This topic has been touched on a few times, but I don't think it has ever been fully-explored. I recently explored the topic in a PM convo with another member, but they really couldn't answer the question either.
So I'm opening the floor. AV, you probably know that you're on my ignore list, but since (to the best of my knowledge) you are one of the forum's bible literalists, I'm actually interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
What is the basis (or reasoning) behind interpretting the bible, especially the story of creation, in a literal fashion?
I don't want anyone to think I'm holding some major counterpoint or argument back, so I'm just going to lay it all out on the table.
1) I'm not aware of any scripture that specifically directs people to read the bible in a literal fashion, let alone the stoy of creation, itself.
2) Requiring a literal interpretation of the bible seems like it precludes the possibility that the story of creation utilizes metaphors or analogies. Given that the story of creation was supposed to be inspired by god, and god is supposed to be so great and powerful that man could spend lifetimes in study and still not fully understand god or how he works... it seems that a strictly-literalist interpretation either assumes a knowledge of god that man is incapable of, or it places limits on the scope of god's power by saying that god couldn't have been using metaphors or analogies in the story.
3) This is a lesser point, but I'm still interested in an answer... didn't the new covenant essentially dismiss everything from the Old Testament? Whenever I see discussions pertaining to some of the more extreme laws and punishments from the OT, I generally see christian members who argue that the new covenant did away with all of that and sort started the slate "clean" with the lessons and values that jesus taught.
So, if that is the case, why isn't the entire OT viewed more like "God's Lessons to Man, version 1.0"... written, remembered, but not as relevant in light of the new covenant?
Just some lingering questions that I've never been able to get a straight answer to. Take care, all.
So I'm opening the floor. AV, you probably know that you're on my ignore list, but since (to the best of my knowledge) you are one of the forum's bible literalists, I'm actually interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
What is the basis (or reasoning) behind interpretting the bible, especially the story of creation, in a literal fashion?
I don't want anyone to think I'm holding some major counterpoint or argument back, so I'm just going to lay it all out on the table.
1) I'm not aware of any scripture that specifically directs people to read the bible in a literal fashion, let alone the stoy of creation, itself.
2) Requiring a literal interpretation of the bible seems like it precludes the possibility that the story of creation utilizes metaphors or analogies. Given that the story of creation was supposed to be inspired by god, and god is supposed to be so great and powerful that man could spend lifetimes in study and still not fully understand god or how he works... it seems that a strictly-literalist interpretation either assumes a knowledge of god that man is incapable of, or it places limits on the scope of god's power by saying that god couldn't have been using metaphors or analogies in the story.
3) This is a lesser point, but I'm still interested in an answer... didn't the new covenant essentially dismiss everything from the Old Testament? Whenever I see discussions pertaining to some of the more extreme laws and punishments from the OT, I generally see christian members who argue that the new covenant did away with all of that and sort started the slate "clean" with the lessons and values that jesus taught.
So, if that is the case, why isn't the entire OT viewed more like "God's Lessons to Man, version 1.0"... written, remembered, but not as relevant in light of the new covenant?
Just some lingering questions that I've never been able to get a straight answer to. Take care, all.