4 edits
Do you take the Sports Page literally ?
"The Dolphins got crushed by the Astros. "
Facts you take as Facts.
Metaphors you take as metaphors.
Allegories you take as allegories.
History you take as history.
IE. Greg Koukle's four short videos on "Taking the Bible Literally" and trick question of skeptics. (Here's two videos). Those interested will watch.
Those just wanting to ask trick questions will probably not bother.
1.)
2.)
Originally posted by josephwThis may seem clear to you. To me it sounds like a handful of blustering cliches.
How I know the words are inspired is how I know anything about God.
That's not at confusing as it sounds. It's quite simple and easy to understand when one understands this one very basic idea, i.e. that what is know about God is revealed by God to man. A man cannot learn about God what God does not teach about Himself. God is the final authority. A man i ...[text shortened]... of the nature, attributes and character of God.
If the Word of God is not true, then what is?
Originally posted by josephwCould you please repost that sober?
How I know the words are inspired is how I know anything about God.
That's not at confusing as it sounds. It's quite simple and easy to understand when one understands this one very basic idea, i.e. that what is know about God is revealed by God to man. A man cannot learn about God what God does not teach about Himself. God is the final authority. A man i ...[text shortened]... of the nature, attributes and character of God.
If the Word of God is not true, then what is?
Originally posted by sonshipThe OP imho poses a very simple, but very real, issue, and it deserves an answer, not a reference to a video.
Facts you take as Facts.
Metaphors you take as metaphors.
Allegories you take as allegories.
History you take as history.
The question, as I understand it being posed, is exactly WHEN is something a metaphor, or an allegory, and when should it be taken literally? And who decides?
Here is my opinion, and I don't deny that it is subjective:
On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is poetical, metaphorical and symbolic, and 10 is absolutely literal, Genesis 1 rates a 1 and the coat story in Matthew rates a 7.
1 edit
It's obvious when the bible is being literal or figurative. Anything that tries to give a history of the world or the Jews is meant to be taken literally. The parables of Jesus are figurative.
The whole quibble over figurative vs. literal happens when Christians are aware of how silly or evil the Bible's teachings are. For example, creation and evolution. Some Christians know it's stupid to argue for creation, and take the whole "allegory" route. The same for hell and the Bible's anti-gay or sexist teachings.
2 edits
Originally posted by CalJust
The OP imho poses a very simple, but very real, issue, and it deserves an answer, not a reference to a video.
The question, as I understand it being posed, is exactly WHEN is something a metaphor, or an allegory, and when should it be taken literally? And who decides?
Here is my opinion, and I don't deny that it is subjective:
On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is poetical, metaphorical and symbolic, and 10 is absolutely literal, Genesis 1 rates a 1 and the coat story in Matthew rates a 7.
How to understand what is being conveyed in passages of Scripture is a skill to be learned. I don't think one moment or even one afternoon will suffice in a Bible reader mastering this skill.
I would like to play chess like a master. This takes time. Two or three lessons won't equip one to be that good.
If you stay with the practice of the game you pick up skill. If you are willing to stand some on the shoulders of others who have put in much time before you, you also will pick up some skill.
I speak this by way of allegory and not because I am a great chess player.
So we come the the Bible in which God spoke "in many portions and in many ways". Some places are obvious. Other places require some skill in discriminating.
God is Father to His believers. He can lead us through the paths of effective and realistic Bible understanding. You do not have to jump into the book of Revelation as your first book.
I would advize new readers to take in Luke and John as first books. I would not encourage one to cut their baby teeth on Leviticus or Zechariah or the first chapters of Ezekiel necessarily. Then again I would not make it a legality that they cannot.
In my case, I first built up an utter trust in Jesus in the New Testament. Then from the NT I launched into Genesis and from there the rest of the OT. When I saw how seriously Jesus took Genesis, I decided that if it was good for Jesus then it must be good. His integrity and wisdom first became beyond reproach to me.
Others may have a different story.
There are good commentaries to assist in discriminating how passages can bet taken. In hindsight, sometimes, the Christian will look BACK over the expositions that he received and be able to separate the profitable ones from the less profitable ones.
That is enough for this post.
I can deal with the specific passage asked about as I would interpret latter.
