The Bible: Symbolic or Literal?

[greatnut]

Both in different places

Dear all

I agree with PeacaHeaven that the bible is both literal and symbolic.
It uses a lot of figures of speach as well which have to be understood as just that, figures of speech (metaphor being a big favourite of God's).

Christ loved parables as a teaching method, and we quite easily understand these to be just that - stories like Aesop's fables, which have a moral message.

Most Prophecy uses symbols (beasts, horns, seals, virgins, harlots) to represent literal things. You would be mistaken to take these symbols literally.

A lot of the Old Testament story is totally literal.

I take the creation story of Genesis to be true, that God did renew the earth 6000 years ago, in 7 literal days, that God did literally rest on the sabbath day, that Eve did eat of a literal tree and persuaded Adam to do the same. But if God tells me one day that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was just a metaphor as was the Tree of Life, as was the garden of Eden - it will not utterly phase me. I believe 100% that they were literal even though I see the "serpent" as being a symbol for Satan, a fallen but splendid looking Archangel. I do not believe Eve talked to a snake such as we know today, since only after her sin was Satan ordered onto his belly. As you can see, I have in my own mind integrated the symbolic and literal elements of this story into one whole which satisfies me. But I would doubt there are two Christians alive today who reading through the Bible would agree on everything as to being literal or symbolic.

I think God uses symbols like "serpent" or "dragon" because it is a lot quicker than saying "fallen archangel, viz. Lucifer who became Satan". Also, serpent tells us certain qualities of Satan (poisonous, subtle).

Regards

 

[david_x]

But a voice nontheless. Is this voice objectively verifiable, or is it in one's head? If the former, then I'm surprised that noone else has discovered it. If the latter, then your claim remains unsubstantiated: self-induced auditory hallucinations are remarkably common. I'm sure you're aware that 'hearing voices' is a sign of psychotic illness.

I have heard both and the voice of God is nothing like that of the mind.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have heard both

You have heard an objectively verifiable voice? I just want to make this clear.

and the voice of God is nothing like that of the mind.

I never said it was. I was merely remarking on the correlation between your claims and the claims of those who suffer from auditory hallucinations.

 

[david_x]

You have heard an objectively verifiable voice? I just want to make this clear.

No. It is impossible to objective and hear the Voice.

I never said it was. I was merely remarking on the correlation between your claims and the claims of those who suffer from auditory hallucinations.

No a dog is not talking to me.

 

[Gukkor]

Subjective evidence.
I am Wiccan, and have spiritual beliefs as a result, but I do not profess them to be true: they are private beliefs. I am proud to be Wiccan (hence my name and my faith icon) but I do not hold my beliefs above anyone elses, and I fully concede that I may be entirely wrong.
I object, however, to people who do profess their beliefs as necessarily true. To claim that request-prayer garners positive results above what we'd expect via chance is something I will challange; to claim that you hear a voice in your head when you pray to give thanks, I will not.

Ah, I see. Interesting, and I suppose I'm much like you in my approach to my Christian beliefs.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ah, I see. Interesting, and I suppose I'm much like you in my approach to my Christian beliefs.

A refreshing change, to be sure.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No. It is impossible to objective and hear the Voice.

Then you contradict yourself. Previously:

Me: Is this voice objectively verifiable, or is it in one's head?
You: I hear both.

Now you state that the voice isn't objectively verifiable.
Is it, or isn't it? If so, can it be reproduced? If not, why?

No a dog is not talking to me.

As enlightening as this is, my point still stands: self-induced auditory hallucinations would garner the exact same experiance.

 

[david_x]

Then you contradict yourself. Previously:

Me: Is this voice objectively verifiable, or is it in one's head?
You: I hear both.

Now you state that the voice isn't objectively verifiable.
Is it, or isn't it? If so, can it be reproduced? If not, why?

I didn't read your post clearly enough, my apologies.

As enlightening as this is, my point still stands: self-induced auditory hallucinations would garner the exact same experiance.

Yeah, except it is really easy to what is God's voice. He doesn't tell us to go kill like the other voices.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yeah, except it is really easy to what is God's voice. He doesn't tell us to go kill like the other voices.

You presume that auditory hallucinations are always 'obvious' (being the classic 'kill, kill' voice, or animals speaking, etc). This is not true. Often, hallucinations take the form of something the sufferer can relate to, and indeed can rationalise as not a hallucination: a voice on the radio, his own mind talking to itself, or even the voice of God. The mind will protect the concious mind at all costs, even at the destruction of the subconcious. Thus, it often construes hallucinations as something the concious mind can rationalise into existance, rather than let it descend into insanity.

That is, hallucinations are very, very convincing, for the simple reason that your own mind effectively tricks you.

 

[PeacaHeaven]

demonic spirits can enter people and those are the voices they hear too.

 

[david_x]

You presume that auditory hallucinations are always 'obvious' (being the classic 'kill, kill' voice, or animals speaking, etc). This is not true. Often, hallucinations take the form of something the sufferer can relate to, and indeed can rationalise as not a hallucination: a voice on the radio, his own mind talking to itself, or even the voice of God. The mind will protect the concious mind at all costs, even at the destruction of the subconcious. Thus, it often construes hallucinations as something the concious mind can rationalise into existance, rather than let it descend into insanity.

That is, hallucinations are very, very convincing, for the simple reason that your own mind effectively tricks you.

That's nice.

However I have heard other voices that i thourohly imagined and they are very different.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's nice.

However I have heard other voices that i thourohly imagined and they are very different.

But you knew they were imaginary. Those that you didn't immediately know were imaginary were labelled for concious rationalisation by your subconcious mind.

 

[Gukkor]

But you knew they were imaginary. Those that you didn't immediately know were imaginary were labelled for concious rationalisation by your subconcious mind.

That is, assuming they were actually imaginary at all.

 

[greatnut]

Dear all

I have never heard voices. There are many times in the Bible when "The Word of the Lord" came to so-and-so. I am not sure whether so-and-so heard a voice or not.

There are many times when I "feel convicted" that God is trying to tell me something.

But here's the thing... it actually annoys me to hear preachers who say "God spoke to me telling me to ..." I really don't believe they heard God literally speak to them. In most cases I believe they simply feel a sudden conviction to do something.

But it almost feels to me like they are boasting or exaggerating, or even claiming an infallibility of their convictions. One cannot argue with these folks even if you feel that what "God spoke to them" about seems unbiblical or unwise.

How do you feel about the phrase "the Lord spoke to me"?

 

[Gukkor]

Dear all

I have never heard voices. There are many times in the Bible when "The Word of the Lord" came to so-and-so. I am not sure whether so-and-so heard a voice or not.

There are many times when I "feel convicted" that God is trying to tell me something.

But here's the thing... it actually annoys me to hear preachers who say "God spoke to me telling me to ..." I really don't believe they heard God literally speak to them. In most cases I believe they simply feel a sudden conviction to do something.

But it almost feels to me like they are boasting or exaggerating, or even claiming an infallibility of their convictions. One cannot argue with these folks even if you feel that what "God spoke to them" about seems unbiblical or unwise.

How do you feel about the phrase "the Lord spoke to me"?

I feel that it's a belief that one should respect and not directly speak out against unless necessary, as for all one knows, they really could be hearing the voice of God. At the same time, I think its their responsibility to have good sense and realize that most people won't believe they've heard God speak to them simply because they tell them so.

 

[irateional]

Dear all

I have never heard voices. There are many times in the Bible when "The Word of the Lord" came to so-and-so. I am not sure whether so-and-so heard a voice or not.

There are many times when I "feel convicted" that God is trying to tell me something.

But here's the thing... it actually annoys me to hear preachers who say "God spoke to me telling me to ..." I really don't believe they heard God literally speak to them. In most cases I believe they simply feel a sudden conviction to do something.

But it almost feels to me like they are boasting or exaggerating, or even claiming an infallibility of their convictions. One cannot argue with these folks even if you feel that what "God spoke to them" about seems unbiblical or unwise.

How do you feel about the phrase "the Lord spoke to me"?

I expect to be told to give money or do something that makes no sense or has no real justification.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is, assuming they were actually imaginary at all.

On the contrary, my argument is to counter the assumption that it was true. Logically, we assume it is a product of our own mind rather than invoking new deities into existance. If supporting evidence is produced, fine. Until then, Occam's Razor tells me what to do

 

[artybloke]

Occam's Razor would be no good today. I saw a razor with five blades on it the other day - I mean, talk about over-egging the pudding.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Occam's Razor would be no good today. I saw a razor with five blades on it the other day - I mean, talk about over-egging the pudding.

Yeah, I've heard a lot of people deriding them for their uselessness, but have you actually used one? So much nicer to use than my bog standard 3-blader. Though isn't it now Gillete Mach 3 Turbo Power Precision 5-Blades? Now that's daft.

 

[david_x]

But you knew they were imaginary. Those that you didn't immediately know were imaginary were labelled for concious rationalisation by your subconcious mind.

Your religious too. How did your gods communicate with people?