The Bible: Symbolic or Literal?

[Floatingaxe]

Christianity is filled with myths. Even if you're a literalist, you can't deny that Christianity contains myths unless you're completely unaware of what a myth is. And if you're ignorant of such a basic thing as that, it might be time to start wondering what else you might be ignorant of.

The definition:

a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Now, are you going to, for once in this thread, do the right thing by admitting and correcting your mistake?

There are no myths in Christianity. Following Christ is a sure, true, solid way to live. Our faoundation is rock solid, with Christ as the Rock. You cannot go wrong following Jesus. In Him is no lie or any dark thing--only the absolute truth. What an awesome wonder that God provided for us, lost humanity!!!

 

[Rick Otto]

No myths, but that doesn't prevent some Christians from having "solid rock" where ears are supposed to be.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Ah, and now we get to the crux of the matter. You've told me that you can't know whether it's the Holy Spirit or the Devil that's speaking to you without the Bible, and you can't know that the Bible is true without the Holy Spirit speaking to you.

Are you beginning to see where the circularity comes in?

I don't need the Bible to tell me that goodness is from the Holy Spirit and not from the devil, but it has helped me understand the workings of the Spirit in my everyday life...
if all my choices had to do with extreme cases of good and evil, I wouldn't need the Bible and I would always know it's the Spirit. For example, if I feel something telling me to kill someone, lol, clearly that's not from God.

But in our lives, not everything is that clear. Sometimes, it's hard to figure out if something is good or bad, true or false. In those cases, the Bible has helped me understand a little better how to tell apart God's voice from the others. I'm not perfect at this, of course, but the Bible has helped me see what the criteria is for something to be from the Holy Spirit. For example, I doubt if I would have come up with 'the fruits of the Spirit' idea if it wasn't in the Bible.

Do you see what I'm trying to say? It's theoretically true that "all we need is the Spirit", but the Bible gives us wisdom so that we'll know how to recognize Him.

But Dannager, what are you trying to show in your argument?

God bless


monica

 

[Floatingaxe]

No myths, but that doesn't prevent some Christians from having "solid rock" where ears are supposed to be.

Yes, that is why I yell at them...gravel-for-brains!

 

[Rick Otto]

This topic probably has come up many times before, but I couldn't find any threads on it. Stories such as Noah's Arch, are they to be taken literally? Does it make us lesser of Christians if we take it symbolically?

I would submit that depends on what the practical consequences are.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Coming back to the Deluge, with respect to erosion you have to pick no more than two of the following three, quick, deep, steep.
{expansion on this point}
We have examples of catastrophic flooding, we know what evidence it leaves behind.
Unlike the resurrection there should be {direct, physical} evidence of the Deluge, and there isn't.

Doesn't matter. Eggheads don't know it all.

Name-calling?
Why?

You are right though, even people who spend their lives reexamining, correcting and building on the efforts of generations of other people who studied the physical universe don't know everything.

But this isn't rocket science. I have personally dug a six foot deep hole in heavy clay soil. I had no intention of digging any more than I had to so the walls were straight up and down. In the process I climbed in and out of the hole a few times, to use the washroom, have a drink in the air conditioned house..., because frankly, it was a long, hot, hard job.

Digging in sand is much easier, the only time consuming part of digging such a hole in sand would be that the walls would keep collapsing. If you got just the right amount of water in the sand you just might succeed but I pretty much guarantee you that the minute you tried to hoist yourself out large chunks of the walls would fall in, and the first rainstorm to come would cause a total collapse.

In fact near the beginning of the summer a safety group recommended that parents not let their children dig in sand deeper than their knees to prevent the collapse of the holes and suffocation.

You simply don't get a 4000+ foot deep, steep, meandering canyon with buttes in the middle, that then remains in place for millennia, in a short period of time.

If you want to invoke extra-Biblical miracles, fine; that is the same as acknowledging that the physical evidence doesn't support the literalist position.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

2) As long as you don't claim that the physical evidence agrees with you, and as long as you don't claim I am not a good Christian because I disagree with your interpretation, God bless you.

The physical evidence agrees with the Word of God. I happen to believe the Bible. There is no reason under the sun not to.

The question is not whether to believe the Bible, the question is whether to take an extreme literalist interpretation of the Bible.

Upon what do you base your statement that the physical evidence agrees with your literalist interpretation of the Bible?

 

[DMagoh]

The question is not whether to believe the Bible, the question is whether to take an extreme literalist interpretation of the Bible.

All I know is Jesus quoted scripture all the time. He also told the Pharisees they were wrong because "they didnt know the scriptures." Jesus also referred to Noah's Ark, etc. I get the impression Jesus thought scripture was literal.

 

[artybloke]

I get the impression Jesus thought scripture was literal.

Then you've been getting the wrong impression. No wonder your views of Scripture are so off base.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

All I know is Jesus quoted scripture all the time. He also told the Pharisees they were wrong because "they didnt know the scriptures." Jesus also referred to Noah's Ark, etc. I get the impression Jesus thought scripture was literal.

I also got that impression...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

All I know is Jesus quoted scripture all the time. He also told the Pharisees they were wrong because "they didnt know the scriptures." Jesus also referred to Noah's Ark, etc. I get the impression Jesus thought scripture was literal.

Referring to the Flood story doesn't automatically mean he thought it was literally true. Ever consider that he used it as a just-so story, of sorts, to get his point across?

 

[DMagoh]

Then you've been getting the wrong impression. No wonder your views of Scripture are so off base.

Hey look everyone! We have finally found "The One" who knows all about scripture! We can quit discussing and debating now! Let's see if we can get a moderator to start a specific subforum where artybloke can just share his wisdom with us.

 

[DMagoh]

Referring to the Flood story doesn't automatically mean he thought it was literally true. Ever consider that he used it as a just-so story, of sorts, to get his point across?

Why didn't he use the story of "Chicken Little"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Why didn't he use the story of "Chicken Little"?

Because the people he was talking to knew the Flood story inside out. I'd be surprised if they'd heard of Chicken Little. He spoke to them in ways they could understand.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Because the people he was talking to knew the Flood story inside out. I'd be surprised if they'd heard of Chicken Little. He spoke to them in ways they could understand.

Then why don't you?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then why don't you?

Why don't I... what? Discuss morality with the ancient Hebrews?

 

[Floatingaxe]

Why don't I... what? Discuss morality with the ancient Hebrews?

Accept and understand Jesus.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Accept and understand Jesus.

Because I see no reason to.
Did you have a point, or are you just trying to convert me by catching me off my guard?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I just don't see a reason for accepting some parts of the Bible, but not others. If the prophesies of the Old Testament came true (literally), then why couldn't other events happen literally as well? After all, the Resurrection is not 'more probable' than the Flood, yet some people believe in the Resurrection but not the Flood. it just makes no sense. I understand that some parts of the Bible were meant to be symbolic, but I do think the events happened literally...instead of the writers creating the events to show something, why couldn't have God made the events to show something? aren't we limiting God?

 

[Fed]

The flood has been falsified. It cannot have happened unless God supernaturally hid all the possible effects we would see now. It's just as "probable" as a literal interpretation of Scripture leading to geocentrism and a flat earth.

The resurrection, on the other hand, is far from falsified. Christ being resurrected doesn't leave physical evidence like a worldwide flood would. We cannot disprove the resurrection unless we either show Christ never existed or we find his body.