Is this Bible verse about believers and poison to be taken literally?

heh, normally i use that point myself. alright, i'll play along.

quote:

---

Deu 6:16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted [him] in Massah.

---

---

אָרַח

you mean "southern baptists?"This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-26-2005 12:14 PM

---

אָרַח

fair 'nuff.

quote:

---

Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

​

Luk 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

---

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-26-2005 10:13 PM

---

אָרַח

well, i think you're right on target here. i think that is what this thread is about. the degree of flexibility, or how literal we should take stuff.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-26-2005 10:36 PM

---

אָרַח

she is basically right, though. sometimes, the bible uses idioms, and poetic language. sometimes there are parables. but generally the bible means more or less exactly what it says, and is not some kind of coded message or extended metaphor. (except maybe revelation, i'm not sure one way or the other)however, the context often indicates a less than perfectly literal reading would be appropriate. for instance, the verse in question is not talking about stuff you should do to test your faith or the faith of another, it's talking about signs. some bits of context indicate that even while the stories are to be read literally, the stuff that happens in them is not neccessarily an accurate reflection of what happened, per se, but is far a less important concern than preserving tradition or meaning or message. basically "our stories go like this" instead of "this is what happened."but overall, the bible does say what it means literally. and i've annoyed more than one literalist on this board for the simple reason that i read it far more literally than they do. they're more concerned with it being literally TRUE than literally read. and so they justify it out of context, and bend to match some distortion of reality.but here, a literalist is arguing FOR context. that's a BIG step.(oh, and faith, i'll get back to you on our debate a little later. i think i'm gonna take a bit of a hiatus from this board...)

---

אָרַח

actually, i think he said something to effect of "walk on it, don't swim" if she turns it into the water of life, it mean the shai-hulud approve, and she can become a reverend mother.

---

אָרַח