Well... that hits pretty close to home. - lol
That's a great point.
Literalists come after those who hold a figurative view, with guns-a-blazing. Literalism leaves no room for another opinion.
This puts me in an awkward spot. I lean hard toward literalism, but am very open to others having their own opinion. (obviously) This topic is partially intended to help myself find a place in all this. I appreciate your input.
Perhaps if book titles were better conceived, we could do away with books completely.Yes, but how much explanatory weight can we put on an introductory sentence? - lol
Yes. Inerrancy is wearing pretty thin with me for that very reason.Literalism is a huge commitment, one I'm not willing to sign up for precisely because of Jesus Christ. But, that is the way of faith. What are we committed to? Every jot and tittle, or the risen, living Christ.
Perhaps if book titles were better conceived, we could do away with books completely.
And maybe that's the problem with the Holy Bible. It really needs a more descriptive title.
All good. I never mind a respectful challenge. And I know your intentions are good as gold. No worries, brother.There's no rush to figure it out, I don't think. I do hope I have not caused harm, that is my greatest worry in these discussions. But, you know I intend the best, so...
Wouldn't think it's a metaphor. Why? Because the same phrase, "and God saw that it was good" is found 6 more times in the chapter in 10,11,18,21,24 and 31. In those it's talking clear of exactly what is taking place as described.Didn't God "notice" the light was good and separate it from the darkness? It sounds like a metaphor to me. God is separating good from evil, i.e. they are not the same. Or, as some might conjecture: it's the separation of good and evil angels. Whatever, still a metaphor.
That's a great point.
Literalists come after those who hold a figurative view, with guns-a-blazing. Literalism leaves no room for another opinion.
What if there are inspired only basics (like monotheism, salvation by Christ, doing good works, not harming others etc.) and we do not have to solve puzzles how to make ancient cosmology compatible with our universe and similar?It used to bother me that we couldn't put the puzzle together, as it were. Then it dawned on me that if we could, then faith would not be required.
- Was the universe created in six literal days?
That's an interesting post. Thanks.I think, that even if Genesis was literal in terms of the creation. It's probably not the same universe we are living in now.
When you think about our ecosystem, photosynthesis, the hydrogen cycle, etc.. and even features in the anatomy of all living organisms. Their designed to make sure we live. Why would any of this be needed in Eden when there was no death prior to sin?
Even your teeth has purposes, you need your teeth to eat. Animals have various natural features and abilities to help them either catch prey or defend against a predator. Why would all of this be needed back then? What is the point of eating?
Thing is, if read literally, Adam and Eve ate in the garden.. so that also poses problems of a pre-existing universe completely different to ours.
I think the best thing is to just embrace that we don't know much and we are not sure if Genesis is speaking of a pre-universe or everything is figurative. It can't be literal because being literal does face so many educated scrutiny.
Could you list your top five problems with being a literalist. I loved your use of the word "legion". - lolIf there is no extra benefit to being a literalist, what is the harm? Here the problems become legion. How many times do people defend the lamest things because of literalism, things that obviously are contrary to everything we know in Christ? Ever seen a Christian defend slavery because it's in the bible? I've seen Christians defend eternal torment, just because they read it in the bible.
Wow. Here's a new facet to explore. Thanks for weighing in on this. Now we add a flat earth view as a literal interpretation. Interesting.There's no 'universe' per se according to the Biblical worldview. There's a flat stationary earth sitting on pillar foundations beneath a firmament with the air (a couple of heavens) and the sun moon and stars in the firmament, between great waters above and below. Hence the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky.
I believe there's both an earthly and spiritual interpretation of Gen 1, but we can't get the spiritual hit unless we accept the earthly (ie literal material) sense (...how then will ye believe when I speak of spiritual things?). Most of the obstacles to accepting the plain sense of the scripture have been created by modern theoretical 'science', none of which are proven, including the nature of heavenly bodies and their distances from earth. One day the sky will roll up like a scroll and the stars fall to earth.
When you deny the Biblical account (by rendering it as merely or solely figurative) in order to accommodate the secular position, it results in problems all down the line, because scripture is interwoven with a creation account that is foolishness to the world. But that's ok, because the wisdom of the world is foolishness to God. So who's true, and who's lying?
That's fair.Actually I think one can make heaven their home without absolutely believing in YEC. I don't get what you mean that literalists come after. Sorry but it seems to me the OEC's from what I've seen on the internet make light of with mockery YEC's. (and I'm not claiming some have on here) From many places YEC's are made to look like some of the most ignorant among men for they won't bow down to the golden idol of "science". YEC's are usually always the ones who it's suggested they need to explain what science thinks it sees. So as far as those who hold to a figurative view being open to other opinions....some do I'm sure but some most certainly don't. So let's make a fair assessment.
Aren't BOTH "ancient cosmology" and our current view (which could change) of the universe theoretical? I don't see any reason to make the current scientific view absolute.What if there are inspired only basics (like monotheism, salvation by Christ, doing good works, not harming others etc.) and we do not have to solve puzzles how to make ancient cosmology compatible with our universe and similar? ...
I see plenty of word parsing from those with the figurative view. Like the day/age theory.... The text in Genesis is not even preserved perfectly, but Christians argue about single words in it...
When you deny the Biblical account (by rendering it as merely or solely figurative) in order to accommodate the secular position, it results in problems all down the line, because scripture is interwoven with a creation account that is foolishness to the world
Well... Jesus was pretty specific about those things. He put the law aside, but he didn't discount its prophetic value. (of the Law, capital L, the Books of the Law) But that's another topic. (available now on this forum)Even Jesus said that some things in Jewish Law are not from God, but from Moses. If even Jesus says that, who am I...
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?