Why do you say that? I hope you recognize this is merely your opinion and not an objective fact.
In many cases, I find scriptural myths to be more powerful and compelling than any possible literal interpretation of them.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If parts [of the bible] are myth, allegory or legend then the story isn't nearly as compelling.
I feel like you're twisting my words. Again, I am not trying to downplay the historicity of the Bible. The Scriptures are steeped in history -- I don't deny that. But to emphasize the history of the Bible rather than the spirituality is, I think, missing the point.No doubt, but I get the impression from you and others that the historical aspects are insignificant. To me the Bible is so rich and deep that it speaks accurately regardless of the subject. There just isn't any reason for me to believe otherwise.
Melethiel said:If you read Genesis literally, what do you learn? Six days, talking snake and piece of fruit, Eve's son is supposed to step on a snake. If you look past the literal meaning, you get the Almighty Creator, the sin of mankind, and the prophecy of the coming Messiah. It is this reading that was the most important until well after the Reformation. Whether the earth was really created in 6 days or not is inconsequential.
Why are you asking this of me? I'm suggesting He does. YECs are the ones who insist on the strict historicity of the Bible. You will often hear them say "Either the Bible is true (i.e. historical) or it is worthless." Or "The historicity of the Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible." This is crazy talk, methinks. Surely the spiritual truths of Genesis are what matter to God, no?Why can't God use multiple vehicles from which to pass on His truths?
I don't see how you can possibly misconstrue my words in this way. I'm the one insisting here that the Bible's truths are conveyed via history, myth, poetry, allegory, parable, etc. It's only the YECs who insist on a man-derived boundary (i.e., post-Enlightenment, scientfically verified history).You seem to wish to limit it's scope and power to some man derived boundary.
That's a matter of subjective taste, though. Many, including myself, would argue otherwise.Ahhh...but it all comes together to paint a complete picture. If parts are myth, allegory or legend then the story isn't nearly as compelling.
Just quoting what the Bible says!When you said "It claims to speak "spiritual truth in spiritual words." that, I distinctly got that impression.
Believe me I'm not trying to twist your words. You said some things that I felt clearly downplayed the historicity, if you say otherwise then I'll accept that until you show me otherwise. The only reason you should think that I or others emphasize the historical aspects of Scripture is because we feel it is constantly being minimized or under attack here in OT. Before coming here I rarely if ever talked much about it. I'll give you another example that fits that description. It was only after coming here (CF) that I ever felt the need to justify the Bible's stance on homosexuality, before it was always clear among the Christians I hung around with. This then causes me to support a position that in the past I never needed to do, this is much like the subject of evolution. I hope this helps.I feel like you're twisting my words. Again, I am not trying to downplay the historicity of the Bible. The Scriptures are steeped in history -- I don't deny that. But to emphasize the history of the Bible rather than the spirituality is, I think, missing the point.
I might just as easily level the same claim against you -- that in light of the Bible's history, you're quick to downplay the deeper spirituality. I won't though. I know you're deeper than that.
Well, I don't know, again it seems to me that the historical significance of Scripture is always under attack and being replaced with human derived opinions, personal views and wild theories. Call me crazy, but I do think the historicity of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. See to me this is where the text serves the multiple truths I was speaking about and I see you rejecting. It can be both historical and spiritual at the same time. I have no problem with that.Why are you asking this of me? I'm suggesting He does. YECs are the ones who insist on the strict historicity of the Bible. You will often hear them say "Either the Bible is true (i.e. historical) or it is worthless." Or "The historicity of the Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible." This is crazy talk, methinks. Surely the spiritual truths of Genesis are what matter to God, no?
Again, I'm sorry if that is what you feel I'm doing, it certainly isn't my intent. The only term that you mentioned that I have trouble with is myth, otherwise I'm in agreement here. As an example that might demonstrate this better, I see Genesis as primarily spiritual, historical and allegorical with elements of poetry. I see the TE seeing it primarily as spiritual, allegorical and mythical with elements of history (that which can be verified) and poetry.I don't see how you can possibly misconstrue my words in this way. I'm the one insisting here that the Bible's truths are conveyed via history, myth, poetry, allegory, parable, etc. It's only the YECs who insist on a man-derived boundary (i.e., post-Enlightenment, scientfically verified history).
Please show me the chapter and verse where the Bible says it claims to speak "spiritual truth in spiritual words."Just quoting what the Bible says!
Why do TEs keep on using this "strawman" arguement. It is always a cope-out.That's a strawman, if ever I saw one.
The Creation story in Genesis is probably an allegory. Jesus didn't literally mean He is a grape-bearing plant when He said He is the vine, and we, the branches; and the Bible probably doesn't literally mean that the Earth was created in seven days five thousand years ago.
You're putting God in a box to say that the only way to believe in His Word is to take it literally.
I know that you aren't going to accept this, but Genesis claims the creation of the universe and all life in six days. This is confirmed in Genesis 20 that it was believed by, at least, the Israelist. Then Paul refers to Adam and Noah is also referred to elsewhere in scripture. It is clear that in Moses' day as well in Paul's day it was believed that Genesis 1-11 are actual events. Thus Genesis 1 does calm science.I never said that passage had anything to do with evolution, 'pastor.'
What I was saying is that the Bible makes no claims to scientific truth. It claims to speak "spiritual truth in spiritual words." Why should we therefore be forced to fit science within the spiritual realm of the Bible? The Bible makes no such claim. You can't just pass this off with a wave of the hand. When you sit down with one of the members from your congregation, do you just tell them they're wrong and move on as you do here? Do you not "speak the truth in love" and explain why they are wrong?
If we believe this then the ten commandments could be taken as not literal. So have at it, steal, kill, commit adultery. You can even commit idolitry because it doesn't matter because it's not literal.I am simply saying that nowhere in the Bible does it say, "This book is to be taken literally and as a factual account of the history of the earth." What I am not saying is that none of the Bible is to be taken as history. But it is quite evident, from passages like the one I cited, that God is more interested in conveying spiritual matters to us via spiritual words (metaphor? poetry? myth?) than anything else.
Paul make's a big deal about it in 1 Cor 2:13. The Scriptures do not appeal to man's knowledge about the earth, but to man's knowledge about the spirit and our relationship with Christ.
All the more reason to believe the Bible over what people say outside of scripture.I am simply saying that nowhere in the Bible does it say, "This book is to be taken literally and as a factual account of the history of the earth." What I am not saying is that none of the Bible is to be taken as history. But it is quite evident, from passages like the one I cited, that God is more interested in conveying spiritual matters to us via spiritual words (metaphor? poetry? myth?) than anything else.
Paul make's a big deal about it in 1 Cor 2:13. The Scriptures do not appeal to man's knowledge about the earth, but to man's knowledge about the spirit and our relationship with Christ.
When non-literalists use the arguement of Jesus being a physical vine or a physical board do not understand literalism.Jesus is a vine? Are you sure,? I thought he was a piece of wood, 'bout 6 foot by 3, allows ingress and egress from rooms and buildings. (it's a door!)
Or is it about time certain people admitted the existence of allegory and metaphor in the Bible?
I'm sorry that you feel that way, but the more I look into the issue, the more I feel that the historicity of the Genesis creation account is NOT what God wanted us to hold on to. I think the Scriptural basis for such an interpretation is rather weak at best. Yes, Jesus referenced Adam and Eve in the context of marriage, but if that's how the ANE people identified with man's origins, then of course Jesus is going to speak to them in a context they can understand. Again, God speaks in spiritual truths with spiritual words.The only reason you should think that I or others emphasize the historical aspects of Scripture is because we feel it is constantly being minimized or under attack here in OT.
I do think that is crazy, you're right. I think Christ is the focus, the foundation, and reason for the whole of the Scriptures.Call me crazy, but I do think the historicity of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible.
As Will Ferrell said, "I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!" This is the second or third time you've asked me this, and each time I tell you 1 Cor 2:13. To me, this passage clearly downplays the paradigms of men (science and history) and emphasizes the spiritual teachings and words of Scripture. Would you disagree?Please show me the chapter and verse where the Bible says it claims to speak "spiritual truth in spiritual words."
Again, that's "cop-out", pastor.pastorkevin said:It is always a cope-out.
Of course I accept that the Scriptures say the earth was created in 6 days. The Scriptures also say Jesus is a vine, the earth takes shape like clay under a seal, and that Jesus stepped on a snake's head. Clearly, the question is not a matter of what the Bible says, but a matter of what the Bible teaches. Again, the medium is not the message.I know that you aren't going to accept this, but Genesis claims the creation of the universe and all life in six days. This is confirmed in Genesis 20 that it was believed by, at least, the Israelist. Then Paul refers to Adam and Noah is also referred to elsewhere in scripture. It is clear that in Moses' day as well in Paul's day it was believed that Genesis 1-11 are actual events. Thus Genesis 1 does calm science.
Yes, I see your point. But you are clearly not seeing mine. The history of the passing down of the 10 Commandments stands apart from the actual commandments God gave us. Whether Moses picked the tablets up at the top of Mount Sainai or found them at the bottom of the sea really doesn't matter. What matters is that God gave us 10 Commandments by which to live. You're being dishonest, 'pastor.' You know that people do not reject the 10 Commandments simply because they interpret Genesis 1 as sub-literal.If we believe this then the ten commandments could be taken as not literal. So have at it, steal, kill, commit adultery. You can even commit idolitry because it doesn't matter because it's not literal.
See my point.
Whether or not one believes the story of the passing down of the 10 Commandments to be literal, the history of that story clearly stands apart from the actual 10 Commandments themselves. Again, the medium is not the message. The medium says Moses climbed Mt. Sinai and found stone tablets engraved by God. The message says "You shall have no other gods..." What's more important, do you think? What do you think are the "spiritual truths" and "spiritual words" here that God wanted us to remember?If we believe this then the ten commandments could be taken as not literal. So have at it, steal, kill, commit adultery. You can even commit idolitry because it doesn't matter because it's not literal.
See my point.
If we believe this then the ten commandments could be taken as not literal. So have at it, steal, kill, commit adultery. You can even commit idolitry because it doesn't matter because it's not literal.
See my point.
Just when I'm thinking I'm getting a handle on you guys I get that.I'm sorry that you feel that way, but the more I look into the issue, the more I feel that the historicity of the Genesis creation account is what God wanted us to hold on to.
There would be no need for Christ if what happened in Genesis didn't occur. Crazy it is I guess, but the foolishness of preaching God's Word, as it is written, will always be foundational to me.I do think that is crazy, you're right. I think Christ is the focus, the foundation, and reason for the whole of the Scriptures.
Easy Mallon, don't go crazy on us yet.As Will Ferrell said, "I FEEL LIKE I'M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!" This is the second or third time you've asked me this, and each time I tell you 1 Cor 2:13. To me, this passage clearly downplays the paradigms of men (science and history) and emphasizes the spiritual teachings and words of Scripture. Would you disagree?
you better should ask: where does science line up? we are commanded to gain wisdom,knowledge and understanding about god and his creation.(read proverbs) We see god's nature in his creation. (Romans1)So where in scripture does evolution line up?
Whoops! There should be an adamant "not" in there. My YEC days are long behind me now.Just when I'm thinking I'm getting a handle on you guys I get that.Did I miss something or did you unknowingly just take a step toward becoming a YEC?
You give humans too much credit. Man was bound to sin whether Adam and Eve sinned first or not. It's an inevitable outcome of being autonomous.There would be no need for Christ if what happened in Genesis didn't occur.
I would say, no matter what you think God is telling you, if it doesn't line up with Scripture then it is wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?