Biblical literalists and literalisms

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke

Okay, let's simplify it for you.
--------------------------------------------------


A literal account is meant to be taken 'factually' (due to it 'actually' happening). -A metaphor is used instead of a factual account, to illustrate a point. (In this sense it is a 'fictional' tool to get a particular message across).
-----------------------------------------------------------------

If the word metaphor is somehow not appropriate to something historical that also has allegorical significance from the God Who transcends time, then that only means we can only "borrow" the word metaphor.

I have used some words - symbols, allegories, maybe "type" (in the past), maybe "shadows" (again in past posts) or "signs". If any of these words seem not quite appropriate to what I explain according to your dictionaries - it only means that they are being borrowed to make points.

Doe example, We who believe in the Trinity realize that the word "Persons" can only really be borrowed to describe a mysterious three ________ (?) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So the phrase "three Persons" will just have to do for the moment.

The Bible contains some actual historical matters which in revelation are seen as allegorical of profound truths related to His purpose. Sorry. That's just the way it is.
And if Websters indicates the description of such a phenomena could not really be called a ______________, then we just have to live with that.

We may have to borrow a term in order to indicate what is the situation.
Lacking a precise definition is not used by us to demonstrate God could not do such a thing.

Another thing - that creative minds can concoct such imitations may be true too. This does not mean God never did such a thing, That is over generalization.

When Moses wrote certain things he may not have known that they would be seen by the illumination of the Holy Spirit to be symbolic as well as historical.

And a further thing. The question may arise WHICH is really MORE REAL ? the symbol or the truth that the symbol points to?

Marriage is allegorical. It points to the union of Christ with His people as a corporate entity that matches Him and is His counterpart forever.

Which is MORE real? Marriage as we know it or the thing marriage is intended by God to be a symbol of? I would say that human marriage is indeed very genuine and real. But the thing which it points to is even MORE of a lasting and eternal reality.

The joining of Christ and the church as the seen in Revelation 21 and 22 as a climax of history - an eternal mingling and union of God with man is even more substantial, more real, more of an everlasting reality than the God ordained human institution of marriage.

More on this perhaps latter.


This is why I said you can't have two opposites and claim they are the same, for how can something be both 'factual' and 'fictional' at the same time? (The answer is, it can't).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are reasoning with the subtraction of the power and providence of God Almighty.
I include God in my reasoning process about this.
You begin, proceed, and arrive at your conclusion MINUS God.
I include God in each step of my reasoning about it.

Aaron the priest - historical and symbolic (or allegorical or typology).
exactly which word to use, I may have to revisit. Aaron the High Priest also pointed to Christ the Son of God. See Hebrews.


To conflate the two is a nonsense. You just need to be satisfied with the knowledge that a metaphor still carries meaning, despite its lack of literal integrity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historical places and people that existed in time and space under God's illumination were seen in a revelatory way to be significant of truths in God's economy.

We are dealing with One who is over all time and sees all in omniscience.

Originally posted by @sonship
My opinion at present is that this thing will involve something of the earth's inner bowls of magma or lava.

My opinion is that prophecy, usually when fulfilled, ends up being a "then some" matter of at least what was prophesied plus more.

In the principle of prophetic prediction what we read is often just the tip of the iceberg. ...[text shortened]... d to hear it. This is not only on the negative side but certainly on the positive side as well.

And if someone were to describe all these superstitious notions of yours as "syphilis in the mind", would that be a kind of discourse that you would welcome?

Originally posted by @josephw
We can take your word for it.

The extraordinary claims about supernatural beings and phenomena are for you to prove. The burden of proof is yours.

Originally posted by @fmf
The extraordinary claims about supernatural beings and phenomena are for you to prove. The burden of proof is yours.

The most extraordinary claim that exists is that there is no God in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It is not my responsibility or burden for your lack of belief.

Originally posted by @josephw
The most extraordinary claim that exists is that there is no God in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is not my responsibility or burden for your lack of belief.

Your belief that the world around us, and we ourselves, are evidence that we were created is not evidence that a "lake of fire" exists, which is what is being discussed here.

Originally posted by @josephw
The most extraordinary claim that exists is that there is no God in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Nonsense. And I bet you already know that.

Originally posted by @fmf
Are the "chains" - that you believe the burning non-Christians are hung out on as a deterrence to beings on other planets - literal or allegorical?

This is simply your needling with little other intent then to just annoy.
And it is a nod to Divegeester, another poster to join in the "fun."

nothing more

- sonship

Originally posted by @fmf
The extraordinary claims about supernatural beings and phenomena are for you to prove. The burden of proof is yours.

Do you want physical proof for something that is not physical? Or what kind of proof would you accept?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you want physical proof for something that is not physical? Or what kind of proof would you accept?

Something not based on circular logic or based purely on the sincerity/certainty of your assertions.

Originally posted by @gswilm
This is simply your needling with little other intent then to just annoy.

You are wrong. It is a straight forward question. Furthermore it is on topic. Here it is again:

Are the "chains" - that you believe the burning non-Christians are hung out on as a deterrence to beings on other planets - literal or allegorical?

Originally posted by @fmf
Something not based on circular logic or based purely on the sincerity/certainty of your assertions.

Would you care to give me an example of something supernatural that you believe in (like love) that isn't based on circular logic or based purely on the sincerity/certainty of your assertions? You do believe in the existence of love don't you?