Is the Bible Allegorical or Literal?

[1213]

No good reason? All of the Yale Divinity lectures on the historicity of Genesis are 100% it's a re-worked Mesopotamian myth...

The problem with that claim is, we don't have any proof or reasonable evidence for that. It is possible that the others copied from Bible, or the first versions of Biblical stories. Or that after the flood, people came from same ancestry that had all connection to the original story, which was remembered little differently by different people. No reason to think anything was necessary copy or re-worked.

40:05 two creation stories, very different. Genesis 1 formalized, highly structured
....

There is not really two very different creation stories, if we are literal.

 

[1213]

...
I don't agree with how Baha'is make so much of the Bible and NT allegorical. For me call it false, a hoax, a myth, whatever. but to try and make it "true" by saying it is "symbolically" true, just not "literally" true, makes it easy for Baha'is to make the Bible and the NT into anything they want it to be.

I think the born-again Christians are justified in believing as they do, because they are taking their interpretations from the Bible and NT. Things that they believe are literally true and the Word of God. If it's not the Word of God, if it's just a bunch of fictional stories, then they are basing their beliefs on fiction. Which, to me, there is a very good possibility that is what is happening.

I don't know where you were in the many threads started by Baha'is about evidence for God, but many of them asked for "objective" proof... not just the Baha'is prophet saying that God is real.

Ok, I think people should not twist what is said in the Bible. And maybe it is not possible to prove anything, but for me closest to the objective proof for God is that we have the Bible and life as told in the Bible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How is it etiological??

etiological myths

 

[1213]

...
Christianity, to me, could only be a way to get people to follow moral rules and to practice ethical living by promising them heaven and eternal happiness if they believe in Jesus and obey his commands. Then, of course, if they don't, and follow their own way and follow some evil spirit-being called, Satan, they will be cast into a fiery abyss. Sounds mythical, but can people take that chance?

Lots of people don't and go through the motions of being a "true" believer. They do the minimum that is required to be considered a Christian. And that is say they believe Jesus is their Savior. But then we all see their hypocrisy which then adds to the feeling that Christianity is all make-believe. Plus, all the Christian leaders that have had their sex scandals and lavish lifestyles. Oh, and then the Christian leaders in times gone by that have had people tortured and killed for not believing correctly or not converting.

It is interesting how many Christians don't seem to have any idea of what Jesus taught. Even the leaders don't seem to know. However, in the case of the leaders, it is understandable that they don't know or don't want others to know, because their power and money comes from the ignorance. One of the reasons why I like Bible and Jesus is that it really doesn't fit to the idea to rule and oppress others, if one knows what is actually said in it.

 

[1213]

Then it becomes unrealistically historical instead of teaching us about human nature. Useless.

Why do you think so?

 

[1213]

...
You probably are an honest person, but
an educated honest person could not make
such a silly claim as "No reason".

Why not?

 

[Sand Dancer]

Why do you think so?

Because some of it doesn't jive with known history. Plus when you take something supernatural as fact, it doesn't really help you become a better person. Jesus' teachings, however, do, but only if you apply them.

 

[Audie]

First I want to say thanks joelr, you have given probably the weirdest contradiction claims I have ever seen.



But, is it right to think that in ancient era people were like Madonna, known only by one name? Is it not possible for an ancient person to have more than one name?



It seems to me that you are connecting scriptures erroneously.

Was mount Hor in Moserah?



Also in this case it seems to me that you have misunderstood, or wrong information what is actually said in the Bible.



That shouldn't be so difficult, if one just reads what is said in the book, without own assumptions.

Gen. 2 tells actually how man and woman were formed, not created. It is possible that it is about different matter than Gen. 1, which speaks of creating things. Genesis 2 doesn't speak about creating, it speaks about forming and planting of the garden of Eden.

However, it is possible that Gen 2 is just more accurate description of how man and woman was created. It can be said they were created together, even if it was done as in Gen. 2.



I don't see any problem in those scriptures, when I read them directly from the Bible as it is written. And actually, it is amazing how anyone can see a contradiction in those. Maybe you should copy the Biblical text directly here and explain how you come up to the contradictory conclusion.



Nothing of that means there is a contradiction.



Translations that I use, don't say Jacob renamed the place, it is said only that he called the place... , which obviously is not the same as rename.

He called the name of that place Bethel, but the name of the city was Luz at the first.
Gen. 28:19
Jacob called the name of the place where God spoke with him “Bethel.”
Gen. 35:15



Also in this case my translations say called, not named. It is weird where do you get the idea of renaming or naming.



I think these can be about the same event. I don't see any reason why not, nor any real contradiction.



Apparently you have a very different idea of what is a contradiction. I don't think there is a contradiction in that or other "doublets". Different amount of information doesn't necessary mean a contradiction.

And it seems to me that you have some different translation, because I don't see Bible saying "the first generation" in here:

but in very deed, as I live, and as all the earth shall be filled with the glory of Yahweh; because all those men who have seen my glory, and my signs, which I worked in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have tempted me these ten times, and have not listened to my voice; surely they shall not see the land which I swore to their fathers, neither shall any of those who despised me see it: but my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and has followed me fully, him will I bring into the land into which he went; and his seed shall possess it.
Num 14:21–24

" Different ideas about contradiction"

You see none in the Bible contradicting fact
with a story like " flood"?

If so, the " it seems to me""and " I dont see"
is ( inordinately ) strong with thee.

 

[Audie]

Why not?

I don't doubt your intent to be honest.

But no EDUCATED ( note that I specified "educated" person could honestly say "No reason".

You've haunted these pages enough to have heard reasons galore, so perhaps you can explain how you claim they dont exist.

( btw, " lol" or " funny" icon is not to be used as a way of being dismissive of others' posts)

 

[Audie]

Ok, I think people should not twist what is said in the Bible. And maybe it is not possible to prove anything, but for me closest to the objective proof for God is that we have the Bible and life as told in the Bible.

Good! The closest you can come to proof is the Bible itself, which is readily proven false in certain rather crucial passages.

Now what?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then it becomes unrealistically historical instead of teaching us about human nature. Useless.

I'm not sure that your counterposition makes sense. Every week, in Shabbat service throughout the world, divrei Torah (plural of dvar Torah - word of Torah) presentations are heard and often discussed. The overwhelming majority of those in which I've participated touch on human nature.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How is it etiological??

etiological myth

 

[Sand Dancer]

I'm not sure that your counterposition makes sense. Every week, in Shabbat service throughout the world, divrei Torah (plural of dvar Torah - word of Torah) presentations are heard and often discussed. The overwhelming majority of those in which I've participated touch on human nature.

Never having been to a Jewish shabbat, I can't speak on specifics, but your post gives me hope.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Good! The closest you can come to proof is the Bible itself, which is readily proven false in certain rather crucial passages.

Now what?

Well, I guess that settles it then. Congratulations.

 

[viole]

And are those obvious conclusions that not everyone who claims a personal relationship with God actually has that relationship or that not all those people with personal relationships actually ask God or listen to what God is saying, or is the only obvious conclusion that the idea of a personal relationship with God is rubbish?????????? or ?

I would say that if A and B claim a personal relationship with an expert in X, and A and B come with conclusions about X that differ by 6 orders of magnitude or more, then either A or B are, as you say, saying rubbish. The "OR" is obviously inclusive,

What would you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

Well, I guess that settles it then. Congratulations.

Not really. There was nothing there to settle.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"I am a scientist " is a moderately common claim from people whose own words belie the claim.

One possibility is that they ooce did research but their scientific integrity is so compromised by religious views that they are fired or are otherwise incapacitated and no longer are scientists. Dr K Wise is a sad example of that.

Others may think that doing low level work under supervision in maybe a testing lab makes them "scientists".

Something like having a grade school teacherchirp to her kids "you are all little scientists" when they do some class project.

Whichever the case such claims by people who thInk it gives credibility to their arguments against science seem most lacking in self awareness, especially regarding how the blatant falsehood does the opposite of making their statenents credible.

I agree. Especially when the "science" posted prior to the claim is nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My field was Chemistry. Natural product synthesis. Don’t you think I debate using logic then? I often find I get responded to by the same person who uses nonsense.

How do atoms form molecules form dna to form consciousness in nature without the Creator? This has gone unanswered so far. I would only expect a pithy answer anyway from atheists.

I never suspected that you had any knowledge of science based on what you have posted. In fact, my conclusion was 'not a science guy'.

What evidence do you use to demonstrate the actions of a Creator or the presence of a Creator in the system you are loosely describing? That is the real question and one you should be able to answer and be able to provide the evidence.

That question...is it formed in a way a scientist would ask. Why do you need to go back to how molecules are formed. Wouldn't you be able to tell us, being a chemist and all? DNA is a molecule. It isn't conscious anymore than any other molecule that I'm aware of. Are you trying to ask how consciousness arose and that you cannot conceive of it arising without the actions of a Creator? If so, shouldn't you be showing us all of that, being that you claim it? That you cannot conceive of something, therefore what you want to believe is the actual answer is an argument from incredulity isn't it? That a definitive understanding of the origins of consciousness is unknown at the present means that something supernatural is the default correct answer is an argument from ignorance isn't it. A god of the gaps argument?

There's the logic too.

 

[InChrist]

The problem is that Christianity doesn’t speak with one voice so where is Christianity? To the seeker it presents confusion because no one knows where to find Christianity. One cannot profess love and brotherhood to others while divided among themselves. So people are unable to find truth when so many sects claim they are right and other sects wrong. Who do you believe?

Probably the real problem is that seekers too often are looking for perfect religion and they think Christianity is just another religion, it’s not. Years ago I was confused and I was looking for the right religion and the true church. Thankfully, I didn’t find one…I found Jesus or rather I realized it was Jesus and Him alone that I needed. What a difference between religion and a relationship with Jesus Christ! I think perfection and real love is found only in Christ.

 

[CG Didymus]

Probably the real problem is that seekers too often are looking for perfect religion and they think Christianity is just another religion, it’s not. Years ago I was confused and I was looking for the right religion and the true church. Thankfully, I didn’t find one…I found Jesus or rather I realized it was Jesus and Him alone that I needed. What a difference between religion and a relationship with Jesus Christ! I think perfection and real love is found only in Christ.

But what should a person know and believe about Jesus to have the right relationship with him? And those people should then be the true believers and the true Church shouldn't they?

Then what do you do with the people that believe a little differently? And they meet in a building around the corner from where you meet. And then around the corner from them is a group that believes slightly different from them. At what point are the differences so much that you call them wrong and not believers in the true Jesus?