Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is to be taken literally?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 76 of 81 (158960)
11-12-2004 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Angel
11-12-2004 11:08 PM


Re: God's body and belief
When I read that scripture, it leaves me with no other conclusion, but that God does indeed have a 'body' that is shaped/formed like a human being.
here's a bit of a psalm we read in class the other day
quote:
The sea saw [it], and fled: Jordan was driven back.
The mountains skipped like rams, [and] the little hills like lambs.
What [ailed] thee, O thou sea, that thou fleddest? thou Jordan, [that] thou wast driven back?
Ye mountains, [that] ye skipped like rams; [and] ye little hills, like lambs?
tell me, do mountains look like rams? does the sea have legs on which to flee?
now, this is a bit of an extreme example, yes. but this is blatant personification. and i agree with you that authors of some of the books of the bible (genesis and exodus in particular) probably thought that god had a physical body. but is that the ONLY way to read it? no. there are symbolic and metaphoric ways to read it as well. i explained one of them above, one of the ones you used as a primary example, to pink sasquatch.
the ones i used as examples have other readings too.
To my understanding of that particular scripture, is that the flame, was the Holy Ghost, and the voice was of God.
quote:
Exd 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush [was] not consumed.
this was a strawman on the part of pink sasquatch, but i was waiting for you call it. it is not the yhwh who appears as fire in a bush to moses -- it is yhwh's messenger. your point is somewhat correct in that it is not god appearing, only speaking, and only after moses is scared by the angel.
god's angels are routinely portrayed as fiery, btw. seraph, as in seraphim, means fiery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Angel, posted 11-12-2004 11:08 PM Angel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Angel, posted 11-12-2004 11:29 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Angel
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 81 (158966)
11-12-2004 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by arachnophilia
11-12-2004 11:19 PM


Re: God's body and belief
Arachnophilia,
but is that the ONLY way to read it? no. there are symbolic and metaphoric ways to read it as well. i explained one of them above, one of the ones you used as a primary example, to pink sasquatch.
No, you can take any passage in the Bible and look at it both literally, and metaphorically. I don't disagree with that point at all. But I was asked why I felt that particular scripture was meant to be taken literally, and my answer is simply, when I read it, that is how it presents itself to me. Now when you, ps, or anyone else reads it, you may find it to be taken metaphorically. Why? Because that's the impression/understanding that you get when you read it.

Angel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2004 11:19 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2004 11:34 PM Angel has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 78 of 81 (158969)
11-12-2004 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Angel
11-12-2004 11:29 PM


Re: God's body and belief
i try to take things in as many ways as i possibly can.
even if it's intended to be read as a literal story, it can still be an allegory to something else. however, i do think the authors intended for god to be read as a physical presence.
but i don't think that neccessarily means that he does have a body, or did have a body, or even that the authors actually thought he had body.
so i do agree with you in some respect. it does strike me reading genesis that god is a physical being. but this impression varies from book to book.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-12-2004 11:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Angel, posted 11-12-2004 11:29 PM Angel has not replied

  
Lysimachus
Member (Idle past 5190 days)
Posts: 380
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 79 of 81 (160128)
11-16-2004 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Apollyon
11-08-2004 12:20 AM


Apollyon,
quote:
If the book of Revelations can be taken symbolically (which most Protestants believe), why can' t the story of Creation? With that being said, the very nature of God must be somehow related allegorically to that story in Genesis (assuming it was inspired by God, of course.)
You cannot compare the books of Daniel and Revelation with Genesis. Genesis is a book stating facts of the beginning of existence. Scholars know when the Bible is speaking symbolically. For example, when Daniel says "I saw" in his dream, we know that the dream is speaking symbolically of a future event. Revelation also speaks in symbols--for if it were to speak straightforward and say exactly in English what was to come to pass, then God would have no way of determining the sincerity of His people. The Bible was written in a way to allow critics as yourself the opportunity to unfold your true characteristics--where your rebellious heart really lies. Only the true searcher will be enlightened to decipher the hidden mysteries of God's word--and beable to differentiate between symbolic and literal phrases of scripture. But this cannot happen to you Apollyon unless you open up your heart to God. It is impossible to decipher the Bible correctly without this key ingredient in your life.
When Christ comes in the clouds of glory, no man or woman will be able to say "I had no way to know".
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 11-16-2004 02:12 PM

~Lysimachus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Apollyon, posted 11-08-2004 12:20 AM Apollyon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Jon_the_Second, posted 11-16-2004 2:56 PM Lysimachus has not replied

  
Jon_the_Second
Member (Idle past 19810 days)
Posts: 33
From: London, UK
Joined: 11-07-2004


Message 80 of 81 (160137)
11-16-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Lysimachus
11-16-2004 2:10 PM


So the ONLY way to know which bits are literal and which are not is to be the right kind of christian?
I challenge you to find one single individual that agrees with every single one of your interpretations of the bible.
Are you the ONLY person in the world who is right?
No-one seems to want to venture an explanation as to how you can tell - you all just say "because you can".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Lysimachus, posted 11-16-2004 2:10 PM Lysimachus has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 81 of 81 (160197)
11-16-2004 5:09 PM


A futile exercise whichever way you cut it. Since there is no 'one'Bible, there can be no one reading. Whether you go KJV or the Westcott-Hort Revisionism stable, KJV versus Jerome`s Vulgate, Masoretic or Septuagint, Origin`s Hexapla, Josephus and the Qumran Scrolls, there never was a clear-cut version of the Bible passed down to us.If you believe the Pesharim technique found with the Scrolls, the waters are muddied even further. Anyone saying they alone have the correct text is echoed by a thousand different sects with the same message.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024