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.
That is mighty interesting. Thanks for your whole post.
I think Christianity is actually based on Jesus' teaching, and his death and resurrection. Our sources for that include writings from one of Peter's followers (Mark) and Paul. Quite different from bronze age stories about the creation of the earth.
Wow. These are some great points. Thanks.
This confirms the hands-on process I see in the text. God didn't just allow evolution to take place, he willfully and carefully created as an act.
For example?
But are indications that the text could be written in the way to bear some symbolism.
I am not dismissing anyone. Even Adam could be a literal person.
Yes. The same shape. Standing upright; head on top; shoulders and torso; two arms and legs, hands and feet; symmetrical from the vertical center.
What do you make of this? (see vs 51-55)
Seriously? I need to declare his mighty works to someone that claims to be a Christian? I'll skip the ones I am pretty sure you don't believe and see how it goes from there. (therefore creation, the flood, Moses burning bush experience, the exodus, crossing the Red Sea, the giving of the TCs, miracles in the wilderness, are off the list --- all myths?) Doesn't leave much.
Oh course. But doesn't make them myth/fiction.
Wow. That seems like quite a concession. You have been pretty dogmatic about the figurative view up to this point. Am I wearing you down? - lol
It’s a nice psalm. I’m not saying that all of the OT is fantasy. I believe God really did choose Israel for a special role, as described by the prophets. During the time of the written prophets we have the books of Kings, which seem to be based on real events. But before that, we know from history and archaeology that the OT is at best loosely based on history, with Judges and Samuel probably a bit closer than Genesis and Exodus.
Thanks.
It’s very unlikely that this is verbatim from Nary, and even if it was, she was a first century Jew, and would not have approached her tradition critically.
Whether it is verbatim or not, this is yet another NT text which supports a literal reading of the OT. Confirming a belief in Abraham as a real person (the Genesis account) and relying on God's promises to his descendants. (the Genesis account again) Is that a fair assessment?
This is an interesting topic to discuss, because there are points to be made on both sides. And I suppose there is a whole range of views from 100 percent literal to 100 percent figurative. (which makes no sense to me) I think the truth is somewhere in between and it may ultimately be a personal choice as to where you end up.
Wow. The "Mother of God" deluded by her own mythology? That's right up there with Darwin refuting the Apostle Paul. This is a mighty interesting thread. Thanks.
Sure. None of the NT authors or the people they wrote about had a modern critical attitude towards the OT texts. There’s no reason they should have. That mostly doesn’t affect the believability of their witness to Christ. Of course the Gospels were based on oral histories, so they are unlikely to be accurate in the sense that a modern reporter would be, with the aid of recorders. But we can expect that the substance of their reports is right. Transmission of religious tradition in oral cultures is pretty good, though we can tell from comparing the Gospels that it isn’t perfect.
If you have been reading all of the replies, as I have been, you would see how much polarity there is on this topic. I am from a literalist background, so that is the only platform I can discuss from. However, I am open to replies from the figurative view side. You have been most helpful. Thanks.
