Why the Ark?

Macca said:

I have made no assumptions about your character, simply your beliefs.

Click to expand...

I take "swine" and "nominal Christian" to be characterizations, not references to belief.

If Jesus spoke as though He believed the O.T. accounts,(and He did) then I see that as proof He believed them to be taken literally;

Click to expand...

But believing does not imply believing literally. You are adding that out of your own presupposition, not on the basis of the textual evidence.

If you choose to not take these scriptures literally, it becomes possible to find much of the N.T. that cannot be taken literally.

Click to expand...

So? I make no distinction between the OT and the NT in this matter. Both were written long before literalism became the vogue in Western evaluations of truth. Literalism is an outgrowth of adopting scientism as a criterion of truth. Contrary to most of religious history, it makes the physical world the primary source of validation, relegating the things of the spirit to non-entities not worthy of belief.

For example; not taking Rom. 9,10, 11 literally.
Of course we must take these chapters literally, God has not given up on Israel, and the new Israel is not the church.

Click to expand...

Are you saying Israel is literally a tree? Why should we take literally what Paul is obviously expressing symbolically?

Your opinion is duly noted as a minority one among Christians. Even from the standpoint of literalism, there is disagreement on the interpretation of the relationship between ancient Israel and the church. I don't think you would dispute that Calvin was a literalist. He was also a supercessionist.

Personally, I don't choose to make a judgment call on whose interpretation is right in this case. Just showing that both positions are supported by literalists.

Macca said:

So, you suggest the historical accounts of Genesis are not true history?

Click to expand...

No problem with the historical accounts of Genesis being history. Just with the non-historical accounts being interpreted as history.

The fact that some parts of Genesis are rooted in history does not make history of all of it.

Most of Genesis is, strictly speaking, legendary. But one of the characteristics of legend is that it is often rooted in genuine historical characters and events which are retold in legendary form. That was an ancient way of keeping history alive through oral tradition.

Macca said:

I have made no assumptions about your character, simply your beliefs.
If Jesus spoke as though He believed the O.T. accounts,(and He did) then I see that as proof He believed them to be taken literally; that's good enough for me, I take them that way as well.
If you choose to not take these scriptures literally, it becomes possible to find much of the N.T. that cannot be taken literally.
For example; not taking Rom. 9,10, 11 literally.
Of course we must take these chapters literally, God has not given up on Israel, and the new Israel is not the church.
I am not saying you have said this; or even that you believe this; but there are many "Christians" who do believe these chapters refer to the church.

Click to expand...

I was a real Good Samaritan yesterday: I helped my friend do a chemistry problem when nobody else helped him.

I don't believe the Good Samaritan was an actual, historical figure.
Does that mean my friend who had a chemistry problem doesn't exist either?

Macca said:

So, you suggest the historical accounts of Genesis are not true history?
Joseph and his family in Egypt for over 400 years. (Prophesied in Gen.15: 13 Then the Lord said to Abram, “You can be sure that your descendants will be strangers in a foreign land, where they will be oppressed as slaves for 400 years
Holy Bible : New Living Translation.

Click to expand...

When was Genesis written? Before or after the Exodus (which I don't think is completely historical either, but you should get the point)?

Macca said:

I have made no assumptions about your character, simply your beliefs.
If Jesus spoke as though He believed the O.T. accounts,(and He did) then I see that as proof He believed them to be taken literally; that's good enough for me, I take them that way as well.

Click to expand...

It is worth pointing out, Jesus never mentioned a literal Adam and Eve, a six day creation, or a global flood.

Also if you want to interpret scripture the way Jesus did, are you sure he was all that literal?

Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead,
47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Why would he need to open their mind to understand the scriptures if it was simply the plain literal meaning he took? He seemed to find reference to the Christ suffering and rising on the third day throughout the Law of Moses, Prophets and Psalms. You won't find that if you stick to literal meaning.

Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Jesus though there was reference in all the scriptures about himself. You don't get that if you stick to the literal interpretation. For instance, do you think there is a reference to the Messiah in the story of the fall? Is it literal?

If you choose to not take these scriptures literally, it becomes possible to find much of the N.T. that cannot be taken literally.
For example; not taking Rom. 9,10, 11 literally.
Of course we must take these chapters literally, God has not given up on Israel, and the new Israel is not the church.
I am not saying you have said this; or even that you believe this; but there are many "Christians" who do believe these chapters refer to the church.

Click to expand...

Interesting you should refer to Roman 9-11, there are some really nice biblical metaphors there. Gluadys mentioned the olive tree. Then there is Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use?
Do you think this is metaphor or literal?

shernren said:

I was a real Good Samaritan yesterday: I helped my friend do a chemistry problem when nobody else helped him.

Click to expand...

What? You helped him by pouring on the oleic acid and acetic acid?

I don't believe the Good Samaritan was an actual, historical figure.
Does that mean my friend who had a chemistry problem doesn't exist either?

Click to expand...

Thinking about it, I have another another question about that parable. This Samaritan is walking down the road, sees a man beaten up and naked on the side of the road, and says, 'hold on while I make some salad dressing'.

gluadys said:

No problem with the historical accounts of Genesis being history. Just with the non-historical accounts being interpreted as history.

The fact that some parts of Genesis are rooted in history does not make history of all of it.

Most of Genesis is, strictly speaking, legendary. But one of the characteristics of legend is that it is often rooted in genuine historical characters and events which are retold in legendary form. That was an ancient way of keeping history alive through oral tradition.

Click to expand...

I see no point in arguing with you any further.
We both have opposing views on this and many other topics.
Arguing doesn't further the task that the Church has to do. There will be a time when we will discover the truth of all disagreements.
I would rather take up my time helping someone finding solutions that do not cause controversies.