s/o Literal vs. figurative interpretation of the Bible

[Cricket]

This seems to have taken over another thread so I thought it deserved its own space. :001_smile:

 

I would say I interpret the Bible literally but as this board has taught me so well that could mean 1000 different things to 1000 different people. So let me explain what I mean by literal:

 

I think when the Bible is speaking clearly (as in Luke 2 "And she gave birth to firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger because there was no place for them in the inn") the Bible should be taken literally. I believe Jesus literally was born as the first baby of Mary and that there was no room for them in the inn and that she placed him in a manger. When the Bible says that David killed Goliath with a stone in a sling, then yes I believe David was an actual person who went out onto a battlefield and killed his opponent. Can we take lessons or morals from these stories? Yes. Did they actually happen? Yes, I believe so. When it is obviously a metaphor, then I take it as a metaphor (as in John when Jesus says "I am the door.") Do I really think Jesus is a literal door? Of course not. It really isn't much different from reading any other piece of written word or having a conversation with someone. It's the normal way we use language.

 

I am interested in how someone says that they read all of the Bible figuratively. How does that work? Do you think all of the OT is simply a collection of moral tales along the lines of Aesop's Fables? Do you believe the Bible is an accurate record of Jesus' words? I'm genuinely curious as to how that works. I've heard people say that before but I never took the time to understand it.

[beansprouts]

Ditto here. People do get hung up on the word "literal" though. I usually say that I take the Bible seriously.

[Ginevra]

Do you think all of the OT is simply a collection of moral tales along the lines of Aesop's Fables?

 

Pretty much.

 

Do you believe the Bible is an accurate record of Jesus' words?

 

Probably. Otherwise, I doubt they would have written some of the kooky things in there.

 

I'm genuinely curious as to how that works.

 

I don't have it completely sorted out into an air-tight argument. However, those who believe the Bible in a literal way don't, either. For example, yes, I believe In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. But did it all happen in that exact order about 6,000 years ago? I think that is absurd. The evidence is against it. Common sense is against it. Interestingly, I realized it was absurd when I was searching Christian resources to support young-earth creationism. So, I did believe in the literal Bible at one time.

[EmilyK]

If you are interested in the topic, Marcus Borg probably describes it better than I ever could. His book "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" really changed my life. He's a wonderful speaker too if you ever get the chance, and a gentle person. He's happy to have people in the audience who don't agree with him. His other books are great too, IMO.

 

Othe authors I really like on the topic are John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong. Crossan's book "It's a Long Way from Tipperary" is fun and moving even if you don't agree with him -- it is his life story from young Irish boy, to monk, to leaving that to get married, etc. He's a great writer but a bit denser than Borg. I love Spong too but he's much more political (and thus polarizing) than the other two. Borg's the least confrontational.

 

Happy to discuss more. :001_smile:

[Denise in Florida]

This is a interesting discussion. I agree that literal and figurative can have many meanings. I am still exploring and refining my faith, I expect to do so for the rest of my life. The answers I have today will modify over time through study and experience.

 

Here goes. The Bible was inspired by God and contains all that is necessary for salvation. The information is as valid today as when it was recorded. People's hearts have not changed significantly since the OT times.

 

Much of the OT is a historical account of the tribes of Israel. Prophecies are the word of God. The Gospels tell about the life and teachings of Jesus, I believe the Gospel writers faithfully transcribed the words of Jesus. The remainder of the NT is a history of, and instructions and exhortations to, the early church.

 

Parables and non-historical accounts are metaphorical but vital for instruction.

 

Note regarding Creation/Evolution in particular: The Bible truthfully accounts for who created (God) and why (for His purposes) but is not literal a description of how. I do not believe in abiogenesis, I believe God breathed life into existence. Whether or not life was created as it currently stands or if it was shaped by natural and God directed forces is I do not know.

[patchfire]

Similar to the above posters. I think the Bible is an important book, one that I do feel should be taken seriously, but not meant to be taken literally. Like another poster, I do think most of what Jesus said is accurate, but I find something beautiful in the less than literal interpretations of the story of Jesus's life, beauty that actually enhanced my faith. For me, the requirement of believing the Bible as literal truth was a hurdle - it kept me from faith. It was only when I realized I could still believe - could still be considered a Christian - even if the Bible was not literal and inerrant - that I truly felt like I could go to church and call myself a Christian.

 

Now, that said, I find it very difficult to find a church in which I am comfortable AND challenged to grow. The worship style with which I grew up and with which I am most comfortable tends to be paired with an absolute stance as to the Bible as literal truth and inerrant. It's a tough place to be... so much so that I sometimes hesitate to call myself a Christian. I generally call myself a "very liberal Christian" or "Christopagan" - and yes, I know that last term is a completely different can of worms.

[Julie in Austin]

I think that everything narrated in the Bible (including Noah's ark, Jonah, etc.) is possible for God to have done--because I believe that God is omnipotent. So I don't like to hear stories dismissed with "but that's impossible!"

 

At the same time, I think we should be very careful to try our best to read biblical stories in the way the original author wanted us to. (While always being humbly aware of the fact that we can't know 100% what the original authors intended.) And I see hints galore that, for example, Gen 1-3 isn't meant to be read entirely literally, that Noah's wasn't a worldwide flood, that Jonah is a satire, and that the Book of Revelation is meant to be read symbolically, just to name a few examples.

 

Not that God couldn't have done those things, but rather that I think the best interpretation of those (and other) texts is that they were never meant to be read entirely literally. I think it is *more* faithful to the text to read it as mentioned above than to force literalism where it was never meant to be read.

 

I know opinions differ on this and I would hate for this topic to become contentious. I respect anyone whose faith leads them to different conclusions than I have reached.

[elizabeth]

If you are interested in the topic, Marcus Borg probably describes it better than I ever could. His book "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" really changed my life. He's a wonderful speaker too if you ever get the chance, and a gentle person. He's happy to have people in the audience who don't agree with him. His other books are great too, IMO.

 

Othe authors I really like on the topic are John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong. Crossan's book "It's a Long Way from Tipperary" is fun and moving even if you don't agree with him -- it is his life story from young Irish boy, to monk, to leaving that to get married, etc. He's a great writer but a bit denser than Borg. I love Spong too but he's much more political (and thus polarizing) than the other two. Borg's the least confrontational.

 

Happy to discuss more. :001_smile:

Bishop Spong has likely kept more people coming to church than not. What a wonderful man . I have read all his writings that are in print and am unfamiliar with Crossan . Thank you for sharing these writers with the board.

[elizabeth]

 

http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp1.htm There is no way I can begin to improve on this description of historical critical method of reading the Bible. It is what I was taught as a youngster and throughout my entire college and legal education. I honestly never met anyone who read the Bible as literally true or as a historical document of time until I joined these boards. It is interesting how varied and rich the range of beliefs one encounters on a home educating message board. I think it is a really good reflection on what binds and divides groups of people. Certainly one of the most interesting threads in a long time. Thank you Cricket for starting what has been a really compelling discussion.

[Veritaserum]

I think many of the Old Testament teachings get replaced by the New Testament, so I don't look at the Old Testament rules of behavior as applicable to me now. Acts 15 is a good place to go regarding whether or not Christians need to keep the Law of Moses (circumcision, etc.). The conclusion was that no, we don't, because Christ gave us a new law.

 

So, I tend to read the Old Testament more for historical context or moral tales. I do believe that the stories really happened (for the most part). The whole creation issue gets a shoulder shrug from me. I tend toward God directed evolution, but realize that I could be wrong. I don't know how He did it, I just know that He did. The evidence suggests a very, very old Earth, which is completely compatible with my belief in God. :)

 

When I think of a literal interpretation, I think of someone who strives to keep all the laws of the Old Testament (even though the New Testament says we don't have to), believes the Earth was created in 6 24-hour days, and tends to take an overall legalistic and strict view of who is/is not a "real" Christian.

 

I also read the Bible with the knowledge that it was written by imperfect men. I'm sure there are things in it that shouldn't be or things missing from it that were originally intended to be there.

 

Mostly I try to listen to what God tells me is the meaning of certain scriptures and let that guide my interpretation. :)

[Julie in Austin]

elizabeth, you might find this article by our own SWB interesting re the historical critical methodologies.

[Veritaserum]

elizabeth, you might find this article by our own SWB interesting re the historical critical methodologies.

 

Ooh, that was a good read. Thanks! :) I especially liked this:

This is the exactly the kind of exegesis that terrifies most evangelicals. The man who admits that meanings can be "read into" Scripture stands on the fabled slippery slope, right above a sheer drop-off, while below him churns a sea of relativism, upon which floats only a single overloaded lifeboat, captained by a radical feminist gay & lesbian & transgender activist who is very anxious to make the final decision about who gets pitched overboard.

[elizabeth]

I am going to spend some time reading this and thank you for the link! I always enjoy reading her writing and particularly loved her article on the Oprah book club selections .I think it was called Oprah's Misery Index?? I appreciate the article link and will certainly read it. This is the problem with TWTM boards , too many really compelling ideas to weigh and consider and a large number of fascinating people to bounce ideas back and forth . :thumbup1:

[iwka]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm

This sums it up.

[Cricket]

elizabeth, you might find this article by our own SWB interesting re the historical critical methodologies.

 

That is interesting. Now I'm confused myself because I have stated I believe in a literal interpretation. However, I also believe that Christ is present in the entire Bible, not just the NT. Having the NT is like having the final piece of the puzzle so we can go back and look at the OT through new eyes. So I guess I do believe in a figurative interpretation as well. I like the title of that article, "Messy Revelation." That about sums it up! :lol:

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I think that everything narrated in the Bible (including Noah's ark, Jonah, etc.) is possible for God to have done--because I believe that God is omnipotent. So I don't like to hear stories dismissed with "but that's impossible!"

 

At the same time, I think we should be very careful to try our best to read biblical stories in the way the original author wanted us to. (While always being humbly aware of the fact that we can't know 100% what the original authors intended.) And I see hints galore that, for example, Gen 1-3 isn't meant to be read entirely literally, that Noah's wasn't a worldwide flood, that Jonah is a satire, and that the Book of Revelation is meant to be read symbolically, just to name a few examples.

 

Not that God couldn't have done those things, but rather that I think the best interpretation of those (and other) texts is that they were never meant to be read entirely literally. I think it is *more* faithful to the text to read it as mentioned above than to force literalism where it was never meant to be read.

 

I know opinions differ on this and I would hate for this topic to become contentious. I respect anyone whose faith leads them to different conclusions than I have reached.

 

I agree with most of this. There is a great deal to be said for considering the perspective of the people who wrote and the people who were hearing or reading. I believe the Bible contains truth, but that many of those truths were packaged so that it could be understood by those whose knowledge was limited, especially the first few chapters of Genesis.

 

I also believe that the chronicles of Samuel, David, and the following kings, are historically accurate. However, just like any historical record they only present one perspective. Books like Job, Jonah, Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Solomon appear to be more like literature than writings meant to be taken as fact. Of course, that doesn't mean that God didn't let Job be tested or that Jonah wasn't inside the belly of a fish for three days. In these cases, however, the theology seems to be the defining factor.

 

I also believe the gospels and Acts are historically accurate, but each written from a different perspective. True, but not encompassing the totality of truth. John himself says it was not possible to write down all the things Jesus said and did. Each author chose according to what seemed important to him.

 

It is very difficult to say literal or not literal when it is not that simple.

[asta]

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.htm

This sums it up.

 

From that:

 

Everything that helps us better to understand the truth and to appropriate its representations is helpful and worthwhile for theology. It is in this sense that we must seek how to use this method in theological research. Everything that shrinks our horizon and hinders us from seeing and hearing beyond that which is merely human must be opened up. Thus the emergence of the historical-critical method set in motion at the same time a struggle over its scope and its proper configuration which is by no means finished as yet.

 

Which is why the Catholic Church does not have the problems with the theory of evolution, scientific "new discoveries", and the geologic age of the earth that some other denominations do.

 

Universal, and all that.

 

 

a

[RegGuheert]

This seems to have taken over another thread so I thought it deserved its own space. :001_smile:

True! Hopefully this thread will not turn into a discussion of evolution or age of the earth.

 

Just in case it is not yet obvious to others, :D I'm of the literal interpretation variety. Like OP, I do not think Jesus is a door. I also believe that there are different writing styles in the bible, with some being narrative, some being poetic, etc. that must be considered. Personally, I do not find Genesis to be a fictional account nor figurative.

 

While I used to consider many of the OT stories to be fairy tales, I eventually heard enough support for the historicity of this or that part of the Bible that I gave up that belief and decided to accept what was written. As such, I now use the Bible to help interpret the world around me instead of the other way around. To me, things make more sense this way.

[EmilyK]

Thanks, Elizabeth. I just wanted to say that I agree with you about Spong. I really love his thoughts, especially his discussions of believers "in exile" since that fit me to a T.

 

I wanted to add a few more recommendations/clarifications. Can't help myself.:001_smile:

 

I think it would be fair to say that Borg and Crossan come at this from a historian's perspective, though because the historical record is scarce they look at cultural history etc too. Other people may look at the Bible with the tools of literary interpretation, which is interesting too.

 

It has been a while since I did all this reading, and I've given my books away, but at the time I think Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography was Crossan's best known work. It is long, though, and he did write some shorter books afterwards, including a shorter bio of Jesus.

 

I have found reading some of the suppressed early Gospels enlightening. I can't remember most of the titles of the books they came in. One of them is The Five Gospels which comes out of the work of the Jesus Seminar. (It has Thomas in it, some other book I had contained others too.)

 

Finally, another favorite author of mine in this area is Elaine Pagels. Extremely readable. I particularly liked Beyond Belief and the Gnostic Gospels, but I'm sure all her books are worth reading.

[TravelingChris]

I consider myself to bve able to agree to a literal interpretation but by that I mean they way is was meant to be read or heard. So there is much figurative language, and lots of Middle Eastern traditional story telling where they way they told stories was not chronological but rather patterned with the most important point in the middle and supporting points surrounding. ABCBA type of writing where C is the main point. There are many different types of literary language in the Bible and I find it fascinating. I recently attending a Sunday School class about the Parables from a Middle Eastern perspective. I learned so much and gained such a deeper understanding since some of the points Jesus made are lost to us without knowing how certain actions would be viewed in their culture. It isn't that the Bible is a secret document at all but by learning more you gain greater understanding.

[asta]

I consider myself to bve able to agree to a literal interpretation but by that I mean they way is was meant to be read or heard. So there is much figurative language, and lots of Middle Eastern traditional story telling where they way they told stories was not chronological but rather patterned with the most important point in the middle and supporting points surrounding. ABCBA type of writing where C is the main point. There are many different types of literary language in the Bible and I find it fascinating. I recently attending a Sunday School class about the Parables from a Middle Eastern perspective. I learned so much and gained such a deeper understanding since some of the points Jesus made are lost to us without knowing how certain actions would be viewed in their culture. It isn't that the Bible is a secret document at all but by learning more you gain greater understanding.

 

Personally, I think this is one of, if not the largest stumbling blocks for people reading history (or something they believe to be historically accurate): viewing events from their own set of values, beliefs, and cultural references rather than from those of the people involved.

 

This is a huge problem with diplomats: they often don't understand why X, Y, Z isn't working/being accepted by the residents of a particular nation, never once stopping to think of what they are doing from THAT nation's point of view.

 

It's all about the clash of civilizations, IMO.

 

 

a

[LizzyBee]

I would say I interpret the Bible literally but as this board has taught me so well that could mean 1000 different things to 1000 different people.

 

I usually don't answer questions about whether we interpret the Bible literally or not for this reason. My quick answer to the question is "yes." But then someone inevitably points out passages that are obviously figurative. Um, yeah, I don't know anyone who can't recognize figurative language. Just because I take a literal view of the Bible doesn't mean I can't recognize figures of speech and other literary techniques. And then there's the whole creation issue. The Hebrew word translated day can also be translated age. I don't think a literal view of Genesis has to include a young-earth interpretation.

[lionfamily1999]

Depends on who wrote it and how. IOW, I'm inclined to take a story literally, if it's written by the person who experienced it, whereas stories based on hearsay, or the words of God to a particular person, I take as parables. Jesus spoke in parables, so it makes sense, to me, that God would too. IOW, I think the creation story was given to us, by God, in a format we could understand. I do not believe it took seven literal days, after all, what is a day to God?

 

 

*Please note, I do not intend for the word "story" to imply that I believe the Bible is fiction. I just couldn't think of a better way to put it.

[MOM24WONDERS]

I truly believe the Bible is the complete, inerrant, 100% Truthful Word of God. If one doesn't believe one thing, then they can't believe any of it. It's not ala carte...

 

Like the OP, I realize that when Jesus is speaking figuratively (like saying He is the door), that I realize He isn't literally a door. However, it's that figurative speech, put in a literal context in our mind that helps us to see what He is saying.

 

I believe that everything that is stated in the Bible is 100% truth. There are no fallacies or "just good, moral stories".

 

One poster did say that they young earth theory had been disproven. I have found quite the opposite to be true. After an indepth Biblical Worldview study last year, I realized just HOW true it is. It's not for our human minds to be able to wrap themselves around - that's FAITH. The earth was created in 6 days by a Living God.

 

Nearly all of Darwin's theories have been dispelled by the very science he claimed to be proving.

 

However, I digress. What we as humans believe or don't believe really means nothing. The Bible is true, God is real, and in the end that's all that matters. We can believe all we want whatever we want, but it doesn't change the Truth.

 

That's why it's the Christian's mission to spread the Gospel as far and as wide as possible, so that all ears may hear.

[elizabeth]

Thanks, Elizabeth. I just wanted to say that I agree with you about Spong. I really love his thoughts, especially his discussions of believers "in exile" since that fit me to a T.

 

I wanted to add a few more recommendations/clarifications. Can't help myself.:001_smile:

 

I think it would be fair to say that Borg and Crossan come at this from a historian's perspective, though because the historical record is scarce they look at cultural history etc too. Other people may look at the Bible with the tools of literary interpretation, which is interesting too.

 

It has been a while since I did all this reading, and I've given my books away, but at the time I think Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography was Crossan's best known work. It is long, though, and he did write some shorter books afterwards, including a shorter bio of Jesus.

 

I have found reading some of the suppressed early Gospels enlightening. I can't remember most of the titles of the books they came in. One of them is The Five Gospels which comes out of the work of the Jesus Seminar. (It has Thomas in it, some other book I had contained others too.)

 

Finally, another favorite author of mine in this area is Elaine Pagels. Extremely readable. I particularly liked Beyond Belief and the Gnostic Gospels, but I'm sure all her books are worth reading.

 

I will pick up the Crossan today at the library. I have read Elaine Pagels and thoroughly enjoyed her work. I have a huge volume of the gospels collectively referred to as the Nag Hammadi and have read a third of the book to date. It is a fascinating idea to consider what was considered canonical or not. I have one recommendation that I always offer as I think it is one of the best books on the subject and I had the privilege of being his student. Link here http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&ean=0800634918 Wonderful to read if you enjoy anthropology, history and psychology. Thanks for the recommendations and I am particularly interested in Crossan . I will certainly follow up after I have read his book.

[dangerdad]

Of course it depends on what literal means.

 

I believe that God created the Earth, but that the Genesis account is not meant to be taken as a literal 7 24-hour days.

 

I believe that the parting of the Red Sea, the pillar of fire consuming Elijah's offering, Jesus turning water into wine, walking on water and his resurrection happened as described.

 

More and more I see the Noachian Flood to be a local rather than universal flood.

[Ginevra]

I do not believe it took seven literal days, after all, what is a day to God?

 

Lionfamily, I am familiar with this view, the "day-age theory". I've never been able to understand it, though. Maybe you can explain how it works for you.

 

For example, for each "day" of creation to be a figurative "day", but really some eons of time, then the sequence of creation is unworkable. Unless you then think the sequence of creation is also figurative; do you? Also, where would that put the dinosaurs? Are you saying He created "land animals" and then there was this eon of time wherein the dinosaurs lived, evolved and died out; then God made current land animals and then humans? Lastly, God rested on the seventh day. Gives me pause why God needs a break, but I digress. From this, the Remember the Sabbath Day commandment naturally extends. If the "days" are really eons, why a "day" of rest? And doesn't that eliminate one day a week to rest as a concept?

 

Just putting those thoughts out there. I am not a young-earth Creationist, so it doesn't matter to me what people believe. I just have not been able to understand how people can hold the belief in the literal Bible and simultaneously not think it happened in seven days, six thousand years ago.

 

With all respect I ask.

[lionfamily1999]

Lionfamily, I am familiar with this view, the "day-age theory". I've never been able to understand it, though. Maybe you can explain how it works for you.

 

For example, for each "day" of creation to be a figurative "day", but really some eons of time, then the sequence of creation is unworkable. Unless you then think the sequence of creation is also figurative; do you? Also, where would that put the dinosaurs? Are you saying He created "land animals" and then there was this eon of time wherein the dinosaurs lived, evolved and died out; then God made current land animals and then humans? Lastly, God rested on the seventh day. Gives me pause why God needs a break, but I digress. From this, the Remember the Sabbath Day commandment naturally extends. If the "days" are really eons, why a "day" of rest? And doesn't that eliminate one day a week to rest as a concept?

 

Just putting those thoughts out there. I am not a young-earth Creationist, so it doesn't matter to me what people believe. I just have not been able to understand how people can hold the belief in the literal Bible and simultaneously not think it happened in seven days, six thousand years ago.

 

With all respect I ask.

My thought on this is that the order of creation is true, but that the 'days' are more representative of periods of time. First there was darkness, then there was light, so on and so forth. As far as dinosaurs are concerned, I believe they roamed Earth, while Adam and Eve were nestled in the garden of Eden. If they never could experience death, then they could have lived for hundreds/thousands/millions/etc of years in the garden. The day of rest is symbolic of the day that God stopped creating to enjoy his creation. He had a productive week and took a day to enjoy it, which is what we are supposed to do.

 

The reason I don't believe that time would match up on a literal level is because God is inifinite. While we have spirits that last forever, we are inside bodies that only last so long. Time, for us, as finite beings, holds a different signifigance. What is a day if you are forever?

 

I take MUCH of the Bible literally, but, again, Jesus spoke in parables, it makes sense that God would as well (being one and the same imo).

[Melinda in VT]

I truly believe the Bible is the complete, inerrant, 100% Truthful Word of God. If one doesn't believe one thing, then they can't believe any of it. It's not ala carte...

 

If those were my only two choices, then I'd have to go with can't believe any of it.

 

I just have way, way too many issues with the portrayal of God in the Old Testament (and with certain teachings in the New Testament, to be honest) to believe the Bible is inerrant.

 

Still attending church on Sunday, hoping to find my place in the choir . . .

[Ginevra]

My thought on this is that the order of creation is true, but that the 'days' are more representative of periods of time. First there was darkness, then there was light, so on and so forth.

 

If the order of creation is true, long time periods for days don't make sense. :) It would mean that God thought it would be a great idea to make plants (Day 3), but didn't get around to making the sun, the moon, seasons, days and years until eons later (Day 4). That could be bad for the plants. ;) Also, that would be saying that plants existed alone for eons of time, then water creatures and fowl hung out for a few eons alone. And then land animals. None of this is reflected in how nature works. It is symbiotic. We need insects pollinating flowers and deer transporting seeds in their droppings and apple snails to feed Florida Kites.

 

I agree that God exists outside of time and He would not be constrained to describe creation in such a way. The thing is, He did describe it in such a way. Why be specific about saying, "The evening and the morning were the second day...were the third day...were the fourth day..." if you didn't really mean that? It's not the same as speaking in a parable; parables have a different structure altogether.

 

Day-Age just seems a lot to me like trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[lionfamily1999]

If the order of creation is true, long time periods for days don't make sense. :) It would mean that God thought it would be a great idea to make plants (Day 3), but didn't get around to making the sun, the moon, seasons, days and years until eons later (Day 4). That could be bad for the plants. ;) Also, that would be saying that plants existed alone for eons of time, then water creatures and fowl hung out for a few eons alone. And then land animals. None of this is reflected in how nature works. It is symbiotic. We need insects pollinating flowers and deer transporting seeds in their droppings and apple snails to feed Florida Kites.

 

I agree that God exists outside of time and He would not be constrained to describe creation in such a way. The thing is, He did describe it in such a way. Why be specific about saying, "The evening and the morning were the second day...were the third day...were the fourth day..." if you didn't really mean that? It's not the same as speaking in a parable; parables have a different structure altogether.

 

Day-Age just seems a lot to me like trying to have your cake and eat it too.

The parables were used to scale things down to a level that people could understand. I'm not sure that people, when the Bible was first created, could have understood time in such a way.

[Ginevra]

The parables were used to scale things down to a level that people could understand. I'm not sure that people, when the Bible was first created, could have understood time in such a way.

 

:confused: I'm sorry; I don't get this. You don't think OT people couldn't have understood it if God had said, "...and a long time passed, and then God made man..."

 

I'm going to assume that you don't really want to delve into the specifics of how the Day-Age theory would work relative to the sequence of creation. Okay. :cool:

[asta]

:confused: I'm sorry; I don't get this. You don't think OT people couldn't have understood it if God had said, "...and a long time passed, and then God made man..."

 

I'm going to assume that you don't really want to delve into the specifics of how the Day-Age theory would work relative to the sequence of creation. Okay. :cool:

 

No, I don't think the average person 6000 years ago could have understood relativity.

 

 

a

[Ginevra]

No, I don't think the average person 6000 years ago could have understood relativity.

 

Erm...huh? Because the rest of the OT is written with such clarity? "Now the earth was formless and void, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Sprit of God was hovering over the waters." Yeah. That was surely written for simpletons. I have a blurb next to it explaining it in my Bible and I still have no clue what that means.

[MOM24WONDERS]

If those were my only two choices, then I'd have to go with can't believe any of it.

 

I just have way, way too many issues with the portrayal of God in the Old Testament (and with certain teachings in the New Testament, to be honest) to believe the Bible is inerrant.

 

Still attending church on Sunday, hoping to find my place in the choir . . .

 

I guess it's unfortunate then that church attendance or choir participation won't get you to heaven. There is only one way - through Jesus the Son....and believe in Him means believing the Word, all of it.

[Cricket]

More and more I see the Noachian Flood to be a local rather than universal flood.

 

Can you point me to some resources on this? This topic came up today with my ds. Someone told him that the idea of a universal flood was completely false. (Don't even get me started on a grown man arguing with an 11 yo child!) But I would love to read more on the subject.

[KingM]

I guess it's unfortunate then that church attendance or choir participation won't get you to heaven. There is only one way - through Jesus the Son....and believe in Him means believing the Word, all of it.

 

Well now, who died and made you St. Peter? ;)

[MOM24WONDERS]

Haha :lol: St. Peter I am NOT. Not even close. I just happen to believe the Bible when it says there is ONE way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ the Son.

[KingM]

Haha :lol: St. Peter I am NOT. Not even close. I just happen to believe the Bible when it says there is ONE way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ the Son.

 

Yes, but you also wrote:

 

I guess it's unfortunate then that church attendance or choir participation won't get you to heaven. There is only one way - through Jesus the Son....and believe in Him means believing the Word, all of it.

 

And it's a long way from saying you need Jesus Christ to be saved and saying that you need a literal interpretation of the Bible. There is such a wide diversity of belief on this. Some Christians say that Jesus saved every single person on Earth when he died, while others think you need to become "saved." Some Christians believe that you can't enter heaven unless you are baptized a Catholic. There are even some Christians who believe you need to accept that some guy named Joseph Smith was a prophet and get baptized into his church.

 

I bet you could find dozen other flavors of Christianity on this site as well, not to mention a zillion others who think each and every Christian has it all wrong.

 

In such a diverse group, blanket statements about what one does or doesn't need to do to be saved don't get very far.

[Julie in Austin]

If one doesn't believe one thing, then they can't believe any of it.

 

That makes it sound as if you are saying that someone who points to one verse in the Bible and says "this verse does not contain a fullness of truth" believes nothing in the Bible. Is that what you meant to convey?

[Spy Car]

Haha :lol: St. Peter I am NOT. Not even close. I just happen to believe the Bible when it says there is ONE way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ the Son.

 

You really should read the board rules.

 

Bill

[MOM24WONDERS]

I'll try to answer both questions at once. I believe that the whole Bible is True, without error of any sort. I also believe that one can't find one part of the Bible to be untruth, while upholding another part as true. It's an all or nothing sort of deal :)

 

As for Christianity, I believe there is only one true Christian. That is the person who admits that he is a sinner, believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God born of a virgin and that He died on the cross to save us from those sins and rose again in three days, and that confesses his sins to God in repentance and asks for forgiveness and for Jesus to become Lord and Savior of his life. Thereby being filled with the Holy Spirit and a born-again Christian. This person then has a change and they are never the same - their lifestyle and behavior becomes totally different.

 

I normally do make statements that claim my beliefs as facts. If I didn't believe they were facts, I wouldn't believe them ;)

 

I don't care for statements that say, "Well I think" or that claim that it's what THEY believe, but it's not truth for everyone. Truth is truth in my book. What the Bible says and commands IS for everyone - it isn't just my belief.

 

My purpose isn't to offend, although, the Bible says that the truth is and can be offensive to those that don't believe. The Word is alive and sharper than any two-edged sword, cutting and dividing even unto the bone and marrow. Truth can be painful...and I welcome that pain as it's a conviction to me to change and grow and have my relationship with Jesus become even deeper.

 

I'm not sure that there is any purpose for further discussion unless someone has a specific question on how to become a Christian. If others don't agree with our beliefs, then they should just agree to disagree. Nothing much is gained from argument and I don't normally participate in them.

[Spy Car]

 

My purpose isn't to offend, although, the Bible says that the truth is and can be offensive to those that don't believe. The Word is alive and sharper than any two-edged sword, cutting and dividing even unto the bone and marrow. Truth can be painful...and I welcome that pain as it's a conviction to me to change and grow and have my relationship with Jesus become even deeper.

 

Like I said you should read the board rules.

[Julie in Austin]

I also believe that one can't find one part of the Bible to be untruth, while upholding another part as true. It's an all or nothing sort of deal.

 

Why?

[MOM24WONDERS]

You really should read the board rules.

 

Bill

 

I apologize. I didn't realize I'd broken any rule. I would be most happy to address it if it was pointed out to me.

 

I have seen religion and beliefs discussed all day - from Biblical interpetations to another thread on paganism. My beliefs, simply because they may differ from another's, are no less valid nor should they cause any more offense.

 

Again, if I've broken a rule of which I'm not aware, I apologize.

[MOM24WONDERS]

Why?

 

Answering this may apparently break some rule that I'm unaware of, so if so, I apologize to the other members and the moderators.

 

We believe that the entire Bible is truth - one must believe one thing in order to believe another. Everything in the Bible goes together hand in hand - the God of the OT is the same God in the NT. So, if one thing isn't to be believed, then how could another?

 

I'm sure that I'm not articulating this well at all. I hope that my answer will suffice. :)

[Spy Car]

I apologize. I didn't realize I'd broken any rule. I would be most happy to address it if it was pointed out to me.

 

I have seen religion and beliefs discussed all day - from Biblical interpetations to another thread on paganism. My beliefs, simply because they may differ from another's, are no less valid nor should they cause any more offense.

 

Again, if I've broken a rule of which I'm not aware, I apologize.

 

You can express your views, but you're kind of "laying down the law". These are (part of) the board rules:

 

Do not assume that everyone on the boards shares a particular religious conviction

These boards are inclusive. You are welcome to ask theological questions, but don't post as though everyone who frequents the boards shares your ideology.

 

Bill

[Julie in Austin]

So, if one thing isn't to be believed, then how could another?

 

I have to admit this kind of blows my mind (if I understand you, which I admit I may not.)

 

I think you are saying that if someone claimed to believe the basic truth claims of the Bible (i.e., Jesus lived, died for our sins, rose the third day, etc.) but also claimed that, say, they did not believe that a donkey had ever talked, then that person does not believe that Jesus is the Savior.

 

Is that what you are saying?

 

If it is, I think it is wrong. But I'm honestly not interested in arguing. I'm really just trying to get my head around what you believe and why you would believe it, especially since I can't think of anything in the Bible itself that would demand an "all or nothing" reading.

[[email protected]]

Stating beliefs and/or convictions is not a violation of board rules.

 

Moderator

[MOM24WONDERS]

You can express your views, but you're kind of "laying down the law". These are (part of) the board rules:

 

Do not assume that everyone on the boards shares a particular religious conviction

These boards are inclusive. You are welcome to ask theological questions, but don't post as though everyone who frequents the boards shares your ideology.

 

Bill

 

I apologize, Bill, if that's they way you have taken my statements. Ideally, they would have been taken with the same sentiments as the other posters.

 

I believe what I believe because it's what I believe :) I don't think I've stated anywhere (please, correct me if I'm wrong) that anyone has to believe my views nor have I projected that I believe everyone here agrees with me.

 

In fact, it's quite obvious that most do not! There are many religions and beliefs on this board. I do not believe what any of the other ones state, but as an adult I can read it and leave it behind.

 

How is it that you would like me to express my beliefs? If there is a manner in which I can do so that is different than the one I've used, please enlighten me.