If Adam and Eve are figurative

Yeah. Especially when you start with I believe the whole Bible should be taken literally.

3 Likes

LOL…How then should I take it…figurative? I didn’t know you meant “mowing the lawn” in a literal sense, dad. I thought mowing the lawn meant watching TV :slight_smile:

I can see what you saying; however, I believe Elijah was taken to heaven by God. In the transfiguration in the Synoptic Gospels, this seems to be the case. I feel that the spirit of Jesus was in Paradise with the Father and the Holy Spirit. That is why the Methodist Church leaves “He descended into hell” out of the Apostles’ Creed. When you have time, I hope to hear from you again. You have a good mind, my friend. God bless.

Was Jesus lying when he spoke in parables?

1 Like

Back in my day we read the book “Animal Farm” in 9th grade. Nowhere in that book does it say that it is an allegory. Nowhere. I still knew that it wasn’t meant to be a literal historical account, and I don’t know how anyone would read that book and think it was meant to be read literally.

That is why I still find it hard to believe that people can read the Genesis creation story and think it is trying to be a literal account. It has magical trees, a talking snake, obvious archetypes, and everything one would expect in an allegory. I dread to think what creationists think after watching the Avatar “documentary”.

1 Like

Most advocates for literal forms of reading do acknowledge the various literary genres and the difficulties associated with interpretations. Therefore a literal sense of each thing is inappropriate. Furthermore, Jesus himself often completely changed interpretations of OT teaching (establishing divorce as given due to human limitations which opens quite a bit of flexibility in terms of understanding the OT). Then Jesus emphasizes the relationship rather than merely searching the Scriptures for eternal life (John 5:39). In fact, reading Scripture is not simple or plain (this is clearly attested to within the bible and throughout church history and in reality).

I loved the simple propositional grammatical historical limitations on understanding the text. This brought a lot ease and comfort into understanding and can lead to certain world views. The problem with all systems of understanding that we currently have is that there are significant gaps, flaws, and limitations that do not allow clarity other than through faith in Jesus Christ. There are character and evidence and textual issues in Genesis 1-11 and if viewed through a different lens, other problems arise as well.

Part of what Biologos and other places focus on is having conversations around the relationship of science, the bible, and theology. I know that you reject assumptions behind much of science that relates to old age, evolution, and other controversial topics and I am sure that you understand that the vast majority of evidence and science supports from multiple perspectives and lines of evidence. Not only this but we can further test these concepts by applying them to solve problems and develop effective models in our own time. Thankfully we can come together to discuss, learn about one another, and see different perspectives.

I am a science educator coming from a biology and biochemistry background. Regardless of viewpoint, I feel that most churches and groups significantly err in their own certainty and in the simplicity of their approaches to these topics. We have a large level of uncertainty regarding many issues regardless of how we decide to approach the text. If we had more honest conversations corporately then part of this culture war and antagonism can end. We as participants demand conversations and sermons that do not include a robust view of the topic or skew it heavily and leadership happily feeds into authority loops which in turn causes long-term instability. If this was reflected in our communities, then there would be some conflict and stress but maturity would be the goal rather than religious partisanship.

2 Likes

Jesus never spoke of parables as if they were true events. But if he did, then they would be true events. :slight_smile:

The point of parables

(Matthew 13:11) " And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given."

Appreciate the response, but Genesis 1-11 is quite simple and plain

What are you basing this on?

The point of the parable in Genesis seems lost on you.

1 Like

It would better be read as,
Back in my FIRST day we read the book “Animal Farm” in 9th grade.
Back in my SECOND day we read the book “Animal Farm” in 9th grade,
Back in my THIRD day we read the book “Animal Farm” in 9th grade.
Doesn’t make sense, does it?

Now, if I say, In the beginning of ninth grade. We read “animal farm” on the first day.

As for talking snakes…well just because something sounds ridiculous (and it does) doesn’t necessarily make it untrue.

(2 Peter 2:16) “but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.”

Do we not believe that the donkey spoke? Do we toss this?

There’s a parable in Genesis???

:slight_smile: DITTO! My friend

1 Like

There are actually literary and historical reasons to group Genesis 1-11 as a chunk.

And one doesn’t have to “except” these chapters from trusting the Bible. One can say that one trusts the Bible completely — full stop — and that, in the case of Genesis 1-11, one trusts those chapters to give us different kinds of truth than the scientific or historical kind.

As for what atheists would think of that sort of approach, they’re here among us so we can ask them instead of just surmising about what hypothetical straw-man atheists think: @T_aquaticus, @sfmatheson, would you respect a Christian who took this approach?

3 Likes

I would respect a Christian more if they were able to understand that truth can be found in allegory and myth, just as it is in so many of the works that humans have created over the millennia. If you think Aesop’s Fables can’t teach us anything because animals can’t talk then you have missed the entire point of those fables.

3 Likes

Well I used to be a Christian who took that approach, so yes of course I can respect it. All anyone has to do to “respect” that approach is acknowledge the simple and plain fact that “the bible” is not a singular book, and so, obviously, one reads some of its books differently than others. This has nothing to do with atheism or believe, and everything to do with basic rationality.

By the way, it’s reasonable to assume that those Christians on this forum who refer most often to atheists’ beliefs are those who know the least about such beliefs. Some of the accounts of “conversations” with “highly educated atheists” look like fiction to me.

4 Likes

I am sure people who don’t believe Genesis 1-11 as literal history would think that.

And one doesn’t have to “except” these chapters from trusting the Bible.

I beg to differ. If Genesis 1-11 is not true, then the bible cannot be taken as truth. How do I know that Abraham even existed?

one trusts those chapters to give us different kinds of truth than the scientific or historical kind.

Sorry, I only know of ONE truth in scripture, and Genesis on up leads to Christ coming

LOL…I constantly give atheists the gospel. Rational Response Squad for one. I haven’t been to their forum in a couple years but it was quite interesting. Would you like to talk about Dawkins, Hitchens, Flew, Sam Harris whose blog I frequent quite a lot. :slight_smile:

In another post you wrote:

“A few months ago I was talking to an highly educated Atheist about the gospel, and like many of these encounters we got off topic . . . He said, your bible is false, because evolution is true.”

Are you saying that you agree with this atheist, that evolution disproves the Bible?

Off topic, my friend. Don’t want to get this thread shut down :slight_smile:

Well, we can discuss the evidence, or you can make assumptions. Your choice! … although I’ll admit that if you want the evidence, I’ll have to either tag-team the OT scholars here or else re-educate myself about the particulars of this basic fact of the structure of Genesis.

Who said anything about “not true”? Certainly not me!

I’ve been trying to parse this statement, and I’m not sure I’ve understood you. Do you mean that Jesus Himself is the Truth, and that the whole of Scripture leads up to Him? If that is what you’re saying, then that would be the thing you’ve said that I’ve most agreed with in this entire conversation. If not, please clarify.