean extremely vast - range of beliefs that can be derived from these couple of books alone. Whether these books are literal or symbolic, whether the earth is young or old, determines a christians entire philosophy. And yet you all believe in the same god?
I find it comparable to a la carte catholics - just pick what you want to believe in as fact & call the rest 'metaphorical' if its a bit too 'out there'.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

No - I was being (reasonably) serious. But your reply above does show the vast - and I really mean extremely vast - range of beliefs that can be derived from these couple of books alone. Whether these books are literal or symbolic, whether the earth is young or old, determines a christians entire philosophy. And yet you all believe in the same god?
I find it comparable to a la carte catholics - just pick what you want to believe in as fact & call the rest 'metaphorical' if its a bit too 'out there'.

No, the age of the earth does not determine my entire philosophy at all. Where on earth do you get such an idea?

As for determining whether something is literal or symbolic, that is the very nature of language. For example, look at a piece of text randomly lifted from skysports.com:

DOMENECH SPARED THE AXE
Raymond Domenech will remain as manager of France despite a disastrous showing at Euro 2008.

Les Bleus were among the pre-tournament favourites heading into the European Championship, but limped out at the group stages with just a solitary point and a single goal to show for their efforts.

The embarrassing nature of their exit had led to suggestions that their coach would find it difficult to retain his post.

Now, I assume that the article is speaking literally when it says that France only scored one goal in Euro 2008. However, I also assume that the headline about the axe is metaphorical - unless you think the French football authorities really were planning to decapitate the unsuccessful coach. Both of these are fairly safe assumptions.

However, imagine that we were to read this report in 500 years time. How do we interpret the line about the French team having "limped out at the group stages"? Since we would no longer be familiar with what happened at the tournament we could interpret that literally or metaphorically. Maybe the French were kicked off the park by the Italians (literally limping off the pitch). Or maybe the word 'limped' is being used metaphorically, meaning that the manner of their exit was uninspiring. Either way, how we interpret that particular line will not affect our understanding of the main point of the report - that the French did crap but the coach appears to have kept his job.

I just picked that example by random. Any kind of text or oral communication uses both literal and metaphorical language, and we usually do OK in getting the point. The Bible is no different.

To compare that to a la carte Catholicism is indeed 'out there'.

JimiTime

Bduffman wrote: »

Whether the earth is young or old, determines a christians entire philosophy. And yet you all believe in the same god?
I find it comparable to a la carte catholics - just pick what you want to believe in as fact & call the rest 'metaphorical' if its a bit too 'out there'.

Well, you don't know much about what a Christian is if you think that the earths age determines their entire philosophy.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

Ye gods, jimi, take it easy! Just because I think that god doesn't exist, doesn't also mean that I think the bible was written by a pack of liars, any more than I think that Homer was a liar for writing the Odyssey.

There is a reasonable middle ground between the two extreme and untenable positions that everything in the bible is true, and everything in the bible is false.

It was an honest assesment, I wasn't annoyed if thats how it sounded. Does Homers odyssey claim to be true? Or does Homer claim its true? I don't know, but if he doesn't, then its not a valid comparrison. If he does claim its true, and its not, then he is indeed a liar.

If God does not exist, then much of the bible is lie's, and virtually all of it very unrelliable. What would be your reasonable middle ground? Moses said God spoke to him, that Gods hand wrote the 10 commandments. If you don't believe in God, then you must think he is a liar, thus his historical accounts must be deemed very unreliable. If you believe Jesus never did what the gospel writers claimed, then again, they are unreliable liars. I don't see much wiggle room, as virtually all of the bible writers claimed Godly experiences; and not just the 'i had a feeling' type experiences we get from some folk today.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

It was an honest assesment, I wasn't annoyed if thats how it sounded. Does Homers odyssey claim to be true? Or does Homer claim its true? I don't know, but if he doesn't, then its not a valid comparrison. If he does claim its true, and its not, then he is indeed a liar.

If God does not exist, then much of the bible is lie's, and virtually all of it very unrelliable. What would be your reasonable middle ground? Moses said God spoke to him, that Gods hand wrote the 10 commandments. If you don't believe in God, then you must think he is a liar, thus his historical accounts must be deemed very unreliable. If you believe Jesus never did what the gospel writers claimed, then again, they are unreliable liars. I don't see much wiggle room, as virtually all of the bible writers claimed Godly experiences.

A trilemma: Liars, Lunatics or Truthful Writers.

(Sorry, I tried to keep the alliteration and come up with something starting with L - but couldn't think of anything).

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Any kind of text or oral communication uses both literal and metaphorical language, and we usually do OK in getting the point. The Bible is no different.

This point has come up fairly often in the past, but I each time it does, I still find myself as entertained as I am baffled that you actually do appear to believe it.

You would agree that if the text really was unambiguous, then everybody who reads the bible would acquire pretty much the same understanding about the text. But at the same time, it's splendidly clear, even within this tiny forum with its tiny population, that there are vast and frequently irreconcilable differences of interpretation about almost everything bar the very few things that the religious can collectively agree upon.

Hence my bafflement -- can you not connect the dots here?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

A trilemma: Liars, Lunatics or Truthful Writers.

(Sorry, I tried to keep the alliteration and come up with something starting with L - but couldn't think of anything).

To quote meatloaf, 2 out of 3 aint bad:)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

A trilemma: Liars, Lunatics or Truthful Writers. (Sorry, I tried to keep the alliteration and come up with something starting with L - but couldn't think of anything).

Mendacious, mad or moral?
False, frenzied or factual?
Counterfeit, crazy or correct?

Do feel free to pepper your next sermon with these

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Mendacious, mad or moral?
False, frenzied or factual?
Counterfeit, crazy or correct?

Do feel free to pepper your next sermon with these

Robin, you should have been a preacher.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

No, the age of the earth does not determine my entire philosophy at all. Where on earth do you get such an idea?

Where did I state it was your philosophy? It is A philosophy held by some christians - young earth creationists. I wouldn't dare paint you all with the same brush - there are way too many hues of christian to be able to do that.

And I'm afraid your football analogy doesn't really stand up to the argument really. It's obvious what is literal & what is not in that statement - any reasonably well educated person can tell the difference. But the bible - thats another story. There are huge differences between those at one end of the spectrum who take it all literally & those who take most of it as symbolism - and a lot in between (just take a look at the flesh & blood thread).
So in the case of exodus - some christians take parts of it as symbolic - some take it all as literal. Genesis? - much the same except the symbolic faction probably have the edge.
So my question is - who decides?? Who decides what is literal & what is not? Its just personal opinion - right?
So where is the truth you all talk about?

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

Where did I state it was your philosophy?

See below :pac:

Bduffman wrote: »

No - I was being (reasonably) serious. But your reply above does show the vast - and I really mean extremely vast - range of beliefs that can be derived from these couple of books alone. Whether these books are literal or symbolic, whether the earth is young or old, determines a christians entire philosophy. And yet you all believe in the same god?

I'm beginning to think that you have lumped all Christians together out ignorance, then did a little back-track when pulled up on it.

Bduffman wrote: »

It is A philosophy held by some christians - young earth creationists. I wouldn't dare paint you all with the same brush - there are way too many hues of christian to be able to do that.

And I'm afraid your football analogy doesn't really stand up to the argument really. It's obvious what is literal & what is not in that statement - any reasonably well educated person can tell the difference.

I thought the analogy worked perfectly well.

Yes. The metaphorical and literal parts of the article may be perfectly obvious to you now. But that does nothing to counter PDN's point.

Slav

I think everybody, Atheists, Christians, Muslims, etc. (not to mention Jews) would agree that the story about 40 years in the desert is probably the most beautiful in the Bible and there is still some mystics about it. A fair and wise punishment for the panic and cowardice: none of you, apart from Joshua and Caleb, will enter the Promised Land. And none of them did including Moses himself.

Now, according to the Jewish tradition it was the 9th of Av when the scouts came back from Canaan. It is still the most tragic date in Jewish calendar. Every summer on Tisha B'Av, the day of strict fast and mourning, Jews are commemorating all the calamities that keep falling on that date. So:

On the 9th of Av, on the way from Egypt to Canaan, Israelis were sentenced to 40 years in the desert so all adults would die there and would not enter the Promised Land,

On the 9th of Av 586 BCE the First Temple was destroyed by Babylonians,

On the 9th of Av 70 CE the Second Temple was destroyed by Romans,

On the 9th of Av 132 CE Jerusalem is razed by Hadrian,

On the 9th of Av 135 CE failed the city of Beitar. That was the end of the last revolt (Bar Kokhba Revolt) and therefore the beginning of the last Galut.

Later some significant and tragic events in Jewish history also fell exactly on the 9th of Av or within a couple of days before of after:

1095: Pope Urban II declared First Crusade.

1290: England expelled Jews.

1306: France expelled Jews.

1492: Spain expelled Jews.

1555: Pope Paul IV issued Cum Nimis Absurdum bull that restricted the rights of Jews and created the Jewish Ghetto in Rome.

1914: Germany declared war on Russia, World War I began.

1941: Hermann Göring issued the (in)famous memo on the so-called "Final Solution"

1942: First day of deportation of about 250000 Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka death camp.

Pompey Magnus

Bduffman wrote: »

So my question is - who decides?? Who decides what is literal & what is not? Its just personal opinion - right?
So where is the truth you all talk about?

This reminds me, I was recently reading an article about the various Christian denominations and their attitudes towards salvation, how a soul can get into Heaven. It really is laughable because they all seem to have different attitudes towards what someone must do to be saved and all these conflicting conclusions are based on passages from the New Testament.

Some believe that you only need to hear the Gospels and believe to get into Heaven because John said so: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life."
Some believe you must do good deeds because James said so: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."
Others believe good deeds are unnecessary because Ephesians says so: "For by grace are ye saved through faith ... not of works."
Others believe in predestination of the saved.

Strangely though not too many believe Matthew when he said that a person must follow the Torah, "... if thou wilt enter unto life, keep the commandments."

These are just a snapshot of the various methods for being saved, all can confidently point out passages in the New Testament which support their claims whilst at the same time dismissing the conclusions of opposing denominations even though they too have just as good evidence for their interpretation. After 2,000 years of analysing the Bible even the Christians themselves haven't a clue what it really says about even a basic question such as salvation. They have all found what they consider to be "truth", even though their "truth" might differ significantly from another Christian's "truth".

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

And I'm afraid your football analogy doesn't really stand up to the argument really. It's obvious what is literal & what is not in that statement - any reasonably well educated person can tell the difference.

Not so. The reference to France having 'limped' out of the group stages could be literal (particularly if France had injury problems or if the Italians had committed a lot of fouls) or symbolic. However, the uncertainty over that point does not affect our understanding of the main point of the article - that the team performed badly and the coach nearly got fired.

In the same way the main points of the Scriptural message are clear and obvious enough for anyone who uses standard hermeneutical methods (as we would apply to other documents).

Yes, there is disagreement over secondary issues - which makes life a bit more interesting.

just take a look at the flesh & blood thread

That is not an example of genuine differing interpretations. The Roman Catholic slant on this, that the verse refers to the mass, is a reading back of later traditions into the text. If someone was to come fresh to the biblical text, with no knowledge of Catholic tradition and doctrine, they would never come to this conclusion in a month of Sundays.

So my question is - who decides?? Who decides what is literal & what is not? Its just personal opinion - right?
So where is the truth you all talk about?

You could ask this about anything. Creationism or Evolution - who decides? In the end people have to make their own minds up - but one of the viewpoints is still truth.

On some (relatively minor) points of Biblical interpretation there is room for different interpretations and discussion. That's OK, it doesn't affect anyone's salvation, and we should be adult enough to use our intelligence.