Why read the Bible literally: take two

Well, I'm not committed to that popular interpretation of prophecy. It may have some truth in it or it could be all wrong. I am more persuaded to the view that the rapture will occur at the second and final return of Jesus. The rapture in the popular scenario DOES, however, explain how believers are saved while unbelievers endure wrath. No boat needed. {Believers exist in all denominations by the way). I can't believe that anyone who is not saved in the rapture will be saved afterward, however. That doesn't fit anything in the gospel as I understand it. Nobody was saved besides those on the ark, so nobody will be saved besides those who already believe on the Last Day. But that's a side issue here. Oh you mean because some are saved? Are you just quibbling with the term "annihilation" then? It's not genocide either, however, technically speaking, as believers from all races and tribes are to be saved, and unbelievers from all races and tribes will suffer wrath. God has provided sacrifice for forgiveness of sins, yes, and Jesus is the Ultimate Sacrifice. What is your point though? Living the repentant life, even living by the Proverbs, can restore life too ("It is health to the bones"), whenever one begins to do so. God said He gave His laws as a means to life -- follow them and you will be blessed in all kinds of ways, disobey and the curse is your lot. "Choose life" He said, that is, choose obedience. Jesus is the Sacrifice that ended all other sacrifices. There is an eternal death besides the bodily death. The death of the soul. It is this death He saves us from. But also in that statement He is simply claiming that He has power over death, can raise people from the dead. He did that when He was on earth, and He will do it on the Last Day when all will be resurrected to face the Judgment.

That's called a boo boo on my part. I need an answer to Message 248 which is my answer to your message 246.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Hi, Arach.I didn't mean to say I'm not interested at all in how the text should be read. I agree with your take on it, that the word eretz refers to a local area (but the writers probably thought the flood was "global" - if they had such a concept at all).My point was that the topic is (or should be, in my opinion) about why a literal reading of the Bible is preferred by some. You are talking about how we can tell what is literal and what is not. That has been done to death in these forums, and no consensus has been reached yet.I just wish we could discuss why we can't learn as much from fiction as from history.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

That's about what I expected Steve8 to say.As arachnophilia has tried to point out, that's not the whole answer. But, since jar is on his way to put the horses in the barn, I'll cut to the chase:The meaning if the flood story is that if we obey God, God will protect us. Sin and eschatology are side issues. See, it isn't sin that brings death. Life brings death. Noah and his family all died too eventually. Their deaths don't negate the value of the story.And whether or not the story is literally true has nothing to do with whether or not God is truthful.As I've been trying to say, fiction has as much value as history - if not more value. Do you think Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath is historically accurate? Do you think it contains "truth"? Do you think it has value?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I think it's important in reading Genesis 1-11, that there is even more time covered in that period, than in the rest of the OT combined (excepting prophecy of the future of course).

Well, I wouldn't disagree with that. I'd just ask how much reason we have to trust that God will protect us if we obey Him if His threats don't amount to anything anyway?

So we should obey God because of threats?That's not what Noah did. God didn't tell Noah, "Obey me or I'll drown you." Presumably, Noah obeyed God because it was the right thing to do.God didn't threaten the ones who were drowned either. There was no "threat", so how does a literal fulfilment of a non-existent threat improve the story?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

They knew Noah was building the ark for a hundred years and ignored the implications. If God's punishments are not real, why should anything else He says be real either? Why should we obey Him at all if nothing He says is to be trusted? How on earth is the story of a worldwide cataclysm of any value in teaching obedience, unless there are terrible REAL consequences of DISobedience?

As I said, Noah was never threatened. He did what was right because it was right.Do you want your children to do what's right because of "terrible consequences" - i.e punishment? Or do you want them to do what's right because they understand the consequences?For example, you teach your children not to hit each other. Do you want them to not do it because they're afraid of you hitting them harder? Or do you want them to not do it because they understand that it hurts the other?All in all, a literal understanding of the flood story seems primitive - and less instructive than a broader understanding.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I felt message 232 was my answer re. why take the Flood literally. It just doesn't make sense any other way. You see, you start with the a priori assumption that a global Flood didn't happen, you see all stories on this as being made up in some way...I, on the other hand, view it as an historical event, which other stories allude to, but which the Bible captures most accurately. We have different starting points, that's all.
I don't generally read fiction myself these days (except the Harry Potter books, just to see what all the fuss is about). I prefer non fiction (my last 2 non fiction books were Adventure Of English by Melvyn Bragg and Krakatoa by Simon Winchester). I did try to read the Master and Commander series of fiction books but there was too much ship jargon for my taste.

You cannot learn this from a God who tells outlandish stories that imply a threat that doesn't even happen.

Sure you can.My mother used to tell me outlandish stories about talking bears who ate porridge and slept in beds and sat in chairs. She also taught me not to hit my brothers because it made them cry. She never once hit me or even threatened to hit me to "illustrate" the point.Once again: we learn more from a good example than from a bad one. The literal "vengeful God" story is inferior.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Fear is the most powerful motivator.

Well, I have the same view of the Flood as the NT writers did. Christ likens the unexpectedness of His Second Coming to the days before the Flood, when people went about life's normal activities totally unaware that judgment was imminent (Mt. 24).
Peter, in an extended analogy, portrays salvation by likening it to the Flood (1 Peter 3).
In Peter's second letter, he again refers to the Flood. Those who assume that 'everything goes on as it has since the beginning' of the world 'deliberately forget' that long ago God acted to judge the sins of humanity (2 Peter 3).
If the Flood didn't happen, then God didn't judge.
I think part of the problem here is perhaps some are assuming that all religions are essentially the same and that if you don't have to take one religion's writings literally, then you shouldn't take any of them literally. It seems to me though, that the more you study religions the more you realise how different they are. One thing that became clear to me is that Judaism and Christianity are historical religions. Of course, as I think I said earlier to someone else, literal does not mean that one does not recognise figures of speech etc.
Why do we need to interpret the Flood in any other way, in your view??

Are you saying that religions which have more historical accuracy in their testaments are more true?In other words, because there really was an Egypt and a pharoh, Judaism / Christianity are more believable than, say Cherokee religion which says that Raven flew down and plucked land out of the sea?