I was a Creationist...now I don't know what I believe.

[AV1611VET]

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Creationist_claims

The use of literal objects to state a divine Truth is not allegorizing the literal object.

Case in point: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness.

Hebrews 9 says it was only a "figure" (parable) for the time then present ---

Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

Trivia question: What is the greatest parable in the Bible?
Answer: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness.
​

Was the Tabernacle a literal object, Huldah?

 

[Assyrian]

Hi Worshipbassist.
I want to echo shernren and Mallon here, there is nothing in the bible that even suggests we are to take everything literally.

I think part of being a follower of Jesus is sitting at his feet (as it were), and learning to understand parables and metaphors. You are not alone in that. The disciples really struggled with the way Jesus communicated. Even a skilled scripture schoholar like Nicodemus fell flat on his face when Jesus spoke in a simple metaphor like being born again. Or maybe it is not that simple, we are just used to it. But if Jesus loved speaking in parables and metaphor, shouldn't that tell us something about how God his Father speak to us too?

But most of all, following Jesus means trusting in him, even when we don't understand.

 

[Assyrian]

The use of literal objects to state a divine Truth is not allegorizing the literal object.

Case in point: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness.

Hebrews 9 says it was only a "figure" (parable) for the time then present ---

Trivia question: What is the greatest parable in the Bible?
Answer: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness.
​

Was the Tabernacle a literal object, Huldah?

All this is saying is that some of the allegories in the OT were acted out. OT prophets sometimes spoke out their prophecies and sometimes they acted them. That doesn't mean everything was literal.

Were the Israelites literally carried out of Egypt by eagles? Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Did anyone ever think it was literal? Was Judah ever literally a lion cub? Gen 49:9 Judah is a lion's cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down; he crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse him? Gen 49:27 "Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil." Surely this doesn't mean Benny turned into a werewolf when the moon was full? If there really was a literal talking snake, wasn't Jesus supposed to step on him? Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. Why don't we read of Jesus stepping on a talking snake in the gospels? But no one in scripture took the snake as a literal reptile that slithered on it belly and ate dust. They understood it as a figurative picture of God's enemy, and we are told in Revelation the snake is Satan.

 

[gluadys]

Unfortunately my problem comes from my belief that the Bible is to be taken ABSOLUTELY literally and anything else is a rejection of faith.

PLease don't let me become atheist.

Why cling to a human doctrine about scripture?

Nothing IN scripture requires that it be taken absolutely literally.

In fact, the idea that empirical truth (truth derived from sensory observation i.e. "literal" truth) is the ONLY form of truth was originally an atheist idea.

Scripture speaks of the hidden truths known by faith which is the "evidence of things not seen". It uses images from the empirical world to speak of spiritual matters, and when it does so, it necessarily speaks in figure and metaphor, not as if such things had a concrete physical existence.

One of the things this modern age has lost is the sense of the real existence of the spiritual realm. We have psychologized it out of existence. Accepting the idea that only what is physically perceptible is real, (and that is what it means to take the bible absolutely literally) you unknowingly buy into Dawkins' godless philosophy. You cannot successfully do that and expect to keep faith with God at the same time.

Finally, I expect you exaggerate. No one really takes every part of scripture absolutely literally. Even our resident YECists like Vossler and AV1611VET will affirm the existence of metaphors, figures of speech and parables in scripture. And I expect you do not accept literally the biblical description of the cosmos with the earth set on foundations under a dome-like firmament.

I see, for example that AV1611VET re-interprets the biblical cosmos figuratively as referring to a "first heaven" of atmosphere and a "second heaven" of outer space. Presumably the "third heaven" is the abode of God. But make no mistake, that is a figurative interpretation, not an absolutely literal understanding of the relevant scripture passages.

Whenever we get into detail over figurative/literal interpretations, it soon becomes clear that this division is very murky and unhelpful--often because different people have different perceptions of what "literal" means.

Do feel free to ask questions about passages that trouble you as you continue in your quest.

 

[Mallon]

Evolutionists will distract you with their science and other man-derived theories. Ultimately you need to remember this; man's ideas are in a constant state of change and flux, and evolution, like all other man-derived ideas, is no different.

I think it's equally important to remember that man's interpretation of the Bible has also been in a constant state of flux ever since the volume was assembled. God's word may be constant, but out interpretation of it most certainly is not.

 

[AV1611VET]

All this is saying is that some of the allegories in the OT were acted out.

Knowing the difference is what constitutes Biblical maturity.

It is not incorrect to say that the Bible should be interpreted literally, despite some passages that are allegorical*, just as you would say it's not incorrect to say that the Bible should be interpreted figuratively, despite some passages that are literal.

* The Bible almost always alerts the reader when a non-literal passage is coming up. Exceptions would be where a literal interpretation would be obviously wrong, such as the ones you quoted, and the poetic Books.

 

[sonic purity]

Evolution is a lie and a poorly thought out theory. Designed to explain away God. What I dont understand is why anyone would believe a theory that has so many holes and no hard evidence. I find evolution to be very well explained, with so much fake evidence cause so many want it to be true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even our resident YECists like Vossler and AV1611VET...

I'm not a YEC.

I see, for example that AV1611VET re-interprets the biblical cosmos figuratively as referring to a "first heaven" of atmosphere and a "second heaven" of outer space. Presumably the "third heaven" is the abode of God. But make no mistake, that is a figurative interpretation, not an absolutely literal understanding of the relevant scripture passages.

Excuse me? That is a literal interpretation, and I use it as such.

 

[Mallon]

Evolution is a lie and a poorly thought out theory. Designed to explain away God. What I dont understand is why anyone would believe a theory that has so many holes and no hard evidence. I find evolution to be very well explained, with so much fake evidence cause so many want it to be true.

I'm sure that after having read Dawkins, WorshipBassist knows better than that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think it's equally important to remember that man's interpretation of the Bible has also been in a constant state of flux ever since the volume was assembled. God's word may be constant, but out interpretation of it most certainly is not.

What do you expect, when some people interpret literal passages figuratively and vice-versa?

A figurative interpretation makes the mind of the reader the sole authority for how a given passage is to be interpreted. This means that it cannot be validated by an independent, neutral third party. It also breeds confusion, because you don't know how another person is going to interpret the same passage. With ten people interpreting the same passage four different ways, you don't know who believes what.

 

[sonic purity]

I'm sure that after having read Dawkins, WorshipBassist knows better than that.

Hitler had everyone believing he was right also. So did Jim Jones of Jonestown. I refuse to drink the koolaid. A lie, told big enough and long enough, will become the truth. Even Darwin said the theory of evolution is unworkable, but that the belief in a personal God is unexceptable.

 

[Mallon]

Hitler had everyone believing he was right also. So did Jim Jones of Jonestown. I refuse to drink the koolaid. A lie, told big enough and long enough, will become the truth. Even Darwin said the theory of evolution is unworkable, but that the belief in a personal God is unexceptable.

I suspect the shoe might be on the other foot. Regardless, we'll let WorshipBassist decide whether she has been brainwashed by Darwin.

 

[sonic purity]

Nice collection of rationalizations for evolution. Most of those would explain the existence of big foot also. If you call a physic hotline they will have you believe they are real also.

 

[Mallon]

Nice collection of rationalizations for evolution. Most of those would explain the existence of big foot also. If you call a physic hotline they will have you believe they are real also.

If you're only interested in being condescending to your fellow Christians, sonic purity, you might take it to the Creationist subforum where you can make fun of evolutionary creationists to your heart's desire without interruption or retribution.

 

[sonic purity]

If you're only interested in being condescending to your fellow Christians, sonic purity, you might take it to the Creationist subforum where you can make fun of evolutionary creationists to your heart's desire without interruption or retribution.

I apologize if I seem condescending. But I just dont like seeing my brothers in Christ falling into Satans bottomless evolution trap. I was once there myself. And it really challenged my belief in God. But once I stepped back and looked at it objectively (with lots of prayer for wisdom) and weighed what was called evidence both for and against, the more obvious it became that, although the evolution claims could explain something, it didnt nessecarily explain evolution.

All I ask is that you ask the hard questions, and see if the explainations are real hard facts or just rationalizations, for a certain point of view.

 

[Mallon]

All I ask is that you ask the hard questions, and see if the explainations are real hard facts or just rationalizations, for a certain point of view.

What makes you think we aren't asking the hard questions? My road from YECism to evolutionary creationism has been a long, hard-fought one. I have been denied Holy Communion in my own church because of my refusal to simply deny the evidence for evolution that I work with every day (I am a graduate student in palaeontology). I have read dozens of books on the subject, participated in many discussions with people of various opinions, and pray to the Lord for clarity in this area constantly. So I hope you will understand if I am slightly offended when someone like yourself, having spent no time getting to know me or my fellow evolutionary creationists here, comes here and implies that we are incapable of thinking for ourselves and that we are brainwashed like Hitler's minions. It's very easy to say evolution is a lie based on fake evidence, but I've got a half-salamander, half-frog fossil sitting in a cabinet in my lab that is very real and that can only be accounted for via the God-sustained process of evolution.

 

[sonic purity]

So because you have a fossil of creature that doent exist anymore, that proves evolution?

 

[Mallon]

So because you have a fossil of creature that doent exist anymore, that proves evolution?

No. The mere existence of an extinct organism does not prove evolution.
The transitional morphology of the organism and its placement in the fossil record relative to other, similar fossil organisms lends evidence in support of the theory of evolution.
Regardless, if you want to debate the merits of evolution, it might be worth starting a new thread rather than derailing the one started by WorshipBassist.

 

[gluadys]

I'm not a YEC.Excuse me? That is a literal interpretation, and I use it as such.

If you are not a YEC you are not interpreting the scripture literally.

On what basis do you claim your description of the "first heaven" "second heaven" is literal?

Any interpretation of heaven that includes a concept of outer space is not literal. There is no scriptural reference to outer space.

There is reference to a firmament and to waters above the firmament. No outer space.

 

[gluadys]

What do you expect, when some people interpret literal passages figuratively and vice-versa?

A figurative interpretation makes the mind of the reader the sole authority for how a given passage is to be interpreted.

You need to take some courses in literature. Figurative interpretations are not that loose. A critic of literature has to be able to justify interpretations textually and logically. When allegory was the primary tool the Church used for scriptural interpretation, there were not dozens of interpretations. All the allegories were standardized. Free-wheeling and whimsical personal interpretations were frowned on.

I see a great deal more of such independent, unsupported interpretation from people who call themselves (but are not) literalists. So many don't even know what it really means to interpret a text literally. "Literal" has become a meaningless mantra. You can easily get six or seven different "literal" interpretations from self-identified literalists and usually none of them are literal.