Historical antecedents to modern-day Christian fundamentalism

Really? What about this bit as Archer described in message 6?

quote:

---

The use of OT passages by NT writers presents us with a variety of interpretive approaches. They are not always literal. A good example is the passage you mention from 1 Peter:

'In [the flood] only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also

​

No one who knows the Flood story would say Noah and his family were literally saved 'through water.' They were saved from water. They were saved though an ark. Noah's family stays dry; baptized people get wet. So a literal interpretation of the story is obviously not in view when the writer talks of salvation 'through water.' He's talking about baptism. He just riffs a bit on the water motif, and on the theme of renewal.

---

Makes a lot of sense to me.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Water is the medium used to wash the world of a person of sin and deliver the person to a new life - symbolically. They are saved through (the medium of) water(symbolically)Did not water do the same in Noahs time? Did it not wash the world of sin and deliver Noah from that world of sin to a new life? (literally)Did not the waters during the flood spring up from below and pour down from above. Was not the Ark completely wetted on all sides top and bottom. Waves lashing over it. (literally)Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : Spelling it out for Archer

Even St Paul saw metaphor in the OT. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

They understood that much of what was written was not meant to be taken as history. That is why, for example, they included two mutually exclusive creation accounts in the Bible and did not try to merge them into one non-contradicting whole.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How many times do you need to be told that this is complete bull?since the 4th century the majority of Christians have been RC, and none of them take it literally.Even today over 1 billion RC's would disgaree with you, thats over 50% of Christians.Not a single person took the entire OT literally before the 16th century.No doubt you won't let facts get in the way of your fantasy.Brian.

iano: Nice try, handyman. But you blew the whistle on your own literalist game in your opening sentence.You said symbolically._Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Brevity.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

This literalist has no problem at all in the flood being a factual event yet seeing the symbology to be extracted from it. Same with the Passover symbology - yet the Jews historically being released from captivity in the fashion recorded.The Bible is a diamond Archer - it can be looked at from many angles and still be one self-consistant diamond.Hope you have a quiver full of arrows at your disposal - cos you ain't be shooting straight in my direction a while yet{AbE} I take it by your silence on the actual issue at hand that you have no problem with the symbology as I explained it fitting nicely with what Peter said?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I have no problem with symbolic truth. Truth is still truth.When someone sits down to write a book, they either use facts and documents pertaining to the assertions, they imagine a fictional story...perhaps to draw a contrast to real life events, or they feel as if the book is already written in their mind beforehand.In other words, whose imagination sparked the writings?

As well you shouldn't. Symbolism transcends the literal.You have accepted that a story can have a powerful symbolic meaning beyond the matter of factuality. Good. You're already ahead of a lot of other literalists walking around.What you have not yet realized is the rest: that the symbolism of a story remains intact regardless of whether or not one understands it as factual.You're on your way to figuring out the common ground you share with your fellow Christians who do not share your literalism. They inherit the same body of stories, they reflect on the same symbols. The power of this inheritance loses none of its meaning for them.Water is a universal symbol of birth and rebirth. Once one understands the symbolism at work in a story like this, one is free to take it as factual or not depending on the supporting data. When a factual interpretation proves untenable--as it often does with ancient documents, however wise their stories--you might be surprised how little you lose in letting go of your attachment to literalism. Everything you valued in the story remains. A beautiful statement.When you can acknowledge your kinship with those who admire the diamond from different angles than your own, you will be living by it.I wish you well.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Excellent post Archer. I would go further though.If Jesus had restricted himself to sticking to a literal story then He would not have been able to make points as profound as what we see in the "Prodigal Son", "The Good Samaritan etc.The Bible above all is trying to teach us spiritual truths. If it had been restricted to explaining these truths by using only literal truth the Bible would not be anywhere near the source of enlightenment, revelation and truth that it is.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

plus, if it all is literally true, I don't see how it can be adapted to today's world--adapted to new events and whatnot.I can't think of any examples off hand--I don't know the stories of the bible well enough, but . . .(oh, duh--explain how the world doesn't have a solid roof with the bible literally saying it does--bad example, but that's sort of the area I'm shooting at)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

They discount the clear reading of the New Testament writers who obviously took it literally? You aren't being very specific, you apparently just like to scream at me. How about some facts in the mix? TODAY RC's are all confused because of Vatican II which changed a lot of things. Can't use that for a reference to what the RC believed before that. What parts of the OT are you talking about? Are you just saying they didn't take the first 11 chapters of Genesis literally? Even so, they appear to have taken the Adam and Eve story literally. Some of the church fathers did allegorize a lot of the creation story, but what else? Who are you talking about anyway? They certainly took all the miracles literally.

An amazing thing about the Bible is that its real historical events are also symbolic. The Flood was a real historical event but it is symbolic of baptism among other things. Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was a real historical event but it is full of symbols that have meaning that was expressed in the ultimate sacrifice of Christ. The Passover events really happened in history, and yet it was symbolic of the later coming of the Messiah in real history, down to specific elements in the story. The tabernacle was a real building in real history, but its plan is symbolic of Christ. This isn't the symbolism of fiction, this is a symbolism beyond what the unbeliever is capable of imagining.

Do you feel that the power or strength of the symbolism will be lost if the stories are not taken as factual?what is it about an OT story that makes you categorise it and factual/non-factual?at what point would you think that a story becomes too fantastical to be true?At what point would scientific fact convince you that a story you previously held to be historical account is in fact myth?

Well, of course. I don't want a religion that is only a head trip. I want the real thing, the real God acting in real history. A symbolism that is merely good for entertaining thoughts is useless. A literary exercise. Well the context here is what the New Testament writers and Jesus himself said about it. They treated it as factual.I don't understand this question. I think it's obvious what is factual versus nonfactual simply by the way it is written. Those who allegorize it are the ones who have to add something to the text to treat it as fiction. "Fantastical" is NEVER my criterion. If it is presented as true I take it as true and it tells me something about the nature of God that I would otherwise not have known if I trusted my own experiences of the world. When you find something too fantastical to be believed you are merely cutting it down to your own size. It's when you allow it to be what it is that it transforms and enlightens. None at this point. I've lived the realities of it too much by this point ever to put science ahead of God's word. Scientific facts can change my views of HOW different things happened but can never contradict factual statements in the scripture.I could probably be THEOLOGICALLY convinced to read the early chapters of Genesis differently, in a way that would fit some scientific ideas, but not scientifically convinced.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.