This one is spread throughout Scripture, serpent does not allways mean snake. Dan is call a serpent but it doesn't mean he was a reptile.
No he wasn't, however the passage is highly allegorical. Here at least we are told who the snake is. In Genesis we are not even given that introduction. We are simply told, t
he snake was sneakier than any of the other wild animals that the LORD God had made Gen 3:1. Surely we need to be consistent here and either say that Gen 3 is an even deeper allegory than Gen 59:9-26, or claim that they are both literal. After all doesn't the creator have the power to transmogrify Dan into a serpent?
How do you pick and choose in Genesis? Adam was literally made of dust. Eve was literally made of Adam's rib. Eve did literally talk to a snake, (according to most YECs anyway). But the snake she talked to didn't get stepped on by Messiah.
A text without a context is a pretext and there is an explanation for the parable in the immediate context
"Now therefore, if you have acted in truth and sincerity in making Abimelech kind, and if you have sealt well with Jerubaal and his house, and have done to him as he deserves..." (Judges 1:16)
If you are reading something figurative it should be readily apparent from the immediate context. No such language or interprutation exists for Adam and Eve or the 6 days of creation.
Jotham never says the story is figurative. What makes you think it is? Talking trees? Are they more figurative than a talking snake?
Once again you have ignored the context that proclaims God's universal kingdom (93:1-4), over the earth (93:1,2), over the heavens (93:3,4). This has nothing to do with astronomy or geology.
"The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, [wherewith] he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." (Psalm 93:1)
All it says is that the world (tebel, tay-bale' inhabited world) is established. It has nothing to do with geology or cosmology and the heart of the emphasis is on God which makes this an obvious literary device. Not so with Genesis 1 and 2 that are specifically identified as 'accounts'.
Yet before Copernicus came along, everyone thought it was talking cosmology.
John Calvin said:
Commentary on Psalms. Psalm 93:1
The Psalmist proves that God will not neglect or abandon the world, from the fact that he created it. A simple survey of the world should of itself suffice to attest a Divine Providence. The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion — no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wanderings, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God’s hand? By what means could it maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it? Accordingly the particle אף, aph, denoting emphasis, is introduced — Yea, he hath established it.
You accept the science now and you look for other ways to read the Psalm rather than taking it at face value. Why do that here but not in Genesis?
That is just plain silly, he is talking about the sunrise and sunset.
Sunrise, sunset, and the sun hurrying around under the earth to come up the other side. Read what the book says rather than trying to filter it through you modern scientific view point. The writer clearly thought the sun travels around the earth.
That's what it says alright and as far as anyone knew that is what happened. The sun and moon were told to stand still and I see no reason not to take this as a literal miracle. The context makes it clear that hailstones killed more of the enemy the Hebrew swords (Josh. 10:11).
I don't dismiss this one, I think it says what it means and happened exactly as it is described. Let me guess, you think it's impossible right?
No I don't. I believe God gave Joshua a longer day, though I don't know how he did it. What I am sure of that it didn't happen by God making the sun stop moving. The only way the sun stopping will give a longer day is if day and night are caused by the sun circling the earth, not by the earth rotating.
That is not what it says, it says from the end of heaven probably indicating the horizon.
Do the heavens come to an end at Persia?
The farthest reaches, the Bible also indicates four corners of the earth. I don't even have to look at the context for this one, it's an obvious idiom.
'From the beginning of creation' is another idiom which YECs quote all the time. They insist on taking that one literally, but not 'from the ends of the earth'.
A common personage not unlike someone saying 'shes a good ship'.
Just like adam (man).
In both accounts you have a narrative that apparently tells us someones history, complete with genealogy, and no indication in either narrative that it is allegorical.
Specifically idenfied the hope of Israel in the immediate context but you allready knew that right? You did read the passage didn't you?
Is it an allegorical vision or a miracle with message of hope? In the second half of the chapter Ezekiel took two sticks which symbolised Joseph and Judah and the hope Israel. It doesn't mean there were real sticks there. Genesis identifies the rib story as an illustration of God's plan for marriage.
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. How can you insist the rib is literal but the bones aren't?
That is actually a common belief among Catholics, the bread is Christ. You can't take this one literally unless you want to argue that Jesus thought he was a loaf of bread.
He is God the Son. Who are you to say what he can and cannot be? If you want to take passages literally unless we are told otherwise, then Jesus did say he was a door, a vine, the bread of life and the good shepherd. He never said these were parables. By YEC logic we should take these statements at face value. Why is this rule only applied to Genesis?
But you misunderstand the Catholic literal interpretation of the eucharist. It doesn't say Jesus is a loaf of bread, but that the bread is miraculously transformed into meat, Jesus' own flesh.
You believe God transformed a lump of mud into human flesh but not a lump of bread? I don't see the consistency here. Maybe you prefer to trust the evidence of your own eyes that it is still bread after it has been blessed. The Catholics simply rely on their faith. If Jesus said it, it must be true. But if you are going to trust in physical evidence rather than the plain reading of Scripture, why not do the same with Genesis?
Not reincarnated, Elijah was taken bodily into heaven which was the beginning of the Prophetic age. The 'spirit' and 'power' of Elijah had come upon the person and work of John. Elisha asked that he get a two-fold measure of Elijah's spirit which was granted if Elisha actually wittnessed Elijah's departure.
Elijah does actually return bodily and prophesies for about half the Tribulation period. There are some extremly supernatural things associated with Elijah, reincarnation is just not one of them.
It really is amazing what you take literally and what you don't. You believe Elijah will return before the day of the Lord as Malachi prophesied, but for some strange reason you think it will be a literal, physical return during the tribulation. Where does the bible say this? The disciples asked Jesus about Elijah's return and Jesus told them it had already happened. You want to take Elijah's return literally, but cannot accept Jesus statement that it was John the baptist, because that would mean Elijah was reborn, literally reincarnated as the baby John. So we get another coming of Elijah, this time physically back form heaven. Why take Elijah's return literally, but not take Jesus' literally that John the baptist was Elijah?
Is it an aversion to reincarnation, because it is appoint to every man once to die and then the judgement? Well there is a simple get out clause here. We are not told Elijah died.
We are not just told in the NT that John would
before the Messiah in the spirit and power of Elijah. We are told John was Elijah. not just by an angel (Luke 1:17), but by Jesus himself.
Mat 11:14 and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come.
Mat 17:12 But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.
Mar 9:13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.
Most parables are prefaced with a 'like' or 'as' and followed by an interprutation. Here Jesus is using Good Shepherd as a title and there is no need since it does not even qualify as a parable.
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
It certainly doesn't
say it is a parable, but it is. And while the parable doesn't have the label parable, use 'like' or 'as' and isn't explained, we still don't take it literally.
That's because the Rich man and Lazarus are not parables they are people.
1 down.
Again, the good Samaritan was a person who was despised as a half breed. He did God's will while the other pure breed Jews walked by without helping this man.
2 down.
It might be interesting to see how many YECs take these two parables literally.
I don't know if you ever heard of the Stanley Milgram Experiments but there was a version done of the Good Samaritan. Seminary students shortly before graduation were told to hurry across campus to give an improptu speach on the Good Samaritan. On the way, you guessed it, they passed someone on the side of the path who was in need of help. Not one of them stopped.
There is nothing figurative about the message of the Good Samaritan.
Except for the fact that Jesus made the story up. But the message was real enough, just as the message that God is creator is real too, or that God made us in his image but we have sinned and fallen short.
There is something strange in this answer and I think it gives a deep insight into the YEC mindset. You have just shown how powerfully the parable of the Good Samaritan describes human nature and you think this shows there is nothing figurative about its message. While YECs recognise the odd metaphor and figure of speech in the literal text, they believe a figurative interpretation of the passage empties scripture of all real meaning.
But when they do grasp the deep insight the Word of God holds, they see it as the plain literal meaning and nothing to do with allegorical
or figurative
interpretations.
You have to take a serious look at the context and just because something uses figurative language does not mean it is not literal.
Or that just because something uses literal language, it doesn't mean it is not figurative. Like all the examples we have looked at.
Something far more important, just because taking a passage literally means God acted in a supernatural way does not mean it's hyperbole, legend or myth. What it means, often times, is that God acts in time and space in accordance with his will and we call these events miracles. It's supernatural from our point of view but for God it's perfectly natural.
Some of the examples we have seen describe a supernatural miracle if we take it literally, but we would be wrong. Ezekiel did not command dry bones which were resurrected into an army. Bread does not become meat.
Some describe miracles, genuine supernatural interventions by God. It does not mean the description of the miracle is literal. However God helped Joshua, it wasn't by stopping the sun moving. Jesus supernaturally defeated the power of Satan by his death and resurrection, but it did not involve stepping on a snake. God did create the earth using vast powers beyond our comprehension, but it did not involve fixing the planet motionless or a literal six day schedule. God raised up the Medes to rescue Israel from the Babylonians, again I don't know how God did it, but I totally agree that from God's point of view it was perfectly natural. However, he did not transport them from the end of the heavens.
Just because a description is figurative, it doesn't mean it is not describing a supernatural work of God. In fact I would think the greater the work of God, the more it is way beyond our comprehension, the more we need poetry, parable and metaphor to even begin to catch a glimpse of what God has done.
