if you believe in a literal Genesis...

[ktgrok]

Ok, first of all, i totally respect any/all opinions on Genesis, OE/YE, etc. I am just curious about something, and after wanting to ask multiple times I'm going to just do it. Please don't think I'm being snarky.

 

If the big issue with Ham kerfluffle is that you have to believe ALL of the Bible literally, then why do these same people not believe in the literal "body and blood" of communion? Why is it ok to read that in a figurative sense, but not other parts of the Bible? :bigear:

[Celia]

I almost hate to respond to this because I don't want to offend anyone.... I have my opinions here.

 

ummm....

 

I'm going to send you a pm. :)

[Jean in Newcastle]

I believe in what is called verbal plenary inspiration. That means that God supervised human writers in the writing of the Bible so that they wrote perfectly God's message while maintaining their own "voice". I also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. That means that I believe that it is Truth and is without error.

 

I think that the word "literal" can be misleading. Someone who believes that the Bible is literal, doesn't believe that there are no poetic passages, figures of speeches, metaphors, similes, puns, etc. People who do not believe that it is the literal body and blood of Christ believe that this passage is using a metaphor.

[ktgrok]

I believe in what is called verbal plenary inspiration. That means that God supervised human writers in the writing of the Bible so that they wrote perfectly God's message while maintaining their own "voice". I also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. That means that I believe that it is Truth and is without error.

 

I think that the word "literal" can be misleading. Someone who believes that the Bible is literal, doesn't believe that there are no poetic passages, figures of speeches, metaphors, similes, puns, etc. People who do not believe that it is the literal body and blood of Christ believe that this passage is using a metaphor.

 

Ok. I can handle that. I guess then my question is, doesn't that still leave us, as readers, deciding on our own where to read things as metaphor and where to read them literally? If one is just saying " well obviously that isn't literal, it's obviously a metaphor" how is that different from saying that Genesis obviously isn't literal, based on our understanding of i?

 

really curious.

[ktgrok]

I almost hate to respond to this because I don't want to offend anyone.... I have my opinions here.

 

ummm....

 

I'm going to send you a pm. :)

 

I've been called a cannibal for believing in a literal "body and blood" transformation, so I don't know that you can be more offensive than that, LOL.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Ok. I can handle that. I guess then my question is, doesn't that still leave us, as readers, deciding on our own where to read things as metaphor and where to read them literally? If one is just saying " well obviously that isn't literal, it's obviously a metaphor" how is that different from saying that Genesis obviously isn't literal, based on our understanding of i?

 

really curious.

 

People who tend to believe in these things tend to have pastors who study and teach from the original Greek and Hebrew. So no, it isn't a matter of "obviously that's a metaphor". There are grammatical constructions that help to determine the translation. They also take into consideration the ways language was used in that time period. Some pastors do the translation themselves (my dh does). Some rely more on computer helps on the original languages, commentaries etc. This is the conclusion that they've come to based on that kind of study. Obviously other people have come to other conclusions.

[Ibbygirl]

Jean, will you be my best friend?? You are just awesome! :) :hurray:

[ktgrok]

Ok, so at that point it becomes not "you have to read everything literally", but "you have to read things in the manner in which they were meant to be read." Is that right? On that point i think there may be much agreement, and the disagreement being over how people think things should be read. Because that makes sense to me. Although I think perhaps not to Ken Ham.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Jean, will you be my best friend?? You are just awesome! :) :hurray:

 

I'm not sure why. But thanks!

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't believe in a literal Bible, because that is not what the Bible claims of itself. But I believe in an inspired Bible, that is from God.

 

I am a young earth creationist, because that is how I read the intent of the Biblical witness about the Creation. And I believe in the Real Presence, because that is how I read the intent of the Biblical witness about Holy Communion. Furthermore, although I don't consider it on par with Scripture, I recognize as influential the fact that the Church from her earliest times regarded Holy Communion exactly that way.

[Ellie]

I believe in what is called verbal plenary inspiration. That means that God supervised human writers in the writing of the Bible so that they wrote perfectly God's message while maintaining their own "voice". I also believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. That means that I believe that it is Truth and is without error.

 

I think that the word "literal" can be misleading. Someone who believes that the Bible is literal, doesn't believe that there are no poetic passages, figures of speeches, metaphors, similes, puns, etc. People who do not believe that it is the literal body and blood of Christ believe that this passage is using a metaphor.

Although usually metaphors are recognizable, one must wonder why the people who actually heard Jesus say that--disciples, in fact--left him when he said it; only the 12 stayed. Seems kind of weird to me that they would leave him if he were speaking metaphorically.:001_huh:

[Jean in Newcastle]

Ok, so at that point it becomes not "you have to read everything literally", but "you have to read things in the manner in which they were meant to be read." Is that right? On that point i think there may be much agreement, and the disagreement being over how people think things should be read. But that becomes an argument over scholarship, not faith, right?

 

Yes. Authorial intent is a very big thing. Yes, it can become an argument over scholarship. But scholarship can be very driven by our biases and presuppositions. We all have them. But to do a good job, you need to know what yours are and take those into consideration.

 

If you believe that the Bible evolved over time as the faith of the Hebrew people evolved and it's truth resides in it's general truthfulness (rather than it being literally God's message direct to us), then your scholarship is going to focus on looking for evidences of that evolution. Thus you have scholars who talk about the "J" strand (from a source that stressed "Jehovah" or Yahweh) and the "E" strand (from a source that describes God as "Elohim") and the "D" strand (from a source that only dealt with Deuteronomy) and the "P" strand (from a priestly source). Later parts of the body are assigned their own sources according to these scholars.

 

If you believe that the Bible is God's literal message to mankind, then you are going to stress God's truthfulness, His communications to mankind and His faithfulness. You are going to work hard to reconcile apparent contradictions or to look for alternate ways of understanding it.

 

Faith comes into how we are to respond to the results of this scholarship. If you believe that the Bible is God's literal message to mankind, then you'd better listen up! You need to determine who God is talking to in the passage and if it would include you. You need to determine what things were cultural examples of the time and thus don't need to be followed to the letter and what things are mandated for all time.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Although usually metaphors are recognizable, one must wonder why the people who actually heard Jesus say that--disciples, in fact--left him when he said it; only the 12 stayed. Seems kind of weird to me that they would leave him if he were speaking metaphorically.:001_huh:

 

While I tend to side with the "communion as a remembrance" side of reading those passages, I have no problem with people interpreting it differently. Either way, I (we) approach communion with confession, prayer, reverence, introspection and joy.

[Paintedlady]

This is exactly what I believe.

 

 

I don't believe in a literal Bible, because that is not what the Bible claims of itself. But I believe in an inspired Bible, that is from God.

 

I am a young earth creationist, because that is how I read the intent of the Biblical witness about the Creation. And I believe in the Real Presence, because that is how I read the intent of the Biblical witness about Holy Communion. Furthermore, although I don't consider it on par with Scripture, I recognize as influential the fact that the Church from her earliest times regarded Holy Communion exactly that way.

[Halftime Hope]

(in terms of theology and study methods, and so on--I've forgotten the majority of the terminology I knew 20+ years ago--so now my faith is once again more focused to what I can remmember, and therefore more childlike ;) ), so I may be going where angels fear to tread, but from a common sense, layperson POV, when Jesus broke the bread and poured the wine, the passage tells us that those *foods* are what He used and shared with those at the dinner table. It doesn't tell us that He performed a miracle and transformed the food into His body and blood, in a similar manner to the wedding of Cana.

 

For many of us, then, a common sense reading then would be that He was speaking in metaphor when He said that they were His body and blood. While we believe the Scriptures to be literally true, like this passage, there are many passages in which reasonable interpretation would say that the passage could include a metaphor or other figure of speech.

 

There are many things in Scripture that are difficult for us to hear, particularly the places in which God chooses to present the unvarnished, bad choices and abysmal actions of those whom He chose to work through, even though they were very flawed people. I choose to believe those passages literally as well, all things being equal. God is truthful, merciful, and Sovereign enough to bring His plan for us into being, even though we behave so badly at times.

[simka2]

(in terms of theology and study methods, and so on--I've forgotten the majority of the terminology I knew 20+ years ago--so now my faith is once again more focused to what I can remmember, and therefore more childlike ;) ), so I may be going where angels fear to tread, but from a common sense, layperson POV, when Jesus broke the bread and poured the wine, the passage tells us that those *foods* are what He used and shared with those at the dinner table. It doesn't tell us that He performed a miracle and transformed the food into His body and blood, in a similar manner to the wedding of Cana.

 

For many of us, then, a common sense reading then would be that He was speaking in metaphor when He said that they were His body and blood. While we believe the Scriptures to be literally true, like this passage, there are many passages in which reasonable interpretation would say that the passage could include a metaphor or other figure of speech.

 

There are many things in Scripture that are difficult for us to hear, particularly the places in which God chooses to present the unvarnished, bad choices and abysmal actions of those whom He chose to work through, even though they were very flawed people. I choose to believe those passages literally as well, all things being equal. God is truthful, merciful, and Sovereign enough to bring His plan for us into being, even though we behave so badly at times.

The only problem with this view ( a view I have held in the past) is that if it was "common sense" why did so many stop following Jesus as a result? Why was it deemed a "hard or difficult" saying? What's so difficult about a metaphor? Moreover, why were so many martyrs willing to die over it. That is where it gets a bit sticky :001_smile:.

[unsinkable]

I almost hate to respond to this because I don't want to offend anyone.... I have my opinions here.

 

ummm....

 

I'm going to send you a pm. :)

 

I would bet my last rosary that anything you think would offend has already been written in a thread. :001_smile:

[Halftime Hope]

The only problem with this view ( a view I have held in the past) is that if it was "common sense" why did so many stop following Jesus as a result? Why was it deemed a "hard or difficult" saying? What's so difficult about a metaphor? Moreover, why were so many martyrs willing to die over it. That is where it gets a bit sticky :001_smile:.

 

There is probably a passage that I haven't found yet that you are referencing, but M, M, and Luke (I haven't gone reading further) don't say that they fell away because it was a hard or difficult saying, they say that many fell away because they were like scattered sheep whose shepherd had been struck down. (See immediate context of the passages in those three Gospels...haven't gotten to John to see what's there.)

 

I can come back to this later, but right now I must go get my school day started. Simka, thank you for your thoughtful, civil post. I appreciate a good *discussion*. :)

[Marylou]

Although usually metaphors are recognizable, one must wonder why the people who actually heard Jesus say that--disciples, in fact--left him when he said it; only the 12 stayed. Seems kind of weird to me that they would leave him if he were speaking metaphorically.:001_huh:

 

 

How could he be offering his actual body/blood when he is there in complete form? While holding real bread and wine. I don't think any blood is mentioned until the garden prayer. Many metaphors can be difficult to understand.

[Jennifer3141]

I have a question for the literal believers in the bible - if you totally believe in Genesis, do you also follow the stuff in Leviticus? During my RCIA class, my priest called that the "wacky" book. Of course, he was very liberal. I never would have survived RCIA without him being liberal. I just remember being horrified at the violence and the insanity (to me) of several of those rules.

 

So if you believe that Genesis (and therefore the entire bible?) are utterly true, do you follow EVERYTHING in the bible?

[simka2]

There is probably a passage that I haven't found yet that you are referencing, but M, M, and Luke (I haven't gone reading further) don't say that they fell away because it was a hard or difficult saying, they say that many fell away because they were like scattered sheep whose shepherd had been struck down. (See immediate context of the passages in those three Gospels...haven't gotten to John to see what's there.)

 

I can come back to this later, but right now I must go get my school day started. Simka, thank you for your thoughtful, civil post. I appreciate a good *discussion*. :)

 

It's John 6:51-66. I'm not going to get into a bible verse debate (not that you were wanting to ;)), but I have held the metaphor view and can't quite get it to work for me anymore. That said I am still wrapping my heart and mind around this.

Edited April 6, 2011 by simka2

[FaithManor]

I believe the Bible is inerrant. I believe man is not. So we are not a perfect people and we have imperfect brains. Therefore, we will not always be able to interpret it. But, I believe that we grow in our faith when we wrestle with the tough questions which is why the tough stuff should be asked and debated. I also believe that when Jesus said, "Love one another as I have loved you, " HE WASN'T PLAYING AROUND! So, then, despite what I believe a given passage says, utlimately, I MUST act in love to others. Failure to do so is evidence of my own spiritual immaturity. Failure to act in love and grace causes others to stumble.

 

That's probably my single biggest issue with the kerfuffle. Failure to learn to disagree in love, in a spirit of reconciliation, with grace, will cause others to stumble...it will not lead anyone to Jesus, just away from Him.

 

Ultimately, when it comes to a local body of believers deciding how metaphorical passages and difficult to interpret passages (some are pretty blatant - Love one another - nothing ambiguous there), this should be done within the context of the scholarship of a large body of believers/ leadership that have spent time wrestling with this, praying about this, seeking the God's guidance. No one man or woman should be able to make any hard and fast "rules of theology". Had God wanted it that way, He'd have had one disciple, one apostle, one prophet, and that would be that. He chose a body of men and women (there were several female followers who were present at Pentecost, his mother, Mary and Martha, etc. He had female financial supporters, Susannah and Johanna...) who would have to wretsle with the tough stuff once he was gone and wrestle they did. Paul and Peter got into it over circumcision. They met in Jerusalem, said their piece like gentlemen, and came to a reconciled, mutually acceptable decision. This is what the local body of believers should do. Each body of believers, instead of looking for divisive issues, which only bring harm, should seek to be walking in love and grace with other bodies of believers even when they can't agree on everything.

 

Therefore, if another person who loves the Lord they God with all his might, all his strength, all his heart...who loves Jesus...doesn't believe exactly what I believe - think Apostle's Creed here which is a unifying work of the Christian fathers for showing the basics of unambiguous theology - my call is to love them, period. So, I can honestly say that I don't agree with Dr. Enns interpretation of several things nor does it mesh with our local body of believers. But, so flipping what??? I am called to act in love. If I believe that what I believe is true, then the only way that there would be any hope of his changing his mind, would be for those that don't agree to LOVE HIM. Not that it matters to me that Dr. Enns ever change. God is God, I am not, and I've seen the boss's job and I DON'T WANT IT! That's a cross I don't want to bear.

 

I truly believe that there are passages of scripture that appear both literally and allegorically wrapped up together with difficult to understand symbolism so that we HAVE to wrestle with the tough stuff. This is what matures us, if we let God be God and do that in our lives. I believe that the truth can be known. I don't believe that we are really going to understand it all right here, right now and that we will make mistakes and especially when we assume a role that God never meant for us to assume.

 

There is no personal threat to me, though I tend towards what I like to call Middle Earth - see, I'm so weird that I have no one to "side with" :D and guess what, any person who says, "I follow Jesus" and believes Old Earth, does not threaten me one bit. Hey brother or sister, like "The Canterbury Tales", join me on the journey and share your story. We are all in this together.

 

Faith

[lionfamily1999]

Jean already said it very well.

 

:party: (a party for Jean)

 

I'm not sure I know a single Christian that believes that Christ was literally describing a specific farmer scattering seeds or gathering the tares with the wheat. There are parables, poetry, metaphors &tc. My understanding is that the original languages actually had different ways to write those things making it clear (without doubt) that they were metaphors. English is pretty weak in terms of making words fit their purpose. Latin is teaching me this :p And... the Song of Solomen would be tres bizarre if it was all meant literally. B00ks like clusters on the vine... that's a mental picture I could do without :lol:

[Jen+4dc]

I believe the Bible is inerrant. I believe man is not. So we are not a perfect people and we have imperfect brains. Therefore, we will not always be able to interpret it. But, I believe that we grow in our faith when we wrestle with the tough questions which is why the tough stuff should be asked and debated. I also believe that when Jesus said, "Love one another as I have loved you, " HE WASN'T PLAYING AROUND! So, then, despite what I believe a given passage says, utlimately, I MUST act in love to others. Failure to do so is evidence of my own spiritual immaturity. Failure to act in love and grace causes others to stumble.

 

That's probably my single biggest issue with the kerfuffle. Failure to learn to disagree in love, in a spirit of reconciliation, with grace, will cause others to stumble...it will not lead anyone to Jesus, just away from Him.

 

Ultimately, when it comes to a local body of believers deciding how metaphorical passages and difficult to interpret passages (some are pretty blatant - Love one another - nothing ambiguous there), this should be done within the context of the scholarship of a large body of believers/ leadership that have spent time wrestling with this, praying about this, seeking the God's guidance. No one man or woman should be able to make any hard and fast "rules of theology". Had God wanted it that way, He'd have had one disciple, one apostle, one prophet, and that would be that. He chose a body of men and women (there were several female followers who were present at Pentecost, his mother, Mary and Martha, etc. He had female financial supporters, Susannah and Johanna...) who would have to wretsle with the tough stuff once he was gone and wrestle they did. Paul and Peter got into it over circumcision. They met in Jerusalem, said their piece like gentlemen, and came to a reconciled, mutually acceptable decision. This is what the local body of believers should do. Each body of believers, instead of looking for divisive issues, which only bring harm, should seek to be walking in love and grace with other bodies of believers even when they can't agree on everything.

 

Therefore, if another person who loves the Lord they God with all his might, all his strength, all his heart...who loves Jesus...doesn't believe exactly what I believe - think Apostle's Creed here which is a unifying work of the Christian fathers for showing the basics of unambiguous theology - my call is to love them, period. So, I can honestly say that I don't agree with Dr. Enns interpretation of several things nor does it mesh with our local body of believers. But, so flipping what??? I am called to act in love. If I believe that what I believe is true, then the only way that there would be any hope of his changing his mind, would be for those that don't agree to LOVE HIM. Not that it matters to me that Dr. Enns ever change. God is God, I am not, and I've seen the boss's job and I DON'T WANT IT! That's a cross I don't want to bear.

 

I truly believe that there are passages of scripture that appear both literally and allegorically wrapped up together with difficult to understand symbolism so that we HAVE to wrestle with the tough stuff. This is what matures us, if we let God be God and do that in our lives. I believe that the truth can be known. I don't believe that we are really going to understand it all right here, right now and that we will make mistakes and especially when we assume a role that God never meant for us to assume.

 

There is no personal threat to me, though I tend towards what I like to call Middle Earth - see, I'm so weird that I have no one to "side with" :D and guess what, any person who says, "I follow Jesus" and believes Old Earth, does not threaten me one bit. Hey brother or sister, like "The Canterbury Tales", join me on the journey and share your story. We are all in this together.

 

Faith

:iagree: Well said!!

[Jean in Newcastle]

I have a question for the literal believers in the bible - if you totally believe in Genesis, do you also follow the stuff in Leviticus? During my RCIA class, my priest called that the "wacky" book. Of course, he was very liberal. I never would have survived RCIA without him being liberal. I just remember being horrified at the violence and the insanity (to me) of several of those rules.

 

So if you believe that Genesis (and therefore the entire bible?) are utterly true, do you follow EVERYTHING in the bible?

 

I'll tackle this one. Not everything in the Bible was written to and for a church-age believer. There were some prophecies that were written specifically to the Jews or to Edom or to Egypt. There were some instructions written specifically to the Jews. Leviticus is a whole book of instructions written specifically to the Jews of that time. It outlined how they could separate themselves from the religions of that time. Some of the bizarre rules (like don't boil a kid - goat - in it's own milk) were specifically because an ancient Canaanite religion did that and they needed to be totally separate from that.

[TheCoffeeChick]

I don't believe in a literal Bible, because that is not what the Bible claims of itself. But I believe in an inspired Bible, that is from God.

 

I am a young earth creationist, because that is how I read the intent of the Biblical witness about the Creation. And I believe in the Real Presence, because that is how I read the intent of the Biblical witness about Holy Communion. Furthermore, although I don't consider it on par with Scripture, I recognize as influential the fact that the Church from her earliest times regarded Holy Communion exactly that way.

:iagree: I'm not surprised I agree though, as we belong to the same church. ;)

I'll tackle this one. Not everything in the Bible was written to and for a church-age believer. There were some prophecies that were written specifically to the Jews or to Edom or to Egypt. There were some instructions written specifically to the Jews. Leviticus is a whole book of instructions written specifically to the Jews of that time. It outlined how they could separate themselves from the religions of that time. Some of the bizarre rules (like don't boil a kid - goat - in it's own milk) were specifically because an ancient Canaanite religion did that and they needed to be totally separate from that.

Nice answer!

 

Also Christ came as the last sacrifice. He fulfilled all our Old Testament duties for us.

[ktgrok]

Thanks to all for replying. I'll be honest, I still think it comes down to a person having to decide (hopefully after much study of the languages, and much prayer) what to read as metaphor and what to read as literal. Some things, like "I am the Vine" seem obvious. Others, like "this is my body" might seem obvious to some but not to others, which is not a new thing. The Church Fathers seemed to think of it as literal, so it wasn't obviously metaphor to them, and they certainly were familiar with the original languages, LOL. So it comes down to having to make decisions, and I guess I just wish that those that the Ken Hams of the world would acknowledge that yes, OE people do sit and make a decision to read Genesis as allegory rather than literal truth, but that they do the same thing with other parts of the Bible and so should check out those glass walls before they start throwing stones.

[Carol in Cal.]

I have a question for the literal believers in the bible - if you totally believe in Genesis, do you also follow the stuff in Leviticus? During my RCIA class, my priest called that the "wacky" book. Of course, he was very liberal. I never would have survived RCIA without him being liberal. I just remember being horrified at the violence and the insanity (to me) of several of those rules.

 

 

This is such a good question. I wondered about it for years. Then about 10 years ago I read the whole Bible in modern English. Oddly enough, I had read the whole thing in KJV more than once, but only (extensive) excerpts in modern English before. I did this with a small group from my church, over about a three and a half year period of time. What this did was give me more of a sense of the links between books of the Bible, and of the sweep of its teachings than I had had before. And of the major themes that emerged, one was that throughout the Epistles there are instructions to discard the ceremonial requirements of the law, but keep to the moral ones. However, there are no injunctions to apply Levitical punishments--none whatsoever. I interpret this to mean that they are done away with along with the ceremonies. (ETA: And this is the teaching about it that I had always heard, but had not understood before.)

Edited April 6, 2011 by Carol in Cal.

[Carol in Cal.]

How could he be offering his actual body/blood when he is there in complete form? While holding real bread and wine. I don't think any blood is mentioned until the garden prayer. Many metaphors can be difficult to understand.

 

They are challenging, all right!

 

Something to ponder on...in I Cor. Paul talks about the Lord's Supper as having actual power--causing sickness and even death if taken unworthily. You might want to check that out and consider it. I think of it as the tie-breaker in this issue.

[Mary in VA]

It's John 6:51-66. I'm not going to get into a bible verse debate (not that you were wanting to ;)), but I have held the metaphor view and can't quite get it to work for me anymore. That said I am still wrapping my heart and mind around this.

 

I hesitate to jump into a theological discussion on this board because of all the eloquent participants, like you and Jean :001_smile: I have always viewed the bread and wine metaphorically, but I went and looked up the John verses after your post. The note in my Bible (which I know is only man's commentary) states, "This is an overstatement, a literary device Jesus often used to communicate a particular truth. In this case, he was making the point that intellectual belief in him is not enough. He called the people to go further than that - to base their entire lives, their very survival, upon him and his words, to 'eat' and 'drink' Jesus is to assimilate and depend on him in every aspect of our lives (see Deut8:3)" This makes sense to me, especially given the fact Jesus refers to himself as "living water."

 

Deuteronomy 8:3 states that "man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord." And Jesus is "The Word."

 

Just something to think about.

 

Mary

[Marylou]

 

http://www.giffmex.org/blog/?p=370 in regards to cherry picking passages.

[Aubrey]

There is probably a passage that I haven't found yet that you are referencing, but M, M, and Luke (I haven't gone reading further) don't say that they fell away because it was a hard or difficult saying, they say that many fell away because they were like scattered sheep whose shepherd had been struck down. (See immediate context of the passages in those three Gospels...haven't gotten to John to see what's there.)

 

I can come back to this later, but right now I must go get my school day started. Simka, thank you for your thoughtful, civil post. I appreciate a good *discussion*. :)

 

The passage she's referring to is in John. People left Jesus because he said his body was the bread; his blood was the wine. And he asked them, "Will you go, too?"

 

Peter answers, "Where would we go, Lord? You have the words of life, and we have come to know you as the Christ."

 

ETA: Simka cited it. That's what I get for responding 1/2 through reading a thread. Eek!

Edited April 6, 2011 by Aubrey

[Aubrey]

I have a question for the literal believers in the bible - if you totally believe in Genesis, do you also follow the stuff in Leviticus? During my RCIA class, my priest called that the "wacky" book. Of course, he was very liberal. I never would have survived RCIA without him being liberal. I just remember being horrified at the violence and the insanity (to me) of several of those rules.

 

So if you believe that Genesis (and therefore the entire bible?) are utterly true, do you follow EVERYTHING in the bible?

 

Believing a passage literally happened is different from obeying it. :001_smile:

[lionfamily1999]

http://www.giffmex.org/blog/?p=370 in regards to cherry picking passages.

Thanks for linking this. :) It answers the questions regarding OT rules that are no longer followed very well.

[susankenny]

Good discussion. As mentioned, some things are obviously an allegory, while other things are more difficult to decipher. Regarding Genesis specifically, I guess I'm more literal. Not so much with the age of the earth (although I lean more toward YE - but it's not something I really get involved over), as I can see how scripture supports both... a day is like a thousand years to God, etc. The creation account of Adam & Eve though is often interpreted as a story, & I've heard/read many times that it's not meant to be literal. I have a more difficult time with this, however, as *I* do not see as an allegory. Adam is mentioned by name 30 times in the Bible & in other books outside of Genesis, he is referred to a literal person. We see genealogy from Adam & Eve time & again, who their children were, who their children's children were. Do Adam and Eve make sense? No. I recognize it is scientific heresy. I realize that. I also realize people think I'm in an intellectual cul-de-sac for believing such "nonsense". The entire bible is filled with unexplainable, unprovable, unscientific occurrences. I think faith has to step in at some point, and for me it starts in the beginning.

 

Susan

Edited April 6, 2011 by susankenny

[mcconnellboys]

I vote for a completely literal interpretation of Song of Solomon, LOL..... ducking....

[mcconnellboys]

I believe that God's message is perfectly written, but that an eternal, limitless being that exists in more dimensions than we can imagine might not be fully understandable to we little peons, no matter how simplistic He is trying to be....

 

As Mrs. Mungo said in a thread a while back, we got it wrong regarding the heliocentric universe, and we've gotten other things wrong, as well, over time. Hindsight is 20/20. Someday, when all is revealed, I'm sure we'll smack our heads and say, "Oh, yeah, NOW I see what He meant!"

 

Until then, Jesus basically said that the GREAT commandment is to Love the Lord, our God with all our hearts, minds, souls, and strength and ALSO to love our neighbors as ourselves and that everything else is basically just commentary. Since we (read, I) fail miserably at these two things daily, I'm not sure we should worry about anything else until and unless we can get these right.... Basics first....

[Carol in Cal.]

I vote for a completely literal interpretation of Song of Solomon, LOL..... ducking....

 

Yeah!!!!

[FaithManor]

Regena, Amen and Amen....Jesus said all other commandments HANG on these two! Focus, focus, focus....

 

Now as for Song of Solomon, well DH and I think it's one of our favorite books!!!! Bless God for sticking it in there!

 

Faith

[DianeW88]

Just to throw another viewpoint in....as a Latter-day Saint, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God insofar as it is translated correctly."

 

However, we also believe that everyone should worship "how, where and when they may" without ridicule, mean-spiritedness and general nastiness leveled at them. So honestly, it doesn't bother me what anyone else believes...young earth, old earth, ancient earth....whatever. I think we our main concern should be how we treat each other. Are we showing the love Christ showed when He was on earth? Are we being kind? That to me is much more important. I honestly do not believe that the timing of the earth's creation and the space of time between day 1 and day 7 has ANYTHING to do with our own personal salvation. At all. So I'm completely baffled as to why the kerfluffle crowd is so hung up on it. :confused: :confused: :confused:

[susankenny]

J

we also believe that everyone should worship "how, where and when they may" without ridicule, mean-spiritedness and general nastiness leveled at them.

 

Latterday Saint, Christian, Atheist, whatever... this sentiment truly should be in the heart of every person. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

 

 

Susan

 

ETA - I did not mean to imply Latterday Saints are not Christian. I just realized what I typed. I'm sorry. I specifically set you apart because you identified yourself that way. I apologize.

Edited April 6, 2011 by susankenny

[OnTheBrink]

I have a question for the literal believers in the bible - if you totally believe in Genesis, do you also follow the stuff in Leviticus? During my RCIA class, my priest called that the "wacky" book. Of course, he was very liberal. I never would have survived RCIA without him being liberal. I just remember being horrified at the violence and the insanity (to me) of several of those rules.

 

So if you believe that Genesis (and therefore the entire bible?) are utterly true, do you follow EVERYTHING in the bible?

 

Genesis is history; Leviticus is law. OT, old covenant law. I believe in a literal Genesis and a literal Leviticus, but Jesus fulfilled the OT laws. Genesis doesn't present laws for living. It's the history of the beginning of the world. It's like comparing an encyclopedia with the penal code. They're both real, both literal, but not the same things.

 

Jesus' death fulfilled the OT law requirements of mankind. Hence, today, we're not under the law but under the grace of God, through the death of Jesus.

 

Did that make sense?

[DianeW88]

ETA - I did not mean to imply Latterday Saints are not Christian. I just realized what I typed. I'm sorry. I specifically set you apart because you identified yourself that way. I apologize.

 

Oh goodness, no need for an apology! We understand that other Christian denominations tend to separate us out from mainstream Christianity. I'm never offended by that....I know it's mostly for classification purposes and to signify that some of our beliefs do differ from theirs.

[lionfamily1999]

I vote for a completely literal interpretation of Song of Solomon, LOL..... ducking....

:lol:

[OnTheBrink]

Oh! And about the blood and body thing. In the OT, it was forbidden to consume the blood or fat of an animal. The blood was the life of the animal; hence, you take on/consume/inject the "life" of another creature. When Jesus was saying the wine was his blood, he was saying that his blood gave life (spiritually speaking) and that for them to have life, they needed to drink his blood. Meaning, real, true eternal life was through Jesus. The idea of drinking blood was so abhorrent, many couldn't deal with the concept or didn't get what he was saying, and many left.

 

As far as whether Jesus was being literal or figural in relation to the Eucharist and how it's viewed, I can see both sides. I can see where he's speaking metaphorically and it's not literally his blood, but I can see how it could be supernatually his blood and body.

[ShutterBug]

If the big issue with Ham kerfluffle is that you have to believe ALL of the Bible literally, then why do these same people not believe in the literal "body and blood" of communion? Why is it ok to read that in a figurative sense, but not other parts of the Bible? :bigear:

 

YE'er here.

 

Jesus spoke in parables. Breaking the bread and saying "This is my body..." was giving the disciples a picture of what was going to happen to him soon. When he asked them to "do this" in remembrance of me he was asking his followers to do just that..break the bread, share the wine in remembrance of the sacrifice he'd offered...of his life and blood.

 

Jesus never asked us to believe that the bread and wine were literally transfiguring into flesh and blood in our mouths. He offered Himself as sacrifice once..he never requested we offer his flesh and blood for sacrfice every day or every week. If you can provide a verse that shows otherwise, please feel free to share :) .

 

The concept of transfiguration really intrigues me. I was raised Catholic. I was never taught in religious-ed classes that this is what I was supposed to be believing. I made my first communion and took communion hundreds of times over the course of my life. I can't recall even once the bread and wine turning into physical flesh or blood in my mouth. Did that make me a heretic?

 

Have you ever actually felt the bread turn to flesh or tasted the wine turn to blood? I'm not being snarky, just genuinely curious.

[ktgrok]

YE'er here.

 

The concept of transfiguration really intrigues me. I was raised Catholic. I was never taught in religious-ed classes that this is what I was supposed to be believing. I made my first communion and took communion hundreds of times over the course of my life. I can't recall even once the bread and wine turning into physical flesh or blood in my mouth. Did that make me a heretic?

 

Have you ever actually felt the bread turn to flesh or tasted the wine turn to blood? I'm not being snarky, just genuinely curious.

 

No one says it takes on the form of flesh and blood. Just that somehow, miraculously it IS or does contain the flesh and blood. Some churches don't define how, some (the R.C.) have tried, but honestly it was before modern understandings of physics so it doesn't make much sense now. Transubstantiation is based on a ancient idea that things have form and substance, with the form remaining wine but the substance being blood.

[ktgrok]

I hesitate to jump into a theological discussion on this board because of all the eloquent participants, like you and Jean :001_smile: I have always viewed the bread and wine metaphorically, but I went and looked up the John verses after your post. The note in my Bible (which I know is only man's commentary) states, "This is an overstatement, a literary device Jesus often used to communicate a particular truth. In this case, he was making the point that intellectual belief in him is not enough. He called the people to go further than that - to base their entire lives, their very survival, upon him and his words, to 'eat' and 'drink' Jesus is to assimilate and depend on him in every aspect of our lives (see Deut8:3)" This makes sense to me, especially given the fact Jesus refers to himself as "living water."

 

Deuteronomy 8:3 states that "man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord." And Jesus is "The Word."

 

Just something to think about.

 

Mary

 

This totally makes sense, but I think that this line of thought isn't any less convoluted than the idea that the "days" in the bible were longer than 24 hours. Yet somehow this kind of explanation of the Lord's supper is accepted by fundamentalists, but not accepted in regards to interpreting Genesis.

 

I don't want to convert people to one way of thinking or the other, but I do wish that people would acknowledge that the level of freedom used to explain the verses is similar.

 

And that many early Christians believed in a literal "Body and Blood", way before the Bible was finalized, just as many Jews believed in an allegorical Genesis. Both are ancient concepts, not something some liberal Christians made up to make the Bible fit into the modern world.

[ktgrok]

I also wanted to clarify, for the YE people, that many OE people do believe the Bible was written/inspired by God, that it is Truth. I believe that God gave us the story of Genesis to explain VERY important concepts, including Sin. But that perhaps he worded it this way so that we would understand it, because trying to explain the Big Bang in terms of modern physics would have been more than we could comprehend at the time. I thank him greatly for giving me something I could actually understand, as physics will always be beyond my grasp :)

[Carol in Cal.]

This totally makes sense, but I think that this line of thought isn't any less convoluted than the idea that the "days" in the bible were longer than 24 hours. Yet somehow this kind of explanation of the Lord's supper is accepted by fundamentalists, but not accepted in regards to interpreting Genesis.

 

I don't want to convert people to one way of thinking or the other, but I do wish that people would acknowledge that the level of freedom used to explain the verses is similar.

 

 

 

I agree that the level of freedom is similar. That's one of the reasons that I reject both the idea of the millenia-long days AND the strictly a memorial view of the Lord's Supper. At least I'm consistent...