Wow, Pletho, I don't think I've ever agreed with you more. Especially the bolded. The "God didn't mean an actual day" interpretation of Genesis is, IMO, one of the biggest stretches some theists make in trying to square the bible with known science. There is absolutely nothing that hints that the OT authors intended the word to mean anything other than what it still means today. The context seems to imply that they meant nothing more than day in the usual sense (how are we to view the day of rest? He needed millions of years of rest?). The word "day" has meaning today, it had the same meaning back then. The authors are pretty specific about other time periods, why did they pick THIS one alone not to be specific about. Why use the word at all if they didn't mean an actual day: they could have just said: first God did this, then he did that, then he did that. That would, IMO, open up a much bigger window for interpretation that all of it occurred over eons.

If anyone has an argument otherwise, I'd love to hear it. But if not, please admit you're just trying to square a circle.

You'll get no disagreement from me. The only thing is whether the ENTIRE bible is figurative, to one extent or another. The prof in that online OT course described the OT as a collection of stories designed to define a communities relationship with their God, and to define themselves, not really as any kind of history. She seemed to indicate that original adherents wouldn't themselves have taken these stories to be literally true. The OT makes much more sense in this context, IMO.

As an aside: are you a theist?

The entire bible is without a doubt not figurative, if one spends time and studies scripture you can see one way or another. There are situations where this isnt as clear, but at the end of the day I dont believe that if it is figurative or litural it takes anythin away from the intention of it.
I think you would be hard pressed to find a person trying to say that the parabels that Jesus taught where true, but we cant imagine any of the other people involved in the evolution of Jewdasim and christianity to use this same method of teaching? And once again, the parable of the good samaritan is as powerful weither you see it as a parable or actual event.

I am a christian 100%

That outline I used, if you found the right one, had some good stuff to say but was also somewhat misguided.

Honestly I think the point of this whole post is about "do you take everything literally", I'm not going to lie and say that I know the answer to all of the questions above, but my answer is, to me it doesnt really matter if that is what happened or it was used to convey a specific message.

Do I think that miricles can happen? yes. So I cannot automatically assume that everything that seems a bit crazy to me (virgin birth) isn't possible, but it wouldn't smash my world if it wasnt the case either.

There is a lot of writings about stuff like this: look up rob bell, velvet elvis is really good, but all of his are great, or Brain Mc Claren.

Sorry about my spelling guys.

I believe pure literalism is a modern fundamentalist trend from the past few hundred years. Sometime in the future I hope to read more of Origen, an early Church father. Though the Roman civil authorities prosecuted him as a heretic for his reincarnation beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

I'm listening to The Historical Jesus, a Yale course available on Itunes U. The prof has the same point, that the authors of the bible agrandized the man to make the point, and to describe a relationship. You'd probably find it interesting.

Thank you for the replies. Very interesting.

There are free spelling checkers available. Do yourself a favor. They make a big difference.

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/features/

for IE
http://www.iespell.com/

There's one in the reply box (or if you're using firefox, it automatically underlines in red.

Apparently God provided Moses with a decent spell checker.

I'll have to take a look at it though I tend to dislike any attempts to downplay Jesus' contributions. But I'm rather bogged down right now reading Michael Green's "Evangelism in the Early Church", Bruce Chilton's "Rabbi Jesus", Craig A. Evan's "Holman's Resource Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls" and Anthony De Mello's "Seek God Everywhere: Reflections on the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius". Though I just managed to finish Charles Spurgeon's "Spurgeon on the Holy Spirit" I'm still working my way through Henry Wright's book.

Can you explain the thought process that leads to deciding different languages were created at the tower of Babel is true, but a donkey talking to Balaam is false.

Just curious what you find incredulous about a talking donkey, but not about a talking snake or the spontaneous creation of different languages.

I don't get how some of you aren't thoroughly embarrassed to admit your belief in some of these things. Is it because of internet anonymity? Would you really admit these beliefs at a social gathering or to your child's professor or college administrator?


Btw- I think the most ridiculous belief is the tower of Babel story. Not because it is the farthest fetched, but because of what we know about the origin of language.

I am not a Christian but I have a Catholic friend who believes that the story of Jesus is a mythological construct and he is unsure of the historic details of the man.

We might get a more accurate sample of what Christians believe is literally true versus what they believe is allegorical, if we refrain from criticizing them during the information gathering phase.

The number of responses is still disappointing. This is the internet. This may be your only chance to reveal what you believe without your friends and family knowing.

God might find out, but only if he regularly reads 2+2.

It is because there are not many theists here, and apparently many of those that are here don't see any value to this thread.

That is possible.

There is evidence that many have not gone through the process of identifying what they believe is literal vs allegorical. Phrases such as "I don't know" and "I haven't thought about it" are hints. Haven't they read God's official manifesto, or is it tl:dr?

If you look at the Biblical Exegis section under the wiki entry for the Zohar you'll see 4 types of exegesis mentioned:

1.) the simple or literal known as "Peshat"
2.) the allusion, or allegorical meaning known as "Remez"
3.) the rabbinic illustration through sermon, metaphor or illustration known as "Derash"
4.) the secret/mysterious hidden meaning: "Sod"

I think this is similar to Origen's (an early church father) exegesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar

It says P, R, D, S form PaRDeS or paradise/orchard. A four fold meaning for the text with the mystical meaning being the highest.

What? Did you mean to respond to someone else's post? I don't see how anything you said has to do with what I said.

In my first sentence, I acknowledged what you wrote, and wrote that it is possible. I am new to this RGT Forum. I don't know the approximate number of Christians, Deists, Agnostics, Atheists, etc.

I then went on to offer my own independent observations and conclusions.

They were not meant to disagree with yours.

Maybe later, after I have more info. But nothing apparent yet.

lol, my fault. My reading comprehension skills failed me. I read what you wrote as "that's not possible". sorry, carry on.

Straight from the Holy Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...33&version=KJV
or str8 from the ass's mouth, so to speak.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+3&version=KJV
Enlighten us Rabbi. wtf is a serpent?

The truth is, Christians are ashamed of all these Jewish Fairy Tales, and rightly so.

No one would believe them unless they had been repeatedly indoctrinated from early childhood, or enslaved by Conquistadors.

What?

I've never experienced a second of shame about anything in the bible. Mystery, yes. Shame, no. But then it has 66 books and 4 levels of meaning and ancient history galore.

An ex-atheist's site:

History:
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/hi...-the-bible.htm

Archaeology:
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/b...rchaeology.htm

In the Hebrew the word for serpent means a shining one, it was a spirit being, either (a.) the devil himself or (b.) a devil spirit sent from the devil.

I have no clue why the translators called it a serpent.......although its very fitting........

There are many things like this in the bible that even have double meanings and if you do not study the bible you would never now about these types of things UNLESS you ask and someone knows the answer....