|
Post by GreatMuppetyNick on May 13, 2006 9:47:33 GMT -5
I'm not even sure if I want to participate in this.
But not because of the controversy or the heated argument and all that, but being that this is the first time I will ever read a bible ... seems like a lot of work to me. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Aunt Arlene on May 13, 2006 9:53:00 GMT -5
Why does it make you nervous?...I tend to think the ones on TvTome were much more scarier. Only 2 of you here know about my relationship with God. I am too close to this subject, and so I am leery about posting my views and having them possibly torn down. So, I would rather lurk and keep my beliefs in tact and to myself without the potential scrutiny and judgment's cast that what I say is truthful on what I have experienced and believe. Fair enough? Lets just leave it at that.
If you don't want to participate, that's fine. I can guarantee that no one will tear down your beliefs though. They ONLY time we might quibble is if you said yours was the only point of view.
Otherwise we're all pretty open minded.
Though Nick has a valid point as well. ;D
|
|
|
Post by GreatMuppetyNick on May 14, 2006 9:57:10 GMT -5
Now you have me sounding like a slacker.
|
|
|
Post by dEz on May 14, 2006 10:29:30 GMT -5
I shall remain lurky.
|
|
|
Post by TheMasterGeek on May 14, 2006 10:48:11 GMT -5
I concur.
|
|
|
Post by Bango on May 14, 2006 22:11:26 GMT -5
Now you have me sounding like a slacker. To quote Faith, "It is what it is, yo!"
|
|
|
Post by GreatMuppetyNick on May 15, 2006 2:48:28 GMT -5
Okay ... let's just get this straight. Only Faith can pull this without sounding like a complete idiot.
|
|
|
Post by TheMasterGeek on May 15, 2006 7:04:12 GMT -5
It's that "yo" that makes it all idiot sounding. "It is what it is" doesn't make it idiot sounding. I say "yo" makes it idiot sounding because of it's Philadelphia connection, and we all know Philadelphia is the capital of idiots. The booed Santa Claus.
|
|
|
Post by PyleansDontLeaveMe on May 15, 2006 9:43:05 GMT -5
Philadelphia - the capital of idiots
That's on the city seal you know.
|
|
|
Post by PyleansDontLeaveMe on May 15, 2006 14:05:59 GMT -5
OK - here's my honest question after reading Genesis 1-3
Going on the assumption that the words are directly as God would have us read them, as written by God exactly as god intended -
Does god always speak literally? Does God ever use metaphor or analogy? Or do we assume that God always tells us literally the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I'm wondering, because reading these first three chapters what struck me most is the similarity to the kind of answer a parent might give an inquisitive 4 year old who's asked where they came from
i.e. 'WHen a mommy and daddy love each other very much, their love creates a baby for them to raise and share together, etc.etc. etc.
Perfectly true in an ideal-world-metaphor kind of way, but hardly the whole biological picture, if you know what I mean.
And then I think, at the time when this account was first written, mankind was basically an inquisitive 4 year old, really. We had no real comprehension of the science of anything, we barely had a concept of history.
Is it possible that this is the answer we were given not because it's the whole truth, but because it's as much of the truth as we needed and were able to process at the time?
Just throwing that out there.
|
|
|
Post by Bango on May 15, 2006 22:43:33 GMT -5
Does god always speak literally? Does God ever use metaphor or analogy? I believe both, though in this case He was speaking literally. How could it not? He spoke everything into existed. Formed mankind by His breath and in His image...sounds literal to me. I don't know. He had it written the way He wanted it to,(since further reading says the writers wrote by the Holy Spiriit). But I don't think mankinds' minds were so fragile enough that they had to be spoken of like children. That's what interests me. Right from the beginning, Adam was smart enough to name things. He wasn't a caveman like most people think early humans were--So, I don't think they weren't smart in their own time frame. But I do think it was enough for them. I also think it's enough for us, really. We do have fragile minds. Even the smartest man/woman alive today couldn't comprehend the same sort of mind that God has . I think it would have been too complicated for them to understand, just as it is for us--since we're in a fragile state of mind. But, I do believe the account was literally how it says. Not symbolically, nor metaphorically. How did you like the first 3 chapters? I liked them. I liked how Chapter 2 connects and concludes some stuff from the 6 day creation. Goes more into detail. Chapter 3 is interesting since both Adam and Eve throws blame on someone other than themselves. Adam blames God, since God gave Adam Eve. Eve blames the serpent. They never took the blame.
|
|
|
Post by Rebelman on May 16, 2006 1:56:51 GMT -5
The Truth is literal, and Creation is literal. the LORD operates in 2 fashions both literal and symbolic. Like Jesus is the lamb of God. That has some symbolic even though it is literal. the lamb being the sacrifice to fulfill the old testament.
"In the Beginning Elohim created the Heavens and the Earth"
Meaning the LORD in Father, Word, and Spirit (Elohim) created everything. the LORD has a creativivity hence our creativity. He created everything you see and gave us the capability in our minds to make it and design it. All give glory to Him.
God is truth and the Word was Truth. The Truth comes in every believer in Spirit which has a direct connection to God. That is how they communicate in prayer and in Spirit. That is how a believer reads the scripture in spirit. It becomes tricky when they start reading in humanistic eyes since that is not God at all.
To your other part mankind can comprehend. God gave us heads during that time as well. We did not function as newborns even though technology was not around yet.
The LORD shows a lot about how humans behave in the first 3 chapters. None that can be refuted.
One point is the fall. the fall occurred out of selfishness. Eve wanted the fruit so she could know as much as God and try to supersize herself. Hence the tricky words the serpent (satan) used.
Another point God uses is showing how we wont' blame ourselves for what we do. Notice both of them blamed one another instead of themselves for their very selfish actions.
Everything is put literal here. Jesus is given a rough mention on symbol form right here. "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and betwen your offspring and hers he will cursh your head and will strike his heal"----Genesis 3:15 This fulfills Galatians 4:4.
Jesus comes to strike the serpants hill so that is an example of symbol metaphor in that form written in Genesis.
But since the LORD loved us despite that betrayal he clothed them after they gained some insight on things. That right there shows the LORD can love even the ones who go against Him and eager to love and bless the ones who seek His face.
|
|
|
Post by tjaman on May 16, 2006 9:04:30 GMT -5
But there's no good division on what is literal and what is figurative.
We are to believe G-d created the world in six days.
We are also to believe one of G-d's creations was a talking snake.
It's very confusing when taken literally.
|
|
|
Post by Rebelman on May 16, 2006 10:43:19 GMT -5
But there's no good division on what is literal and what is figurative.
We are to believe G-d created the world in six days.
We are also to believe one of G-d's creations was a talking snake.
It's very confusing when taken literally. The LORD talked to Baalam through a donkey literally so yes things you don't normally see can occur through His creation.
The serpent was one of the creatures. And actually got a curse put on it because of the deception that was given to make man fall in the first place.
When or if we get to later parts of the Old Testament I show show you examples of figures and symbolism in things such as dreams and prophecy.
But the first 3 chapters of Genesis except that part I mentioned in the last post are pretty literal. We read scripture through the Spirit since all scripture is God breathed.
What is confusing about the first 3 chapters of Genesis?
|
|
|
Post by tjaman on May 16, 2006 11:02:56 GMT -5
G-d surely was not talking through the serpent, though, just to be clear. That's your read on it, that the serpent was actually Shai-tan the adversary, yes?
Nothing's confusing to me about the first three chapters of Genesis, beyond your saying some parts are literal and others figurative. You explained that and I understand.
But like you and Bango are uncomfortable/unwilling to discuss the Bible as a work of literature, I'm unable to see it as having been wholly written by G-d, so will just have less to say in the first part of the week, as you and he have less to say during that portion of the discussion.
I'm just biding my time.
|
|