Should Genesis be taken literally?

[KWCrazy]

I meant that it's not specific in details of the creative process. For example the Bible doesn't list every tree individually nor does it say specifically that the earth revolves around the sun etc.

I certainly agree with that. I just don't want to see something out there that the other side can use against us. The definition of the days are extremely distinctive; as if someone knew that a vague description of the days might enable someone to say the days were actually ages, not days. How each tree came about is certainly not defined, but having read the first chapter extensively it is my believe that they had rings.

 

[Speedwell]

Except it's not that easy to see when we also have a literal talking donkey in Numbers and a continued literal curse on the snake into the new earth. What's hard to see is the symbolism forced upon the situation.

How do you know it was a literal talking donkey in Numbers?

 

[KWCrazy]

And this is interpretation. Jesus said "this is my body." He didn't say "this represents my body," although if that was what He meant he certainly could have done so.

That makes it a metaphor, not a parable.

Likewise, the parable of the Good Samaritan--Jesus told that as if it was a factual account. He didn't begin the account with the words "A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."

We don't know if the story actually happened or if He was using a teaching device.

I believe that the bread and wine of Holy Communion are the body and blood of Jesus because He said they are.

Nobody present at that time shared your belief, but that won't affect how Christ looks at you.

I believe that the Good Samaritan was a parable because Jesus taught using parables.

Parables could be real or fictional.

And, yes, I believe that the creation accounts in Genesis are allegories because they are differing accounts of creation

There is one account of creation, and one more detailed account of the formation of man.

 

[JacksBratt]

How do you know it was a literal talking donkey in Numbers?

It could not have been a literal talking donkey.

1/ Donkeys cannot talk
2/ It is not necessary for my salvation

 

[Speedwell]

It could not have been a literal talking donkey.

1/ Donkeys cannot talk
2/ It is not necessary for my salvation

It could have been. God could make a donkey talk if he wanted to. I was just asking SeventyOne why he thought it was.

 

[KWCrazy]

It could not have been a literal talking donkey.
1/ Donkeys cannot talk

Ax heads can't float.
Sundials can't roll back.
That's why such things are called miracles.

 

[SeventyOne]

How do you know it was a literal talking donkey in Numbers?

It could not have been a literal talking donkey.

1/ Donkeys cannot talk
2/ It is not necessary for my salvation

Normally, donkeys don't talk.

Just like normally people don't rise from the dead when thrown down on a dead man's bones, and normally ax heads don't float, and normally staffs don't turn to serpents when thrown on the ground, and normally a sea doesn't part on demand.

So, that doesn't mean they can't. Especially when it clearly states the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey. The question is not 'did the donkey speak?' The questions is can the Lord cause one to speak if He desires it to do so?

 

[Archivist]

That makes it a metaphor, not a parable.

I never said the statement "this is my body," the words of Jesus, was a parable. Don't put words in my mouth. I believe that the bread of Holy Communion is the body of Christ.

We don't know if the story actually happened or if He was using a teaching device.

True. My view is that the story of the Good Samaritan is a parable.

Nobody present at that time shared your belief, but that won't affect how Christ looks at you.

Nobody who participated in the Last Supper thought that the bread and wine were the body and blood of Christ? You know that how????

Parables could be real or fictional.

OK. No argument.

There is one account of creation, and one more detailed account of the formation of man.

According to your interpretation.

 

[JacksBratt]

Normally, donkeys don't talk.

Just like normally people don't rise from the dead when thrown down on a dead man's bones, and normally ax heads don't float, and normally staffs don't turn to serpents when thrown on the ground, and normally a sea doesn't part on demand.

So, that doesn't mean they can't. Especially when it clearly states the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey. The question is not 'did the donkey speak?' The questions is can the Lord cause one to speak if He desires it to do so?

Sorry for the confusion. I agree 100% that the donkey talked, the snake talked, axe heads floated, a fish had a coin in it's mouth, water turned to wine and Jesus walked on water.

I was being sarcastic towards those who have perfect belief only when their salvation is at stake. Remove the supposed necessity of the event on their salvation and it becomes a myth or story....

 

[KWCrazy]

Nobody who participated in the Last Supper thought that the bread and wine were the body and blood of Christ? You know that how????

His blood had not been shed and His body had not been injured. He had never broken a bone. It was symbolic of the things to come that had to be, and like it or not the disciples had to share in the crucifixion and resurrection.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts have been removed for discussing each other rather than the OP topic

 

[Archivist]

His blood had not been shed and His body had not been injured. He had never broken a bone. It was symbolic of the things to come that had to be, and like it or not the disciples had to share in the crucifixion and resurrection.

Now I get what you are saying. They might not have believed it at the moment it was said, that doesn't mean that they didn't come to believe it.

 

[Speedwell]

What does the symbol of a talking snake "symbolize"?

Satan, the "Old Deceiver." The Bible explains it pretty clearly.

 

[SeventyOne]

Satan, the "Old Deceiver." The Bible explains it pretty clearly.

And there was certainly a spiritual force behind the serpent (just as behind the talking donkey), whose words it chose to speak.

That's why the curse was two-fold, on the serpent physically, and on the entity utilizing the serpent. Seems fitting Satan chose the snake as his vessel.

 

[Archivist]

And there was certainly a spiritual force behind the serpent (just as behind the talking donkey), whose words it chose to speak. That's why the curse was two-fold, on the serpent physically, and on the entity utilizing the serpent. Seems fitting Satan chose the snake as his vessel.

Of course I don't believe that Satan chose a snake as his vessel. I read it as an allegory.

 

[SeventyOne]

Of course I don't believe that Satan chose a snake as his vessel. I read it as an allegory.

Of course, but since an allegory represents real world occurrances, which 'real' evolutionary process does the serpent represent?

 

[Speedwell]

Of course, but since an allegory represents real world occurrances, which 'real' evolutionary process does the serpent represent?

Why should it represent any? Taking the serpent as an allegorical figure, it could just as well represent sociological or cultural phenomenon.

 

[SeventyOne]

Why should it represent any? Taking the serpent as an allegorical figure, it could just as well represent sociological or cultural phenomenon.

It has to represent something, otherwise, it's not an allegory.

Let's go with your point, exactly what sociological or cultural phenomenon does it represent, and what is your reasoning for assuming the representation?

 

[Speedwell]

It has to represent something, otherwise, it's not an allegory.

Let's go with your point, exactly what sociological or cultural phenomenon does it represent, and what is your reasoning for assuming the representation?

Satan, as depicted in the OT, in Genesis and in Job, for instance, is a Trickster--God's "left-hand man" similar in character to Loki, or to Coyote in Southwest Native American religious tradition. Nothing to do with evolution at all.

 

[Archivist]

Of course, but since an allegory represents real world occurrances, which 'real' evolutionary process does the serpent represent?

Satan is the obvious choice.