Where do you draw the line?

[ShilohCity]

For all who believe that the biblical acounts of the creation and flood are not literal, i have a question.

Where do you draw the line between what is literally true and what is not?

Is the story of babel true?
Abraham? Sodom and Gomorrah? Moses and the Exodus? King David? The Captivity in Babylon? Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the fiery furnace?

What about Jesus? Did Jesus do everything that the Bible claims he did? Did He perform miracles? Was He God? Did He rise from the dead? If not, then is there any salvation at all?

I honestly would like to know where the line between literal and allegory is, and how that distinction is made.

 

[notto]

When what we find in God's own creation directly conflicts with an interpretation of scripture, it is best to stick with God's creation.

The historical references to individuals, the miracles of Jesus, and the divinity of Jesus Christ are not conflicted by evidence in the creation.

You posted this in the Christian Only section. Considering that only Christians can respond, I would hope that you would understand that the respondents all accept Jesus and his divinity (and the statement of faith used on this board to register as a Christian).

 

[Chi_Cygni]

For all who believe that the biblical acounts of the creation and flood are not literal, i have a question.

Where do you draw the line between what is literally true and what is not?

*yawn* - the tired old slippery slope argument, beloved of people who find thinking to be a needless chore

Is the story of babel true?

- Good God NO.

Abraham? Sodom and Gomorrah? Moses and the Exodus? King David? The Captivity in Babylon? Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the fiery furnace?

Did they exist, probably - exactly as in the Bible - probably not.

What about Jesus? Did Jesus do everything that the Bible claims he did? Did He perform miracles? Was He God? Did He rise from the dead? If not, then is there any salvation at all?

Yes - but I would say not everything as recorded in the Bible is a true account.

I honestly would like to know where the line between literal and allegory is, and how that distinction is made.

A good idea is to think things through and use a tad of common sense. If I had to choose between dogmatic acceptance of the Bible as complete literal truth or atheism _ I would be a card carrying atheist.

I personally think it is bloody obvious that some things in the Bible are using peotic licence to put it mildy and are allegirical.

 

[mhess13]

*yawn* - the tired old slippery slope argument, beloved of people who find thinking to be a needless chore

- Good God NO.




Did they exist, probably - exactly as in the Bible - probably not.



Yes - but I would say not everything as recorded in the Bible is a true account.




A good idea is to think things through and use a tad of common sense. If I had to choose between dogmatic acceptance of the Bible as complete literal truth or atheism _ I would be a card carrying atheist.

I personally think it is bloody obvious that some things in the Bible are using peotic licence to put it mildy and are allegirical.

Why don't you just take the next step - be an atheist and be done with it. Why even bother if you don't believe the word???? I'm puzzled at all the professing Christians who don't believe the Bible. It's a shame that professing Christians have no faith in God but unmoveable faith in man. To make things worse, many these non-bible believing christians are out here attacking us Bible believers who believe what our Heavenly Father has said and are trying to actually do something for the Lord!!

But we shall all give an account...

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

[Dracil]

See my signature.

 

[mhess13]

"The Bible is true, and some of it happened" - Catholic priest

WOW--the church is in sad shape...

 

[notto]

Why don't you just take the next step - be an atheist and be done with it. Why even bother if you don't believe the word???? I'm puzzled at all the professing Christians who don't believe the Bible. It's a shame that professing Christians have no faith in God but unmoveable faith in man. To make things worse, many these non-bible believing christians are out here attacking us Bible believers who believe what our Heavenly Father has said and are trying to actually do something for the Lord!!

But we shall all give an account...

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

You are equating not believing the bible with not accepting your interpretation of the bible. These are not the same thing.

It's kind of hard to be an atheist if you accept Christ and are a professing Christian and believe the bible, isn't it? Why would you even say such a thing.

You are basically saying that someone can't be a Christian if they don't accept your interpretation of the bible. Before you were saying that evolution drives people away from Christ. I would contend that instead it is statements like yours that do this. Fortunately, most don't fall for that line but it is sad that some do.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

To all the Bible worshippers - why not switch idols!

 

[Dracil]

"The Bible is true, and some of it happened" - Catholic priest

WOW--the church is in sad shape...

But still much better shape than Literal Bible Ministries (or any other literalist churches). Amazing, isn't it.

 

[kermit the toad]

When what we find in God's own creation directly conflicts with an interpretation of scripture, it is best to stick with God's creation.

I concur!

 

[statrei]

I'm puzzled at all the professing Christians who don't believe the Bible. It's a shame that professing Christians have no faith in God but unmoveable faith in man.

One is likely to get the impression that the God of the Christian faith is the Bible. Is that what you intend for us to believe? Or do you think that that the God of the Christian faith is a creation of the Bible? Please clarify. I would not like to misrepresent your perspective.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

THe same question from the OP can be posed to biblical literalists. Where do YOU draw the line from what is literally true or not?

Does the earth literally rest on pillars?
Does rain literally come from door in the sky?
Is the sky literally solid?
Is a mustard seed literally the smallest seed in the world?
Are the parables of Jesus literally true?
Should a son literally be killed by his father for disobedience?
Was the snake from the garden of Eden literally just a snake, or was he satan (cause in any bible I have ever checked it just says snake)?
Is Lucifer literally satan, or is he an evil Babylonian king?
DId Ezikial literally see a wheel in the sky, or was it a vision?

 

[notto]

You forgot:
Are the moon, sun, and stars really set in the firmament?

 

[pressingon]

Maybe this would be better edited and added as a separate post, but....

Can't we all just... get along?

mhess13 --
While I appreciate your zeal for sharing the Word and your interpretation of the Word, as a fellow YEC, I beg of you to seek a bit more humility in your posts. Although I truly believe the Bible is inerrant, and that a straightforward reading reveals truth, I most certainly do not put pride in my own understanding of God's Word (and His creation), but rely wholly upon the guidance of the Spirit. Always remember Proverbs 16:18 ("Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall."), and relate the Word with this in mind: although you are saved by God's grace and have such received the gift of the Spirit, you are still human, and as such are fallible. State and defend your position as you please, but please don't state that others are without a doubt incorrect.

All --
I guess what I originally directed toward mhess13 really applies to everyone. We are all fallible, yet all brothers and sisters in Christ through our faith in Him. Can we please treat everyone with a little more respect (even if / when you think the beliefs / interpretations of others are not worth respecting)? Rather than the "I'm right, you're wrong" kind of thing we see in here too often, can we focus more on sharing what we believe and why? It seems that would be more productive than all the statements that seem to provoke quarrels rather than foster discussion.

Much appreciated!

 

[gluadys]

I honestly would like to know where the line between literal and allegory is, and how that distinction is made.

It's basically simple and applied just as much by those who claim to be literalists as those who do not claim to be literalists.

Where the literal intepretation is supported by non-bibilical evidence and/or makes sense otherwise---where it would be silly to dispute its truth, we lean toward the literal interpretation. So, where the bible describes Hezekiah having a tunnel built into Jerusalem to assure its supply of water, and archeologists find that tunnel, we recognize that portion of scripture as literal.

When a literal interpretation is contradicted by sound non-biblical evidence and/or is evidently silly, we lean toward a non-literal interpretation. So when evidence says the earth orbits the sun rather than being immovably fixed to a foundation, we interpret passages suggesting the latter non-literally (even though to the writers, they were literal). Or when the psalmist describes mountains clapping their hands and little hills leaping for joy, we assume the language is figurative.

In short, both literalists and non-literalists agree that some portions of scripture are best interpreted literally and some parts are best interpreted non-literally. We also use the same principles for distinguishing between them.

Where we disagree is not over the basic principles, but on where the line is to be drawn. To me a story containing magic trees and talking snakes is obviously not intended, even by the writer, to be understood literally. Yet, literalists insist that it is so intended. To me, the complete lack of evidence for a global flood, the evidence that plainly contradicts the very possibility of an historical global flood, is a clear indication that the story is not literal, though possibly based on a real, but local flood. Yet literalists insist that it must be about a literal global flood.

I don't understand the literalist point of view on these matters at all.

What I do insist on, is that my non-literal approach to these is not based on a rejection of biblical truth. I don't doubt the bible. I simply interpret it in a way that makes sense of it without rejecting what makes sense in other areas of knowledge.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

I concur!

You do not concur, you do not go pass Go!, you do not collect $200.

 

[ShilohCity]

THe same question from the OP can be posed to biblical literalists. Where do YOU draw the line from what is literally true or not?

Does the earth literally rest on pillars?

Job 9:6 and Psalm 75:3. Both books of poetry. Poetry frequently uses metaphors. Neither place refers to history or science.

Does rain literally come from door in the sky?

are you refering to Genesis 8:2? A figure of speech. Similar to it 'raining cats and dogs'. weather there was a layer of water above the earth or just alot of clouds, whatever it was that was keeping it from raining stopped and therefore the "floodgates" opened.

Is the sky literally solid?

hmmm, couldn't find this anywhere.

Is a mustard seed literally the smallest seed in the world?

Don't know, i know nothing about plants and seeds. However the NIV states that the mustard seed is the "smallest of all your seeds" (Matthew 13:32)

Are the parables of Jesus literally true?

definition of a parable from Stong's Concordance: "a similitude (“parable”), that is, (symbolically) fictitious narrative (of common life conveying a moral), apoth gm or adage:—comparison, figure, parable, proverb." By definition, no a parable is not true.

Should a son literally be killed by his father for disobedience?

Numbers 21:18-21 the father doesn't kill his son. all the men do. This is part of the Hebrew Law. Christians are not subject to the old hebrew law (but that is for a different thread)

Was the snake from the garden of Eden literally just a snake, or was he satan (cause in any bible I have ever checked it just says snake)?

Revelation 12:9 and 20:2

Is Lucifer literally satan, or is he an evil Babylonian king?

Lucifer is a name associated with satan. However the prophecy in Isaiah 14 does refer to the king of Babylon. Many christians have taken it to be refering to Satan as he is the "prince of the power of the air". This is where the story of satan being cast out of heaven for trying to be like god comes from. I personally disagree with this view, however my own opinions are not fully formed in the matter so i will not attempt to argue the point except to say that i do not believe the word Lucifer is meant as a proper name, but as a discriptive term for the king; his kingdom was bight and beautiful like the morning star.

DId Ezikial literally see a wheel in the sky, or was it a vision?

Even if it was a vision, wouldn't he have actually seen a wheel?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Thank you Shiloh, you have very clearly demonstrated my point that much of the bible was never intended to be taken literally. That is a point that even biblical literalists will agree upon. So where IS the line supposed to be drawn?

YOu are right about the debate over should christians follow Hebrew law or not. It was a huge matter of controvery in the early days of christianity. Groups like the Ebionites argued that christians should follow Hebrew law, where as the Marcionites argued for a total "divorce" from anything jewish. Those proto-orthodox christians, from which our modern form of christianity arose, argued for the middle ground. All three used the teaching of Jesus and the apostles to back up their arguments. Today's debates among christians pale in comparison to the disparity and diversity seen among early christians.

 

[pressingon]

Thank you Shiloh, you have very clearly demonstrated my point that much of the bible was never intended to be taken literally. That is a point that even biblical literalists will agree upon. So where IS the line supposed to be drawn?

This is a matter of semantics of course, but instead of literal interpretation (or literalist), I prefer the descriptive terms straightforward reading. I believe that to be a better term for the doctrinal position. As you've said, YECs who hold to Biblical inerrancy do not believe that a word for word, exactly what it says interpretation is necessary. We believe that an interpretation that fits with the style, context, etc. of the text, in accordance with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in required, quite the same as TE's, actually.

That probably doesn't sufficiently answer your question, but it's the best description I can give. It may not accurately describe what other YEC's believe, so if I've mischaracterized my beliefs as the beliefs of all, hopefully Shiloh, mhess13, or others can correct me and address it from their perspective.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

The problem for you though is that straightforward does not imply literal but rather implies allegory.