Hmm, would you care to expound on that? A little bit of your own interpretation might help.Originally Posted by blazeofglory
Hmm, would you care to expound on that? A little bit of your own interpretation might help.
Despite the snow,
Despite the falling snow.
Hi Aaron. Well now this is a terribly interesting question for me. Jung postulated a collective unconscious, a kind of shared, underlying psyche, if you will, filled with symbolism and “archetypes” as he put it. It begs a lot of questions that the same motifs turned up in many different places, sometimes at the same times. Perhaps they were (are) all different ways to explain that which is otherwise unexplainable. Creation, for example, is a tough thing to get one’s mind around. It doesn’t surprise me that this is something best left to allegory. And, given Jung’s view, it further doesn’t surprise me that the many allegories would be similar and, in my view, deserving of at least somewhat equal weight.
Yes, he was God almighty. Or at least as close to the divine as perhaps any man has ever come. And a metaphorical reading might suggest that in some sense, so can we all be so close. That would be the allegory. And that’s why, even if the story is not grounded in actual events, you'd still want to be a Christian. The Incarnation exists in some sense as a possibility for us all. This is the thing to achieve. This is what one should strive for. This is what the story points to. Luke 17:21 “Neither shall they say ‘lo here!’ or ‘lo there!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”...you have to understand that the resurrection story cannot be just an allegory. It is the truth. If it isn't - I don't want to be a Christian. If the resurrection isn't true. I'm believing a man that's been dead and decayed for 2000 years to be God almighty.
“All” there is? I know it wasn’t given the seal of approval by the early church leaders, and therefore presumably does not represent the true “Word of God”, but I like it anyway: “The Kingdom of God is spread upon the earth and men do not see it.” – The Gospel of Thomas.Yes, Jesus taught some wonderful essential truths, but without his resurrection, I have no assurance that this isn't all there is and in the end I become worm food.
jgweed said
Oh, I completely agree that there is no reason that all the Bible should be taken literally. There is definitely some figurative parts, some historically actual parts (which comprises most of all the narratives in it) and some that blend the two, when actual events are meant to teach lessons.I have read carefully the passages quoted in post Nr.11; in none of them, as I interpret them, is there a clear statement about whether or not the Bible should be interpreted literally, whether all passages in it should be interpreted the same way, or precisely what is meant by "moved by the Holy Ghost."
My point was that the Bible does indeed claim to be the words of the Living God and thus cannot have contradictions contained in it. If it is the Spirit that moved men to write it, then he governed the infallibility of it.
cipherdecoy said
Jesus was speaking to his followers. This is actually all of what Jesus said concerning the subject..........The phrase "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" seems to be a contradiction to the teaching's of Christ, who fosters forgiveness and mercy instead of revenge.
Could you expound on that?
Matt 5:38-42
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
(KJV)
Jesus' point is that in his followers' lives, mercy was of utmost importance. That it is better to absorb an injury rather than have it settled in court. That's the main point. When the law of the Old Testament stated "an eye for an eye", it was giving instruction to magistrates and judges in how to handle complaints. Jesus never abrogated this as a good law to abide by for the courts, but he's urging his followers to allow injury to be absorbed that they may demonstrate the mercy that God was about to reveal to them in Jesus Christ.
Remember, you can't call this a contradiction simply because there is one place where God says that the way it's always been will be drastically changed. There is an old and a new testament. These are different ways that God is interacting with man.
Jer 31:31-33
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
(KJV)
Sometimes yes sometimes no. You can easily tell by the way the story is told. As with the flood - the Bible is simply telling the story of a man's life and God's interaction with him. And God's judgment on a wicked world. How is this to be allegorical.is the Bible to be taken literally?
Peter didn't think it was allegorical.
2 Pet 3:5-6
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
The stories are there to teach lessons, but God also accurately recorded the things that actually happened.If not, how then are the metaphors going to be interpreted? Surely they are going to be subjected to various interpretations as well. I agree with what you said about language, but aren't metaphors too secondary for a book of such a purpose? For example, perhaps since language already cannot capture every aspect of what the Bible truly means to convey, why would one want to further obfuscate it with metaphors?
1 Cor 10:11
11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
(KJV)
Paul is here speaking of Old Testament stories and says these things "happened" to them, indicating it is not only figurative, for ensamples (or illustrations) for us.
So you see, the Bible itself tells us its stories are real and illustrative.
In my opinion you are mixing up two ideas. Namely that of authority and that of value.Also, isn't the Bible sexist?
I Timothy 2:11-14
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
The one thing that this says is that the man is in the authority. God set up the family structure and the church structure, because He is the originator of both.
If the top dog where you work sets one person over you, do you then conclude that he or she has determined that person to be of superior worth as a human to you?
Christianity is very tender to women. They are called in the New Testament "the weaker vessel" which may enrage feminists. But see what it actually says...
1 Pet 3:7
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Give them honor, protect them love them.. here's a few more examples
1 Tim 5:1-2
1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
1 Cor 7:3-4
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Eph 5:25
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Eph 5:33
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Col 3:19
19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.
I could cherry pick Bible verses that make it seem to be anti-male if I wanted to but I try to read it in context. We live in a far different culture and different age, so there will be things that I have a bit of trouble understanding as well. But I don't consider the Bible to be sexist at all. It just requires that a man be manly and protect and love and reverence his wife.
Then there is also the issue of violence and cruelty.
I'm only gonna give you a short answer. I gave it in even briefer form earlier. The law in the Old Testament (where you are getting these things from) can be nicely divided into 3 parts. Moral laws, Civil laws, and ceremonial laws.31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
If that is to be taken literally, it would mean that God wanted those who broke the Sabbath to be executed. If that was truly the case, why is it no longer the case now in the 21st century? Shouldn't the teachings of the Bible be timeless? Why shouldn't God mete out the same punishments when we're people all the same?
The ceremonial laws were there to point to Christ. They were called "shadows of the substance that is Christ" in Colossians. In the Sabbath we see completion and rest from works. We do not find salvation in works but in our rest in Christ. If you continue in your works to merit your salvation you will ultimately be die the eternal death. This was the picture - it is no longer to be enforced because CHrist said as much.
Jesus was always accused by the leadership of the time of breaking the Sabbath, but He said He is "Lord, even of the Sabbath". The teaching of scripture is eternal in its purpose. The purpose of the Sabbath law, The dietary laws, the Sacrificial laws (all done away with according to the book of Hebrews) were set forth to foreshadow the coming Messiah, Jesus.
And besides it was written that there would be a change in the testament of God's dealing with men. It would not make the Old Testament of no use, but it would illuminate it.
Jer 31:31-33
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Which brings me to another point - while language may be an excuse for diverse interpretations, the content should not. Although they were written by people who lived in different eras, many principles should be timeless. For example, murder is as wrong now as it was before, as opposed to doing something else like killing an animal as a sacrificial offering. Since the latter will later prove to be irrelevant, shouldn't it therefore be omitted to prevent confusion? (I don't think that practice has elicited much confusion, but I hope the example managed to put my point across)
I think I've deviated a little from my initial questions, but do answer them and thanks for your reply. Pardon any ignorance on my part - I'm no serious reader of religion.[/QUOTE]
Last edited by AARONDISNEY; 06-07-2008 at 01:36 PM.
Definately not false, perhaps incomplete. For example, not all of the descendants of Adam are named, when there would have to be many to populate the earth, and sons and daughters. Many of the animals that we know to have existed are not mentioned. There is room for more time to have passed which is not recorded. For example, how long were Adam and Eve in the garden before the fall? We don't know, as it isn't recorded. They were there for a time, for it says God walked with them in the cool of the eve. The geneologies start with after the fall, with the birth of Seth, so how much time had passed and who else was born, as Cain had needed a wife?
Genesis puts down most of the important things, but doesn't record everything. Whole generations pass without much comment until Noah. By then the Earth has a population that has become wicked before God. How did this happen without many others being born that have passed without comment? The Book of Genesis is a record of the children of God as a main theme. Many other people have lived that are never recorded. So it is incomplete. But the Bible isn't exactly a history book, now is it? So what we need to know is there for our lessons on how to be and how not to be. History is usually biased anyway!
God Bless
Pen
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
The bible is true and you better belve it bub.
my b-day is on july, 18 so visit my blognow.... its.... PARTY TIME
If you do not take it literally there will be more interpretations. The bible is definitely written by man.
God does not do the writing stuff at all.
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
I don't think the Book of Genesis is true but I do think it's very well-written.
I Agree, God Spoke to Mose
Genesis starts with, In the beginning God Created the heven and the earth. and the earth was without form and void. No where does the Bible say the earth was created on day one. In another part of the Bible it say a thousand years is like a day and a day a thousand years. Who knows how long it all took. God did it. Maybe he did take billions of earthly years, day is subjective to the reader. God started making earth habital on "day " one. God is too great to put into little boxes.
The Fundies believe it all. Others 'pick and chose' which bits to believe but they never tell you How they make their choices.
Where do I start on this one???
Okay. You said, "nowhere does the Bible say the earth was created on day ONE"
I certainly can't see how you can read this and say that the Bible doesn't say that God created the earth on day One. Read it carefully and as it is written without putting any other mumbo jumbo in it. Just read it as it's written....
GENESIS 1:1-5
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
The word "day" is NOT subjective to the reader. "Day" can mean a number of different things, both in English and in the Hebrew (the word is yom).
In English we could use day to refer to
-a period of time - possibly consisting of years. "back in my father's day" for example.
-the period of sunlight hours
"I work in the day"
or
literal 24 hour days
"It should take me about 5 days to finish the job"
The way you tell which is meant is by the context surrounding it. Obviously the context surrounding the narrative in Genesis 1 is 24 hour days. God even overemphasizes it by saying "and the evening and the morning was the first day (as with all the other days).
To me the day-age theory is stupid. It is also heretical. The Bible says that man brought death into the world (Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:).
So if there are fossils of men older than 6,000 years ago, the Bible is wrong. But if their dating methods are erroneous (which they ARE) - the Bible is at least plausible, for those who don't follow it, and vindicated for those of us that believe it to the letter.
Also, you quote "a day is as a thousand years". This is not a good argument. The verse is simply saying that time is irrelevant to God.
Why is it that it is crystal clear what is meant in every other instance that the Bible mentions the word "day", but so many people, Christians included, stumble up in Genesis.
I don't know any Christians that think Jonah was in the belly of the fish 3 thousand years. I don't know any Christians that think Jesus was in the tomb 3 thousand years, or that during the flood it rained 40,000 years. It's clear in those instances that 24 hour days are implied and it is clear in Genesis 1 that 24 hour days are implied.
Probably because Genesis 1, 2, and 3 were never supposed to be taken as literal stories. That solves the problem of taking the days literally or not. If you understand the stories to be "myths" performing a theological function and not as the literal creation of human beings the problem is solved.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
The problem isn't solved for me by far. The story of Genesis is a continuous story. Adam had a son who had a son who had a son and so on and so forth. Eventually that went on and on to Noah. Noah's sons had sons and so forth all the way to Abraham. Abraham had a son who had a son who had a son named Levi. Levi had a descendant named Moses.
Hopefully you see where I'm going with this. If Genesis is simply myth, yet- I would assume you to believe that Abraham, Moses and Jesus (as I'll show Him connected with all this in a moment) were real, why do you suppose Adam to be mythological He's tied in with it all.
Tell me, in the following genealogy - where do the real people begin and the 'mythological' people end?
# And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
# Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
# Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
# Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
# Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
# Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
# Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
# Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
# Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
# Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
# Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
# Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
# Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
# Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
# Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
# Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Any genealogy, father to son, is mythological, at least in the pre-DNA testing era, since no-one can be sure who his father is.
Voices mysterious far and near,
Sound of the wind and sound of the sea,
Are calling and whispering in my ear,
Whifflingpin! Why stayest thou here?
Would a single falsehood negate the entirety of God's word? Yes. Because God wouldn't lie or mislead.
Whether the Bible should be taken literally or not depends on which sect you poll. Those who take it literally, as I did for a time, run into problems with what we know of the world now. Those who wish to make peace between current knowledge and scripture, as I eventually did, allow the Bible to be understood allegorically.
Clarity and ambiguity--According to Genesis, God created our plethora of languages at Babel. He's fully aware of the difficulties translating between cultures, let alone tongues, and that the problems worsen when millennia separate the languages and cultures. Presumably he understands that ambiguity is a necessary component of language, and that it is multiplied when one tries to translate.
Ambiguity and interpretation is unavoidable. Anyone who has misunderstood a post, or been misunderstood, can begin to understand this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
