If you don’t take the Bible literally

[Jon]

If you don’t take the Bible literally…


...Then How can the Bible help you?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Jon. Were the events in the parable of the Good Samaritan based on actual events, or was Jesus speaking figuratively (He used a Samaritan in the story because most people in Isreal would have considered them less then dogs).

The story did not actually have to take place at all - ever - in order for the message to be true.

 

[Outspoken]

"was Jesus speaking figuratively "

LOL now that's funny. Here christ specifically gives the context that it could and probably is a fictional story. You see that no where in the genesis account, nor in the historical sections of the OT. Please don't go off on the deep end cre

 

[notto]

Jon,

Suppose just for a minute that evolution is true. Would you lose your faith?

 

[JillLars]

Jesus spoke in parables many places in the Bible, these stories have a message greater than the literal meaning of the story. If we only read the bible literally, then it won't mean anything. Some reaction, and interpretion is always needed to have understanding, even if understanding varies from person to person.

 

[Jon]

3rd April 2003 at 01:32 AM notto said this in Post #4

Jon,

Suppose just for a minute that evolution is true. Would you lose your faith?

No.

I was wondering how you decide what part to take literally....

 

[Jon]

Jesus spoke in parables many places in the Bible, these stories have a message greater than the literal meaning of the story. If we only read the bible literally, then it won't mean anything. Some reaction, and interpretion is always needed to have understanding, even if understanding varies from person to person.

We know when Jesus spoke in parables because it tells us.

Jesus told them another parable:

He told them another parable:

He told them still another parable:

Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

"Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field."

Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."

Listen to another parable:

He did not say anything to them without using a parable.

his disciples asked him about this parable.

 

[The Barbarian]

Christians have long realized that Genesis is not literal. At the very dawn of the Christian era, Augustine pointed out the logical absurdity of literally talking about mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

Jesus, for example, in the parable of the Good Samarian, and in many other places, used figurative stories, without identifying them as such.

 

[Outspoken]

"Christians have long realized that Genesis is not literal. "

*sigh* then show me where in genesis the words for day and night used in the creation account are used for something other then a literal day or night. Thanks. Until then I'll be fully secure in thinking its a literal account.

 

[JillLars]

Its also important to keep in mind that even though God may understand all of the scientific meanings behind they way this world was created (and meanings behind other things in the bible), the people during Jesus's time may not have understood fully. IMO, genesis was not made literal because the point of the story isn't how each organism developed, the point is God created us! It wouldn't make much sense for God to inlude all the scientific details during a time when no one would have understood them.

 

[SBfaithful]

Barbarian:

I am a christian and I take Genesis literally.
What do you mean "long since realized?

 

[notto]

In response to the opening post,

Most of the mainstream protestant churches and the catholic church have accepted evolution and an old earth and understand that this does not change the message or lessons of the bible. They still understand man as special in Gods eye and understand that the message to man is one of stewardship toward the earth and other men. They still find value in the bible and the message of salvation. A literal interpretation of the bible is not tied to salvation or an understanding of the lessons and message the bible gives us.

Accepting mainstream science has not caused people to lose their faith. The bible and the message it contains still helps them. Reconciling mainstream science and our understanding of nature with the bible does not mean that the bible loses any value in understanding God. The existence of God, the message and resurection of Jesus, and an understanding of how to live as stewards is not affected by not taking Genesis literally.

Christians can accept evolution and other mainstream science and still receive salvation (at least that is my faith and hope)

 

[Jon]

So basically if a part of the Bible contradicts evolution then it shouldn’t be taken literally?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

A lot of stuff in the bible should not be taken literally. But so what.
Let me ask you something Jon. Was Genesis written by someone who actually witnessed creation take place, or actually met Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel or a talking serpent?

How old was the story of genesis before it was ever actually written down? It must have been around for generations (and in several versions - at least two of which are found in the bible) before any literate person actaully put the words in writing.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are certainly some sects who do not accept the fact that Genesis is not literal. They are still Christians, because this is not a salvation issue, but most of us accept His word as it is.

Should I be concerned about evolution being contrary to scripture? No more than I should be concerned about pigs having wings. As the early Christians pointed out, one cannot have mornings and evenings without a Sun. Hence, the days in Genesis cannot be literal 24-hour days.

When it appears that science and Scripture disagree, it is because we have misunderstood one or both of them..

 

[Outspoken]

"Let me ask you something Jon. Was Genesis written by someone who actually witnessed creation take place, or actually met Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel or a talking serpent? "

Late C, maybe you should find somewhere in the book of genesis where the words are not used for a literal day and night other then the passage in question instead of skirting around the issue?


"early Christians pointed out, one cannot have mornings and evenings without a Sun. Hence, the days in Genesis cannot be literal 24-hour days.
"

No, I disagree here too. You can have a day in space. Its a record of time.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I don't doubt that the author of genesis, or that the old sages that passed the stories of genesis down from one generation to another before it was ever written down, believed that the days were literal days. They were people with little knowledge of the physical world, except for what was required for survival in a hostile environment. They didn't need to know what a quark was, or a light year, or a geological era or plate techtonics, or evolution for that matter. Those things were of no importance to them. Those things would have been inconceivable to them. How would people who never needed to count anything above a few hundren understand the concept of millions of years, or billions of light years?

So, yes, the word day in genesis probably does mean a literal day. As long as you understand the cultural context in which it was written, it makes sense.

 

Just because they thought the world was flat, and in the center of a small universe does not mean we have to.  Just because they thought the world was created in 6 -  24hour periods does not mean we have to.

 

[Outspoken]

"So, yes, the word day in genesis probably does mean a literal day. As long as you understand the cultural context in which it was written, it makes sense."

IN this case the cultural context matters not, for it is literal history just like it would be you or I saying it was a day.

"Just because they thought the world was flat"

LOL that tired old argument? The context of the passage, YET AGAIN, shows that you've once again come to a wrong conclusion.

"Just because they thought the world was created in 6 - 24hour periods does not mean we have to."

Nooo..God said it was created in 24 hour periods, so yes, it was so.

 

[JohnR7]

3rd April 2003 at 04:32 AM notto said this in Post #4
Suppose just for a minute that evolution is true. Would you lose your faith?

To say "evolution is true" is a pretty generic statement. You would have to define what you mean by "evolution".

I can show where communication and transportation has evolved. You can not throw a dictionary away just because they want to hijack the meaning of some of the words in the dictionary.

Although in a literal sense, a dictionary does not actually define how a word is to be used. It just shows some of the different ways a word is commonly used.

I am sure that during the 1000 year reign of Christ, our dictionary will be quite a bit different than it is now. The words we use will take on their true meaning, once the serpent is locked up in the bottomless pit so that he can not longer deceive the people.

 

[wblastyn]

Why do you always avoid questions with completely irrelevant info, he was obviously talking about biological evolution since this is what this forum is for creation and theistic evolution.