Is Christianity Ashamed of the Bible?

[squint]

Paul himself was sinless.

Pretty funny considering the fact of 1 Tim. 1:15 from his own lips to the exact contrary.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would not personally avoid any of the Scripture but, as I can only speak for Americans, the Bible needs to be reinterpreted; not due to a deficiency with the text itself but due to the impoverished interpretive method that is used to read the text. A notorious example is the still widely accepted literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis which, when dogmatically asserted as proper, paints Christianity as teaching falsified science thus making Christianity unnecessarily unbelievable.

Christianity has never been at odds with science, Creationists make evidential arguments based on current scientific research. The 'interpretive method' you dismissed with such revulsion is the normative way to read an historic narrative, literally is always preferred. Making Christianity unbelievable is the practice of Modernists who heap endless criticism on the Scriptures and will only with the uttermost reluctance admit a miracle.

Is that what makes it so unbelievable, the miracles?

To give an example, consider this excerpt from the preeminent exegete of the third century, Origen of Alexandria,

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally."​

I like the Early Church Fathers as persuasive authority as well. What you will have to deal with when discussing origins theologically is original sin:

EVERYONE in the world FALLS PROSTRATE under SIN. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling [Psalm 145:14]. IN ADAM ALL DIE, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Origen, Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)​

So the Bible isn't the problem as much as it is that we Americans are a theologically malnourished people who think much too highly of ourselves and think to little of him who said, "Be holy, for I am holy."

The Churches of the United States are not significantly anemic spiritually because they take the Scriptures literally. They are feed a steady stream of overly secularized ridicule on Christians who read the Scriptures literally, especially with regards to miracles.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Pretty funny considering the fact of 1 Tim. 1:15 from his own lips to the exact contrary.

He is obviously talking about new birth, spiritually we occupy the heavenly courts with Christ. On our earthly plane we await the redemption of the purchase price, the resurrection of our bodies.

 

[squint]

He is obviously talking about new birth, spiritually we occupy the heavenly courts with Christ. On our earthly plane we await the redemption of the purchase price, the resurrection of our bodies.

We reading the same text?

15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

 

[Ariston]

Is that what makes it so unbelievable, the miracles?

I would not say a miracle in particular. I was just pointing out that to read certain portions of the Bible as literal is to perversely misread the text. Not since there a miracles but because certain areas of Scripture confront us with various genres and impose upon us storytelling that is not written like as mere historical narrative. In the case of Genesis, it is widely acknowledged today that ancient civilizations composed prehistory through a mythic genre. And this stands out rather unambiguously when we read the text. This isn't to depreciate the text anymore than it would be to depreciate Revelations by maintaining that its apocalyptic. This is good though too because it means that there could hardly be a conflict between science and the Bible as the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Christians like myself do not, like creationist, have to try to jam every new discovery that makes creationism look silly into the text somehow. Further, we can make the attempt to read the text for all its worth, reading God's word as the theologically rich narrative that it is, primarily in focusing on the intent of the author - asking as we read the text what they are trying to convey. Fortunately, like when the Church attempted to sustain the belief that the sun rotated around the earth through tying to read science out of the Psalms and as a result fell into disrepute among academia, today creationism is in conflict with virtually every branch of the natural sciences. We shouldn't attempt concordism (reading our science into the text or reading science out of the text), but rather, critically read the text in the genre in which it was written to best try to understand what the authors were intending to convey. Otherwise we are going to miss out on the point. There is a lot more to be appreciated from doing it this way. Though the only way creationist can prevail is by keeping the churches ignorant - by teaching congregations psuedo-scientific propaganda, like the geocentric model of the universe supported by literalism, creationism looks to be on its way out. Fortunately there are Christians that, rather than harmonizing the text, are demonstrating that the science/Genesis controversy is a false dilemma. Unfortunately so many people are presented with a barrier to the faith by fundamentalists since they are provided these options: Become a Christian and give up intellectual integrity or hold onto your intellectual integrity and remain a heathen. This is quite unnecessary. We need to reach a world that is informed and appreciates the discoveries of the modern sciences. There is nothing to be afraid of. And the churches really need to stop this nonsense not merely for the sake of our duty before God to intellectual integrity but so that we can help the lost find there way to Jesus Christ.

 

[mark kennedy]

I would not say a miracle in particular. I was just pointing out that to read certain portions of the Bible as literal is to perversely misread the text.

I assume by that you mean Genesis 1, or did I misunderstand your meaning?

 

[mark kennedy]

We reading the same text?

15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Let's take a look at the context:

Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. (I Tim 1:13,14)​

If one were to ask the Apostle Paul how it is that he worked so hard and suffered so much and bringing so many the Gospel, he would, and did, tell us that it is by grace.

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (I Cor. 15:10)​

The new nature is perfect, yet in conflict with the natural man until the redemption of the purchase price, the resurrection of our bodies.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[yogosans14]

Liberal Christians are...maybe.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Liberal Christians are...maybe.

I'm liberal and I'm not.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[squint]

The new nature is perfect, yet in conflict with the natural man until the redemption of the purchase price, the resurrection of our bodies.

I doubt anyone is in a fight with themselves.

I don't doubt everyone is in a factual fight with the tempter.

Paul, as an Apostle, was singled out by the tempter and that battle transpired within Paul, hence Paul's sight of himself being the chief of sinners.

He was not observing just himself in the matter of being the CHIEF of SINNERS. See Mark 4:15, Romans 7:21 and 2 Cor. 12:7 for supporting references.

Paul was 'turned' from being a blinded slave of Satan (the old/blinded/carnal man)

In that turning Paul became an enemy of Satan and all such are slated for more intensive resistance by Satan, the tempter.

That battle transpires within.

Therefore Paul was not just Paul, alone, between his own two ears.

It was Paul and the tempter.

Few people perceive this personally, as the tempter interferes with them telling the truth of this matter.

Believers will say they are tempted in their minds by the tempter, yet they just can't seem to pinpoint the fact that this places same within them to do so.

It's the most difficult concept in the text to come to grips with, and a present reality for everyone.

 

[Achilles6129]

Hi squint,

Paul seems to contradict what you're saying. I said that Paul was spiritually sinless, not physically sinless. In addition, the "chief of sinners" passage is, as Mark pointed out, a passage that refers to his life before his conversion. You might want to take a look at Romans 7 because in it Paul seems to support what I'm saying:

"21 So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. 23 But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." Rom. 7:21-25 (NET)

Perhaps we're just misunderstanding one another.

 

[squint]

Hi squint,

Paul seems to contradict what you're saying. I said that Paul was spiritually sinless, not physically sinless.

It is a delicate dissection. Paul on one hand, technically perfect in Christ, a child of God, all the good stuff. Yeah.

But on the other hand, we do have a messenger of Satan, a completely different entity than Paul, attached to his flesh/mind and heart as well.

It's very interesting, this depiction of human construction presented in the BIBLE.

In addition, the "chief of sinners" passage is, as Mark pointed out, a passage that refers to his life before his conversion. You might want to take a look at Romans 7 because in it Paul seems to support what I'm saying:

"21 So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. 23 But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." Rom. 7:21-25 (NET)

Perhaps we're just misunderstanding one another.

Probably. I think we're getting closer though. In seeing the fact of the messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh I have no use to slur Paul whatsoever when the obvious culprit is laid out before us all to see.

It is also reasonable to assume that as an Apostle, Paul was also singled out for greater forms of resistance/temptations etc by Satan. The demons did after all seem very familiar with PAUL did they not? (Acts 19:15)

It would also explain the 'how' Paul saw himself as 'the chief of sinners' as Satan was directly fighting with him within.

If the chief tempter is working on you that WOULD make you the chief sinner as well wouldn't it?

In any case of sights it is pointless to see just and only Paul.

There was Paul. There was the tempter working on his mind/heart.

The target to sound judgment AND the answers to your underlying question about the fact of retributive EVIL dished out by God in the O.T. (and the N.T. for that matter) is solidly located when we see God adversely interacting with the 'other' bad actors, those being the ones we CAN'T see with flesh eyes, but exist within mankind regardless.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It is a delicate dissection. Paul on one hand, technically perfect in Christ, a child of God, all the good stuff. Yeah.

But on the other hand, we do have a messenger of Satan, a completely different entity than Paul, attached to his flesh/mind and heart as well.

It's very interesting, this depiction of human construction presented in the BIBLE.........

I have always been intrigued by that....

http://www.christianforums.com/t2318188-13/#post20003187
What was Paul's "thorn in the flesh" ?

Here is an excellent audio teaching about Paul's Thorn in the Flesh.
If you have any questions at all about this topic, please listen to this teaching.
You can choose either Real Player format or MP3 Download.

Real Player: http://media.awmi.net/audio/teaching/i02.ram
MP3: http://downloads.awmi.net/teaching/awm_1036b_thorn.mp3

Or you can send me a Private Message or email me with your mailing address and I'll send you a free copy of this message on audio CD. You can then listen to it on your computer or in your car. justinstout1983@yahoo.com


Here is a Bible commentary on 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 that will help also.
Please take the time to read this information:

COMMENTARY:


2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
Paul's use of the word "exalted" here has caused many people to assume God was the author of this "thorn in the flesh." The reasoning is that "being exalted" is pride, and certainly God is the one who would counter pride. However, the scriptures speak of a godly type of exalting which has nothing to do with pride. There is a promise to the person who humbles himself, that God will exalt him (1 Pet. 5:6). Other scriptures speak of God exalting His true believers (Ps. 37:34; 92:10; Mt. 23:12). The Lord exalted or magnified Joshua in the sight of the Israelites so they would respect him and follow his leadership (Josh. 3:7; 4:14).

This is not speaking of Paul having a pride problem that God had to deal with through affliction. This is speaking about Paul being so respected and honored in the sight of people that Satan had to do something to make him and his gospel less attractive. He did that through persecution. The devil gave Paul a "thorn in the flesh" to keep him from being exalted in the eyes of people.

Paul makes it very clear that this "thorn in the flesh" came because of the abundance of revelations he had received. So anyone who is claiming to have a thorn like Paul's would have to also have a similar number of revelations. Paul's revelations produced about one half of the New Testament scriptures and one of the greatest missionary thrusts the church has ever had. Until someone receives revelations which are proportional to Paul's, he shouldn't hide behind Paul's thorn in the flesh.

This phrase, "thorn in the flesh" was not original with Paul. It was an Old Testament term which referred to the negative influence ungodly people had on righteous people. In Numbers 33:55, Moses said, "But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell." Joshua 23:13 says, "Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you." Judges 2:3 says, "Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you." Paul drew on Old Testament terminology to refer to the persecution he had suffered.

There has been much debate about what Paul's thorn in the flesh was. Most people believe it was sickness sent from God to keep Paul humble. That is not the case. Paul's thorn in the flesh was persecution which came from the devil, to make people think twice about accepting the gospel because of the persecution which accompanied it.

One of the reasons people think Paul's thorn was sickness is because of the use of the word "infirmities" in verses 9 and 10. They presume infirmities is referring to some type of sickness. However, the word "infirmities" in context is referring to persecution.

Paul makes it very clear in this verse that Satan was the author of this thorn, not God. The reason God didn't take Paul's thorn away was not because He wanted to afflict Paul. It was because we are not redeemed from persecution. Paul later stated this in 2 Timothy 3:12, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."

If the Lord stopped all persecution against His followers, Saul would have died before he became the apostle Paul. Paul was one of the leaders of the persecution against Christians. The Lord didn't redeem Stephen from persecution, but used it to glorify Himself and prick the heart of the future apostle Paul. Therefore, the Lord has not redeemed us from persecution. He loves even those who persecute us just as He loved those who persecuted Him (Lk. 23:34). He desires their conversion, not their judgment.

The Greek word that was translated "messenger" here is "aggelos," which means "a messenger, especially an angel." It was translated "angel," "angels," or "angel's" a total of 176 times in the New Testament. The only other time it was translated "messenger" was in reference to John the Baptist being the "messenger" sent before the Lord. This same Greek word was also translated "messengers" a total of three times. This word is specifying a demonic angel that was assigned to Paul by the devil.

Paul made it very clear that this was a messenger of Satan, not of God. However, the false belief that the devil can only do what God allows him to do has led many people to change Paul's clear statement and place the responsibility on God for Paul's thorn in the flesh. That is not the case. God is not the author of our problems.

The New American Heritage dictionary defines the word "buffet" as "to hit or strike against repeatedly." This is describing the work of this messenger of Satan as being a repeated action. Paul suffered persecution everywhere he went (Acts 20:23). If Paul's thorn was a sickness, it would have to be repeatedly given and retracted to carry the full meaning of this word "buffet." But the scripture clearly states that it was not a disease but the messenger of Satan sent to repeatedly strike against Paul. Paul speaks of these attacks in verse 10 as being reproaches, persecutions, and distresses for the sake of Christ.


2 Corinthians 12:8
For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.

If a person accepts the idea that Paul's thorn was persecution which came from a demonic angel, then you might wonder why he would pray three times to have this removed. It is possible that Paul accepted persecution as an inevitable part of the Christian life but he wasn't sure he had to put up with a demonic spirit that incited this persecution. The Lord told him that God's grace would be sufficient and that He would use these persecutions to display His strength in Paul. Once Paul saw this, he actually took pleasure in the persecutions he suffered (v.10), knowing that God would get the ultimate glory.

It is interesting to note that Paul makes special mention of the fact that three times he prayed about this thorn in the flesh. The average Christian today would have no way of knowing how many times he has prayed over situations. Typically, they pray incessantly over the same request. That was not Paul's way of praying. Apparently, praying three times over one thing was unusual for Paul.


2 Corinthians 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

The Lord didn't remove Paul's thorn because Jesus didn't redeem us from persecution. If Paul's thorn had been sickness or poverty, then he could have prayed and received deliverance. But in persecution, the Lord doesn't deliver us, He strengthens us to be able to bear all things, thereby bringing glory to Himself and conviction to our persecutors.

This is not speaking of physical weakness or character flaws. The Lord is telling Paul that when he gives up, then the Lord takes over. Any time we cease trusting in ourselves and trust in God, the Lord shows His strength. It is when we lean on our own abilities that we get in trouble.

Paul had more reason to trust in himself than his critics did. He had the better resume. But he had learned the lesson of not trusting in himself. He had counted all his accomplishments as manure (Phil. 3:7-8), and he had become totally dependent upon Christ living through him (Gal. 2:20). He had learned to be weak in himself so that Christ could be strong in him.

The Lord's power delivers us from things such as sin, sickness, poverty. That is not to say that Christians never sin, never get sick, or never have financial problems. But the Lord's power is always available to bring us victory over all these things. However, concerning persecution and the many day to day problems that we encounter, the Lord hasn't provided deliverance from these, but rather the strength to endure. We have to have the motivation to change the things that we can change, the strength of Christ to persevere through the things we can't, and wisdom to know the difference.

The word "infirmity" here is not referring to sickness. The context of this verse makes this very evident. In chapter 11, Paul listed the things that he called his infirmities (2 Cor. 11:23-30). None of these included sickness. His infirmities were the hardships that he suffered because of the preaching of the gospel. In the next verse he confirms this again by listing five things that he suffered joyfully. None of them were sickness.

A further list of Paul's persecutions and infirmities are listed in Acts 9:23, 26-29; 13:6-12, 44-50; 14:1-19; 16:12-40; 17:1-14; 18:1-23; 19:23-31; and 20:3.

Paul was not just glorying in suffering, as some masochists do today. The reason he took pleasure in suffering was because he knew the Lord's strength would be manifest in his weakness and the Lord would use this to bring glory to His name.

An example of this is found in Acts 14:19-21. Paul was stoned and left for dead at Lystra. If he wasn't dead, he was so close to it that those who wanted to kill him thought he was dead and left. "Howbeit as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up and came into the city. . ." (Acts 14:20). The next day he traveled (probably walked) over 20 miles to Derbe. This wasn't bad for a man who had been killed the day before.

It had to be God's strength that enabled Paul to travel the day after his stoning. There were probably cuts, bruises, and swollen parts of his body that testified to what he had been through, yet he didn't miss a day ministering for the Lord. Certainly this was an even stronger witness of God's power to those he ministered to in Derbe. God's strength overcame Paul's weakness.


2 Corinthians 12:10
Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

Even though Paul asked three times for the infirmities, reproaches, necessities, persecutions, and distresses to be removed, God's reply was that His strength, that is, God's grace, would strengthen Paul to continue in victory regardless of the circumstances of life. Paul's statement that he will gladly glory in his infirmities, that is, his weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon him, was a mind set that Paul developed of a continuing faith and dependence upon the Lord regardless of the circumstances that he may face. A parallel passage could be found in Philippians 4:11-13 as he concluded that his Christian life was lived through the strengthening power of Jesus Christ.

Paul listed five things that he took pleasure in suffering: infirmities, reproaches, necessities, persecutions, and distresses. Four of these things (excluding infirmities) are clearly referring to hardships which Paul endured as a result of preaching the gospel. Therefore, it would be inconsistent to interpret "infirmities" as some type of sickness, when all the other things listed here refer to things inflicted by people. This word "infirmities" is referring to lack or inadequacies caused through people.

There is a big difference between suffering for Christ's sake and just suffering. Some teach that all suffering is therapeutic, and that is not so. Peter said, in 1 Pet. 4:15-16, "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed: but let him glorify God on this behalf." Suffering persecution and hardships related with preaching the gospel is what Paul is speaking of here.

God's strength is infinitely superior to ours both physically, mentally, and emotionally. Therefore, one of our biggest liabilities is trust in ourselves. When we are recognizing our comparative weakness and trusting in God, then we are truly strong.


I pray that this has helped you as much as it helped me.

your brother Christ,
Justin

 

[Achilles6129]

Here's another thought: Does modern Christianity simply reinterpret the parts of the Bible they're ashamed of? For example, they obviously try to mesh evolution and Genesis. Sometimes they also try to say that exterminations of civilizations ordered by God in the OT were simply put in there by the Israelites (not divinely inspired) to justify their behavior.

They reinterpret the Torah to be progessive revelation so they can get away from the idea that the Torah is intrinsic to the nature of God. In the NT, they reinterpret hell to be annihilation or just separation from God (without the torment factor). They reinterpret some of the statements of Christ they find to be unappetizing (e.g., "it is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs" - we're now told Christ wasn't referring to the Gentiles as moral dogs, he was referring to cute little dogs under the table), etc.

If we interpreted the Bible straightforwardly and plainly would there be anyone left in Christianity?

 

[Unix]

Many who read today's scholars think we have reached a pinnacle of understanding and perhaps too easily think there's a consensus. If we want as little as possible from the Bible, we may have reached a consensus for that now. What I refer to by this is those who apply that to the entire Bible. It can be applied to some parts - and that doesn't necessarily equal being ashamed of the Bible or belittling the value of the Bible.
There's value in all parts of the Bible for specialized research.
If I'm generally keen on studying as much as possible, I won't as one single person be able to or even be interested in cover the entire Bible:

Here's another thought: Does modern Christianity simply reinterpret the parts of the Bible they're ashamed of?
[...]
If we interpreted the Bible straightforwardly and plainly would there be anyone left in Christianity?

 

[rick357]

Here's another thought: Does modern Christianity simply reinterpret the parts of the Bible they're ashamed of? For example, they obviously try to mesh evolution and Genesis. Sometimes they also try to say that exterminations of civilizations ordered by God in the OT were simply put in there by the Israelites (not divinely inspired) to justify their behavior.

They reinterpret the Torah to be progessive revelation so they can get away from the idea that the Torah is intrinsic to the nature of God. In the NT, they reinterpret hell to be annihilation or just separation from God (without the torment factor). They reinterpret some of the statements of Christ they find to be unappetizing (e.g., "it is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs" - we're now told Christ wasn't referring to the Gentiles as moral dogs, he was referring to cute little dogs under the table), etc.

If we interpreted the Bible straightforwardly and plainly would there be anyone left in Christianity?

Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends ye are my friends if you do whatsoever I command you.
this verse alone would purge millions

 

[ebia]

Here's another thought: Does modern Christianity simply reinterpret the parts of the Bible they're ashamed of? For example, they obviously try to mesh evolution and Genesis. Sometimes they also try to say that exterminations of civilizations ordered by God in the OT were simply put in there by the Israelites (not divinely inspired) to justify their behavior. They reinterpret the Torah to be progessive revelation so they can get away from the idea that the Torah is intrinsic to the nature of God. In the NT, they reinterpret hell to be annihilation or just separation from God (without the torment factor). They reinterpret some of the statements of Christ they find to be unappetizing (e.g., "it is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs" - we're now told Christ wasn't referring to the Gentiles as moral dogs, he was referring to cute little dogs under the table), etc. If we interpreted the Bible straightforwardly and plainly would there be anyone left in Christianity?

Surely to take the bible seriously IS to keep going back to re-read it to find out if the interpretation our community has put on it is a fair interpretation of the text.

When I do that I find that Genesis 1, for instance, looks like a theological liturgical poem, not a science text.
That the various law codes are not presented as context-free absolutes for all time, but exist within the story.
That "hell" is a translation of all sorts of different ideas, and those ideas are presented as metaphors not woodenly factual descriptions and that the text is much more concerned with the story of a God putting the world right than giving a precise definition of what is in store for those who choose not to be part of that.
Etc.

As to the dogs bit, I've never heard anyone serous say that.