Why read the Bible literally?

but you've never supplied any evidence to support your assertion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

...It's really quite clear when parable or poetry is meant compared to narrative.

---

This is wonderful! Let's take several verses (from the NRSV): Genesis 1:6Genesis 7:11Genesis 8:2So here are three verses that literally describe the sky as a dome separating terrestrial waters from celestial waters, and that the rain falls through openings in this dome.What are the clues that inform us whether this is narrative or metaphor?

It's straightforward description, straight narrative, not metaphor at all. There are no general principles to be extracted from it that I can see, as would be the case with a parable, there is no OTHER event it is a pattern for, which would be the case with either a parable or a metaphor, and there is no storyteller who identifies it as a parable or metaphor which is often the case with those things.It's straight narrative, but it CONTAINS the poetic metaphorical phrase of "the windows of heaven" simply showing that water came from a sky now "opened" in some sense. How to define what makes THAT metaphorical? I'm not enough of a literary scholar to know how to define that. It just seems obvious to me. Isn't it to you?Just because we don't know what exactly it is describing doesn't mean there's anything about it that's not intended to be true. This is what creationists try to understand, what kind of physical situation it is describing. But there is no hint that it is ANYTHING BUT straightforward description of a unique event.

Hardly. The trees represent people selecting a king, the story occasioned by the historical situation of Abimelech just recounted. What does anything about the flood story represent from which we might extract a principle? It's a one-time event, nothing in it to be extrapolated to anything else that I can see.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-15-2005 01:57 PM

You want me to QUOTE psalms 105 and 106? You want me to QUOTE Jesus in his references to Genesis, the Flood, Jonah? You want me to QUOTE Hebrews 11? What is it you find lacking in the way of evidence here? These things are all evidence that the scriptures were taken literally.

Oh please Faith, the whole flood story is very symbolic. The flood represents a cleansing of the Earth, a re-birth, a second chance for humanity. It is so obviously not to be taken literally I can't believe that intelligent adults would believe otherwise.

No, it *WAS* a cleansing of the earth, didn't merely REPRESENT a cleansing.It *WAS* a baptism as Peter says, it didn't merely REPRESENT a baptism.It *WAS* a rebirth, not a symbol of a rebirth.Parables and metaphors obviously have reference to Something Else, the Flood does not. The Flood is What It Is, Itself, representative of nothing but itself.Your view does not come from anything about HOW it is told either -- It is told straight, as history, with details that only relate to itself.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-15-2005 02:16 PM

I can and have read the sources, Faith. And so far you have shown no reason to consider them as factual as opposed to metaphor. To simply point to what we can all read does not support the usage or intent of what was said.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jesus spoke like that a great deal. So why would his saying "As it was in the days of Noah..."(Matt 24:37), to describe the time of his Second Coming, mean that the story used as the symbolism is any more true than the Prodigal Son? What is it about Jesus' use of that story that makes it different from the Rich Man and Lazarus?1. His reference is generalized.
2. The point of the story is something other than the literal reading of the story.
3. It points out a general principle rather than the story content.
4. It is to be applied in a similar specific case.
5. It contains generalizable details.What indications does Jesus give that He believes the flood story is any more factual than the Prodigal Son?In Matt 16:4, Jesus states:

quote:

---

A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.

---

What is it about this situation that shows us if Jesus was stating that Jonah really was swallowed by a fish? Just because it is a story that everyone knew, and Jesus referred to it, doesn't prove its authenticity. What telltale signs differentiate this story from the Rich Man and Lazarus?

Hello, Faith.

quote:

---

It just seems obvious to me. Isn't it to you?

---

No, it is not obvious to me at all. That is why I am asking. If I knew nothing about the true nature of the sky, or of the hydrological cycle, it wouldn't even occur to me to read those verses as metaphor at all. And since it was a common belief at the time Genesis was written, that the sky was a solid dome that literally separated waters above from waters below, I can't see any reason to assume that these verses were meant as anything other than a literal description of cosmology.

Well, since the flood didn't happen, the flood story represents a cleansing and re-birth.

But how totally ridiculous, something that didn't happen being a symbol of something else that didn't happen. Jesus' parables generalize to many possible real situations; the story of the trees clearly represented an actual ongoing situation in reality, but the Flood? What could it possibly symbolize in the real world? No, it is itself, it WAS the cleansing.

Faith doesn't accept this as fact. I don't see how you can use it to support your conclusion about the symbolic nature of the flood story.

I can't either. I assume they ARE meant as a literal description of cosmology, just as they appear to be.However, there's nothing in the passage that describes a "solid" dome, whatever you may know about what people believed at one time -- and do you get the idea from some source outside scripture that such a thing was believed or only from scripture? The word suggests to me merely the appearance of the "heavens" as they arch from horizon to horizon. What it means that waters were separated above and below it we really have no way of knowing at the moment, simply something quite different than exists now.

Consequences of ignoring or sinning against God? The reason we have rainbows? Fitting of a legend from the past into their religious context?I guess those are not really examples of symbolism but they are possible reasons for the story.