- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
25 Apr 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterDo you believe a book in a Bible should exclusively be either "signs" or "literal" and can't contain parts of both?
How can the book of Revelation be both “signs” and literal?
25 Apr 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterSubstantially unsubstantial.
OK mister substantive; answer me this; you believe that the account of the events in the Garden of Eden was literal, correct?
And the tree of life was a real tree, with roots and leaves, correct? It was "planted", right?
And this tree will straddle the river as mentioned in Revelation, correct?
And it's leaves will be for the healing of the nations ...[text shortened]... life now? It was on earth and is supposed to be being guarded by a flaming sword. Where is it???
You've lost the meaning.
25 Apr 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterDifficult for you to believe the content of the context.
No, it’s about context.
You seem to think you're smarter than God. You raise questions based in skepticism, but have no answers, or faith apparently.
Originally posted by @divegeesterWell, it's no surprise that since you have difficulty distinguishing between what's literal and figurative that you have difficulty distinguishing the difference between context and content.
By the way SecondSon, the above is what is known as "context"
You're welcome.
25 Apr 18
Originally posted by @secondsonIs the way you distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible the correct way, by any chance?
Well, it's no surprise that since you have difficulty distinguishing between what's literal and figurative that you have difficulty distinguishing the difference between context and content.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Apr 18
Originally posted by @divegeesterWere you saying something about putting up with "crap" ?
How can the book of Revelation be both “signs” and literal?
Why should I?
I like to converse and even point and counterpoint with posters who are able to show mutual respect.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @dj2beckerExcellent question IMO.
Do you believe a book in a Bible should exclusively be either "signs" or "literal" and can't contain parts of both?
Dive wants to argue something like this:
tree of life in Revelation: Real or Symbolic?
lake of fire in Revelation: Real or Symbolic?
If I say that vine tree running along the river is a symbol, then I should say the lake of fire into which Death, Hades, Satan, Antichrist, and those whose names are not written in the book of life are thrown is also symbolic.
He has a point. But how MUCH of a point is it?
I reason like this and would teach like this:
tree of life is something supremely wonderful. If purely symbolic it still stands for something supremely wonderful.
lake of fire is something ultimately horrible. If purely symbolic it still stands for something ultimately terrible.
Divegeester wishes that we would allegorise a lake of fire to the point that it becomes more benign, less horrendous, not too bad, maybe just meaning non-existence.
He is welcome to that viewpoint. I won't be joining him in any good conscience. No amount of symbolism, I think, can remove that there is apparently a greatest possible offense accompanied by a greatest possible place of judgement, by a greatest Being of greatest righteousness - God.
He seems to reason "sonship, make the allegory of a lake of fire symbolic until it is not so bad." But I can't, even if I wanted to.
Face it. horror and dread is the appropriate response to what the Bible says about eternal punishment no matter how you consider it. The Christian should exercise, however "Looking away unto Jesus" (Heb. 12:2)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
When I receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior into my life, I had a big filter concerning the Bible. At first I didn't read it. I read philosophy of religion instead.
When I had no understanding of what I was reading the Holy Spirit spoke to me (not audibly) " Why don't you read the Bible? "
I started then on a modern English paraphrase called "Good News For Modern Man". I noticed that Jesus took the Old Testament accounts seriously. So gradually I changed my naturalistic filter towards many things in the Old Testament.
I found the integrity of Christ to be beyond questioning. And He believed what He spoke to in the Old Testament. So it must be ok.
That is how I came to accept the Old Testament stories, including the account of Adam and Eve in the garden with a miraculously speaking serpent.
As a result, I would like to think I can be patient with people who are considering accepting Jesus Christ, but who have problems with much of the Bible.
See? That's where I'm coming from.
Having said that, it is important to examine carefully exactly what is being SAID there. Sometimes traditional concept may not be accurate as to what was actually written.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Apr 18
1 edit
Back to the serpent in Genesis?
Since God is trying to communicate to us about a being of His own creation, and since that being became of his own will antithetical to all that God is, it was told us like this initially -
"Now the serpent was more crafty than every other animal of the field which Jehovah God had made. ..." (Gen 3:1)
Yes, God made him.
He was more crafty and more subtle than any other of the creatures God made.
This negative craftiness though was of his own design.
How this occurred is reserved to explain latter in the revelation of the Bible. Ezekiel explains about an immense priestly and kingly like creature made perfect from the day he was created yet corrupted his wisdom.
All of this is to come latter in the Bible's disclosure.
For now, God allowed things to happen so that he could refer to a talking serpent.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
25 Apr 18
Originally posted by @sonshipOnly for a short period of time, after the thread was created.
Is there any way to correct a thread title once written?
25 Apr 18
Originally posted by @fmfNot by chance can/do I distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible the correct way.
Is the way you distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible the correct way, by any chance?
You might want ask me how I distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible in the correct way.
My answer wouldn't do you much good though seeing as how you have no faith in the content of the scriptures.
See what I'm saying? Maybe? Your move.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
25 Apr 18
Originally posted by @secondsonHow do you distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible in the correct way?
Not by chance can/do I distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible the correct way.
You might want ask me how I distinguish between what's literal and figurative in the Bible in the correct way.
My answer wouldn't do you much good though seeing as how you have no faith in the content of the scriptures.
See what I'm saying? Maybe? Your move.
(Particularly within the same book, such as The Book of Revelation).
25 Apr 18
Originally posted by @sonshipIs that why you hang out on these forums?
Before I continue I'd like to let people know that as a kid I loved snakes. Whenever I went to the zoo I would spend the most time at the reptile house. I loved snakes.
I hunted snakes and caught them for pets (if they were suitable). I also purchased a king snake through the mail. You could do that many years ago. They'd send you a snake of your choice ...[text shortened]... was an escape artist and no cage I built could keep him. He finally got away, to my heartbreak.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28791
25 Apr 18
Originally posted by @romans1009You've said that a couple of times but seem oblivious to the fact that not only has sonship himself interchanged between 'snake' and 'serpent,' he even used 'talking snake' in the title of the thread.
It was a serpent, not a snake. There is a difference.