What is to be taken literally?

Other than it is wrong! That is why literal Bible believers gave it up a couple of centuries ago and why the majority of Christians today understand that it is not a science text book.The reason it isn't accepted is there is ample evidence that show that the common, literal interpretations are incorrect when measured against the real world.

Hey there Ned!!WOW!! I didn't know that the possibility that God created the world was PROVEN wrong by SCIENCE which can't PROVE anything! Sorry I couldn't help myself lol! I don't usually use sarcasm, but I felt it was ok just this once.First off, you make this assertion that what some of the "scientists" is all true, and that just because so and so believes it, the Genesis is obsolete. I want to know some proof that Genesis ISN'T true. I don't want the answer "Just look around," because I do and I can't see how there couldn't have ben a creator! It is sooooo marvelous to see his Creation in action! Just a few days ago, I saw the MOST BRILLIANT display of the Northern Lights I have ever seen! The only thing I could think to myself was, "How can anyone NOT believe in a Creator?" Ok, I'll stop saying stuff about that and let you think about that later, as I should get back to my other school work.
To summarize, give me some of the "evidence" that Genesis isn't true or people won't just accept your assertion.

Hi Proboscis, Science, including archaeology, cannot prove anything. But, science and archaeology are both extremely good at disproving many things, and both disciplines have done just that with most of the biblical contents.Cheers.Brian.

uh, that's not what ned said, at all. he never said anything about science saying the slightest thing about god. just that the literaly reading of genesis doesn't fit reality.hell, the literal reading of genesis doesn't fit itself. chapters 1 and 2 don't line up. which account are you reading literally?

You've proven your close-minded nature by claiming that I "obviously" don't believe in God because I don't take the same parts of the Bible literally as you do. You then claim that your harsh statement about someone you don't know is simply "reality".Do you see how obnoxious that is?Is your brand of Christianity the only correct one?

as sort of a side note, i've always read things a little metaphorically. but going back and re-reading genesis, it does appear that the people who wrote certain parts of did think that god was a physical entity, and that he was more or less indistinguishable from man (save for some unknown feature that made it obvious that he was god).for reference i cite:

quote:

---

Gen 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

​

Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

---

quote:

---

Gen 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him [abraham] in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Gen 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw [them], he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

---

this passage puzzled me when i read it. it says that yhwh appeared to abraham while he was sitting on his porch. but what abraham saw was three men.the way god is portrayed in genesis is also very human-like in emotions and attitude. by exodus, he's become more obscure and appears physically only once, to moses. by this time, seeing god's face is considered deadly. people are advised not to come too close to mt horeb, lest they die. as the bible goes on, god becomes less and less physical and more and more abstract.i don't think this has anything to do with the evolution of god neccessarily, but the way man thinks of him. and the people who wrote genesis certainly thought of him as a physical being.

quote:

---

You've proven your close-minded nature by claiming that I "obviously" don't believe in God because I don't take the same parts of the Bible literally as you do.

---

Really? Can you honestly say that you do? If stating something such as that offends you, I see no reason for it. Furthermore, I would like for you to quote where I said that I was right and you were wrong? I am very open minded when it comes to the Bible, so your statement happens to be false. The reason behind me saying that was simple, it was the wording in your rhetorical questions.

quote:

---

Do you see how obnoxious that is?

---

No, what I see as obnoxious is your continuation of the same exact question, after it has been answered over and over again. Just because you don't agree with me, doesn't make you right. Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make me right. You asked for an explanation of why I FELT it was literal, and I answered how I FELT it was literal.

quote:

---

Is your brand of Christianity the only correct one?

---

My 'brand'? No, it's not. No one is perfect, that includes me. Also, even if it doesn't appeal to you, it includes you too. I have learned alot from discussions, and I have taught alot through discussions, if I felt that I was right about everything, well....what is the point in discussing? I, unlike a few others, like to discuss things without carrying it to an argument.~~~~Good Day~~~~

---

Angel

Ain`t the arrogance of religious newbies a joy to behold? Bursting in with all the answers to educate the ignorant, unwashed Evos. Not like these rigid ideas haven`t been demolished a zillion times. Go easy on the teasing,guys, they might twig you. Oh well, back to the coal-face.

angel? nah...she seems to be the questioning kind. we like those.they go good with ranch dressing.i mean. um.

Here`s one which has been covered elsewhere. Was the cursing of the fig tree literal or should we interpret it? If so, how? Bearing in mind the pesher, of course.

Hey people!I'm just wondering if anyone was gonna tell me how Genesis doesn't seem to be true to you and how it "doesn't fit." You have told me that I'm wrong enough, now tell me why I am. If you take Genesis literally, in the same way I do (there you go Ned, I'm not telling people what THEY believe! YES! ) then you would most likely believe that:1. God created everything. He made everything perfect, but mankind messed it up by disobeying God. That is literal.2. There WAS a world-wide flood. Evidence actually helps support this, both historically and scientifically. (That is, as long as you don't close your ears to hear any of it and dismiss it as fairy tale lol) If you need me to do so, I will get all my sources of information back out and prensent my case, but this isn't the right thread.3. God is perfect.4. There was NO death before the fall. Eden was paradise, it was perfect. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, they introduced death into a perfect world and thus we have to deal with it today.5. Satan is out to deceive you and make you fall by twisting an distorting words that God said. He is also a master of diguise who can take different forms.6. God cares for us and set up his plan for our redemption so we could spend eternity with him and now ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is accept his gift! Seems to good to be true doesn't it?? He pays for us and we get to spend eternity in Heaven! WELL it is true.Those are just a few of the things that are obviously not meant to be taken figuratively. If you take, for example, that God is perfect figuratively, then you have no hope for salvation because Jesus needed to be perfect to atone for our sins. It's because of his perfection that we can look forward to eternity, instead of dreading it.

Hey! How's it going for you Nighttrain?Ok, yeah in answer to your question, I don't see any reason to believe why the "Jesus commands the fig tree to wither and it does" part of scripture should NOT be taken literally. Just because some things might not make sense to us, doesn't mean they aren't true. Right now, humans have limited knowledge. There will be a day when we will understand everything, but that day won't come until Jesus comes back.
So yeah, I'm kinda sure that's supposed to be literal. BTW good question!

Well, this is probably a mistake but as a Christian, here is how I see it. I see absolutely nothing in Genesis or Exodus to be taken literally. Period. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Zero. GOD changed the state of the Primordial Egg some tens of Billions of years ago. He determined the rules and forces that would govern the universe including the physical laws, evolution and natural selection. Everything we see today evolved from that initial action.There was never a Garden of Eden, an Adam and Eve, or the Fall. There was never a world wide flood or Noah, no ark, no animals two by two or seven by seven. GOD is complete. Since there was never a Garden of Eden or Fall, the issue is moot. But even if you accepted the description of Eden it would not have been perfect and there would have been death. Least that is what Genesis says. Yup. He can be seen in the guise of Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Kent Hovind, Gene Scott, ... Yup. Christ died for all, atheist and theist, Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslem, those who profess the beliefs and those who deny them. All he asks is that you Love others as you love yourself.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

if god made everything perfect, and god made man, god made man perfect. simple logic here. either he made everything perfect, or he made us. take this one to the flood/geology forum. you'll find that it's just not true. there is simply no evidence for a worldwide flood. we do have evidence for other world-wide cataclysms though, such as an asteroid impact circa 65 mya.you're also missing a fundamental understanding of genesis. it says that everything was water before god came along, and god created the heavens as a kind of inverse snow dome for us to live in. filling it with water is like literally erasing creation. not if you believe genesis literally. he doesn't get two chapters in before realizing he's messed up. he also has to fix various messes he made prominently in chapters 3, 6, and 11. no, that's not at all what genesis said. genesis strongly implies that man was ALWAYS mortal. look at what god says for the reason he kicks them out:

quote:

---

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

---

man wasn;t living forever before this point. on top of that, god LIES.

quote:

---

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

---

they didn't die. in fact

quote:

---

Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

---

hasatan is an angel of the lord. look at the texts of samuel vs chronicles

quote:

---

1Ch 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

---

quote:

---

2Sa 24:1 And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

---

either one is wrong, or hasatan works for god. he's also listed among the sons of god that show up in the first bit of job.again, i'm just reading the bible here -- who's distorting things and misleading believers?This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-11-2004 04:57 PM

Hi,Prob, you realise the figtree was the emblem of the Zealots?