First Three Chapters of Genesis: Literal or Figurative?

[Redbandito]

When you get down to it, is it really that important whether one takes the Bible literally or figuratively as long as one understands the underlying message?

It seems to me that folks get so wrapped around the axle concerning this subject that they forget what is really important here; God’s message within the words. This is what is truly important, isn’t?

Whether God inspired the scripture writers to write in a literal sense, in a symbolic one, or a mixture is something we may never truly know (at least in this world).

YES! If Jesus did not resurrect from the dead, than Christianity is a mere philosophy based on a myth. There is no transformative power in that. If they found Christ’s body tomorrow, I would cease to be Christian. That doesn’t mean I would abandon all Christian principles, but I would not be willing to lose my life for a myth. Maybe I am among the minority.

 

[Redbandito]

Of courser there is a way. You have to abandon the strict adherence to your theology to the extent it provides for you being right and others being wrong. If we stuck with and had faith in the literal word of the scripture, we’d be killing those who profane the sabbath, those who try to lead us astray to other Gods, those who woship idols, those who commit adultry, those who insult their mother or father…

What? Where do you get such a position from? Nowhere does Christianity call for me to “kill” anyone for their sin. I can disagree with someone for their sin, and even call them on it. However, to act as you have stated would be a sin in itself. I do not have to water down Christianity to hold such a position. Again, if you find that you do, maybe you need to take a look at the merits of your faith.

True believers kill over this stuff all the time. It is only through social/secular advancement that “liberalism” in religion allows for reinterpetation of the scripture in a way that does not require us to kill each other. ?

“True believers” (at least Christians) don’t kill because their Scripture teaches them to. They kill because they don’t understand their faith. Show me where in the NT the Scripture teaches to “kill over this stuff.” You stated that the only way is to not hold strongly to the absolutes of the Scripture, so show me where in the Scripture. This isn’t liberalism. My view is extremely conservative and orthodox amongst Catholics. It is your view that is foreign, and thus liberal.

Islam is not the exception to the rule, I think. It happens to be the violent religion du jure. Who is to say that the pendulem of “true believers” will not swing back for christians or jews?

Christianity has never taught that “conversion by sword” is acceptable. Nowhere is this revealed in the Scripture. It is revealed in the Koran. Therefore, you speak of apples and oranges. Not saying that people haven’t killed in the name of religion. However, there is a difference between those, and people who have killed because their religion demands it. If you can’t see the distinction, I can’t help you.

 

[Valke2]

What? Where do you get such a position from? Nowhere does Christianity call for me to “kill” anyone for their sin. I can disagree with someone for their sin, and even call them on it. However, to act as you have stated would be a sin in itself. I do not have to water down Christianity to hold such a position. Again, if you find that you do, maybe you need to take a look at the merits of your faith.

“True believers” (at least Christians) don’t kill because their Scripture teaches them to. They kill because they don’t understand their faith. Show me where in the NT the Scripture teaches to “kill over this stuff.” You stated that the only way is to not hold strongly to the absolutes of the Scripture, so show me where in the Scripture. This isn’t liberalism. My view is extremely conservative and orthodox amongst Catholics. It is your view that is foreign, and thus liberal.

Christianity has never taught that “conversion by sword” is acceptable. Nowhere is this revealed in the Scripture. It is revealed in the Koran. Therefore, you speak of apples and oranges. Not saying that people haven’t killed in the name of religion. However, there is a difference between those, and people who have killed because their religion demands it. If you can’t see the distinction, I can’t help you.

All my quotes were from your OT. (and my Torah). ANd while you can say Christainity has never taught that “conversion by the sword” is acceptable, it has certainly engaged in conversion by the sword. So I’m not sure how you can support your last paragraph.

 

[patg]

Says you. With no support. Justa bald assertion. I have the support of 2,000 years of church tradition, scholarship and many living scholars today, both Protestant and Catholic. You are in the minority, friend.

I doubt it but I am finally at peace with the church because of where I am.

That’s novel. You have not even demonstrated what is ficiton in the gospels or backed it up.

I have refrained because the gospels are *not *the topic of this thread and I have already suggested that we start a new one on the fiction of the Infancy Narratives.

When Jesus is speaking in parables it is clear from the text.

When one understands the literary forms in the gospels, the fictional accounts are also clear from the text, just like the story of the couple in the garden is obviously a symbolic myth.

The gospel authors, minus one, were eye witnesses that they would need to make stuff up or embellish the story does not even make logical sense.

The authors being eye witnesses is what makes no logical sense.

I have been studying scripture with the aid of multiple sources and scholars for years. Are you saying the commission teaches exactly what you are saying? Or that you prefer that take?

I’m saying that members of the commission and their students teach it. I haven’t made up any of this out of my own hopes or preferences; I rely on the studies and results of those I and the church respect - those with much better credentials and reputations than yours or mine.

Of course it’s true, you find me one scholar, prior to the late 19th century that believed or taught otherwise. Just one.

I presume that we have learned more in the past 200 years, not less. That is certainly true in every other human endeavor.

What a strawman! So every one of the church fathers, Cardinal Newman and all the doctors of the church were fundamentalists?

I’m sure they would never say “I know everything there is to know about how the gospels were written and what they mean”. They may have even accepted that we are always learning something new.

Those foolish, naive, boobs. I am not happy that you forced my to say “strawman” either. But tossing around the “fundamentalist” label to anyone who does not buy into all aspect of higher criticism is not an argument, it is an argument stopper with no teeth.

Ok, I’ll say “literalist who doesn’t understand or ignores the literary form and the deeper meaning and symbolism of the authors”. I’m not trying to insult anyone or present an argument stopper - I was just naming what I see as the other extreme from what you seem to think I am.

I respectfully suggest you learn to stand on the shoulders of giants rather than tripping on little people who are married to one, very weak, hermeneutic that is very recent. With all due respect you should not be teaching anyone until you broaden your own studies and get a fuller biblical picture and not just a modernist one.

No thanks, I really don’t want to have to leave the church. I have worked hard for a full biblical picture - that’s why I’m so sure and clear in my understanding.

Just remember that the church doesn’t require either of us to change our views and I’m happy that you are sure of yours.

 

[Redbandito]

All my quotes were from your OT. (and my Torah). ANd while you can say Christainity has never taught that “conversion by the sword” is acceptable, it has certainly engaged in conversion by the sword. So I’m not sure how you can support your last paragraph.

Valke, you’re not paying attention. I support my last paragraph by the question I previously asked. Where in the NT does it teach that we are to “convert by the sword”? It doesn’t! It does, however, say this in the Koran. Thus, I make the distinction between the divine revelation of one, and the misinformed practices of another. I can point to “convert by the sword” in the Koran. Again, I challenge you to point me to this in the NT. So that’s how I support it. How do you support your illogical position and call yourself a Jew?

Also, the fact that individuals have “engaged” in this practice is irrelevant. For the point was that “religion” cannot co-exist with civilization. Religion is not synonomous with each individual. There are lot of people who do bad things in the name of religion. That doesn’t mean the religion is bad. We must look at the blue print, not the construction workers to figure out whether the plan to build is solid. Inevitably the workers will screw up, but that doesn’t mean that the blue print isn’t good. What you are doing is saying that since people screw up the blue print of different religions, that those religions are bad. That is illogical.

And finally, since I would venture to guess you are discussing the Crusades and the Inquisition as your examples of Christians “converting by the sword,” I would challenge you to go do your research. It would be innaccurate to describe either of these events as such. The Catholic Answers library has some good stuff on these issues.

Oh, and btw, WHAT QUOTES? I don’t recall you quoting anything. Please point me to these mysterious quotes from the Torah.

 

[Valke2]

Valke, you’re not paying attention. I support my last paragraph by the question I previously asked. Where in the NT does it teach that we are to “convert by the sword”? It doesn’t! It does, however, say this in the Koran. Thus, I make the distinction between the divine revelation of one, and the misinformed practices of another. I can point to “convert by the sword” in the Koran. Again, I challenge you to point me to this in the NT. So that’s how I support it. How do you support your illogical position and call yourself a Jew?

Also, the fact that individuals have “engaged” in this practice is irrelevant. For the point was that “religion” cannot co-exist with civilization. Religion is not synonomous with each individual. There are lot of people who do bad things in the name of religion. That doesn’t mean the religion is bad. We must look at the blue print, not the construction workers to figure out whether the plan to build is solid. Inevitably the workers will screw up, but that doesn’t mean that the blue print isn’t good. What you are doing is saying that since people screw up the blue print of different religions, that those religions are bad. That is illogical.

And finally, since I would venture to guess you are discussing the Crusades and the Inquisition as your examples of Christians “converting by the sword,” I would challenge you to go do your research. It would be innaccurate to describe either of these events as such. The Catholic Answers library has some good stuff on these issues.

Oh, and btw, WHAT QUOTES? I don’t recall you quoting anything. Please point me to these mysterious quotes from the Torah.

ALl the death penalty examples I gave are in the either Numbers or Leviticus. I can provide verse if you really want them.

I don’t need a revisionist make over of the crusades or the inquisition. To try to tell me that Jews were not converted by the sword to Christanity would be a waste of time. People “screw up” because they are convinced that their religious dogma is the only truth. ANd their religion encourages that belief.

 

[Redbandito]

ALl the death penalty examples I gave are in the either Numbers or Leviticus. I can provide verse if you really want them.

I don’t need a revisionist make over of the crusades or the inquisition. To try to tell me that Jews were not converted by the sword to Christanity would be a waste of time. People “screw up” because they are convinced that their religious dogma is the only truth. ANd their religion encourages that belief.

Valke, this is disingenuous. I have challenged you on multiple occassions to show me where Christianity, in it’s revelation, has EVER supported conversion by sword. You have failed. It is you that has chosen the term “dogma.” So with that being said, what dogmatic pronouncement are Christians following that would teach them to kill others in the name of Christianity. One example will do. Or, are you more interested in a libel against the Church?

And as far as revisionist history, you might want to consider for one second that it is you who have received revisionist info.

 

[Valke2]

Valke, this is disingenuous. I have challenged you on multiple occassions to show me where Christianity, in it’s revelation, has EVER supported conversion by sword. You have failed. It is you that has chosen the term “dogma.” So with that being said, what dogmatic pronouncement are Christians following that would teach them to kill others in the name of Christianity. One example will do. Or, are you more interested in a libel against the Church?

And as far as revisionist history, you might want to consider for one second that it is you who have received revisionist info.

I’m Sorry. Was not the cross carried into battle on numerous occassions? Are you suggesting that Jews were not forced to convert or submit to execution in the past? Or that sometimes there weren’t even given that choice?

“At Zurich, after many disputations between Zuinglius and the Ana-Baptists, the Senate made an Act, that if any presume to re-baptize those who were baptized before (i.e. as infants) they should be drowned. At Vienna many Ana-Baptists were tied together in chains that one drew the other after him into the river, wherein they were all suffocated (drowned).” (Vida Supra, p. 61)

“In the year of our Lord 1539 two Ana-Baptists were burned beyond Southwark, and a little before them 5 Dutch Ana-Baptists were burned in Smithfield,” (Fuller, Church History.)

“The 25th of May–in St. Paul’s Church, London–examined 19 men and 6 women. Fourteen of them were condemned; a man and a woman were burned at Smithfield, the other twelve of them were sent to towns there to be burned.”

To say that the Church does not have a history of killing those that disagreed with it is disingenous. And to say that these acts, as well as countless other’s were not part of Church doctrine or revelation is meaningless. The were perpetrated by the Church or with the Church’s express or implied blessing.

The dogma that Jesus is the son of God and the only way to God has been more than sufficient reason in the past for God fearing Christians to slaughter others. Maybe we should start a new thread.

 

[Melchior]

I doubt it but I am finally at peace with the church because of where I am.

I have refrained because the gospels are *not *the topic of this thread and I have already suggested that we start a new one on the fiction of the Infancy Narratives.

When one understands the literary forms in the gospels, the fictional accounts are also clear from the text, just like the story of the couple in the garden is obviously a symbolic myth.

The authors being eye witnesses is what makes no logical sense.

I’m saying that members of the commission and their students teach it. I haven’t made up any of this out of my own hopes or preferences; I rely on the studies and results of those I and the church respect - those with much better credentials and reputations than yours or mine.

I presume that we have learned more in the past 200 years, not less. That is certainly true in every other human endeavor.

I’m sure they would never say “I know everything there is to know about how the gospels were written and what they mean”. They may have even accepted that we are always learning something new.

Ok, I’ll say “literalist who doesn’t understand or ignores the literary form and the deeper meaning and symbolism of the authors”. I’m not trying to insult anyone or present an argument stopper - I was just naming what I see as the other extreme from what you seem to think I am.

No thanks, I really don’t want to have to leave the church. I have worked hard for a full biblical picture - that’s why I’m so sure and clear in my understanding.

Just remember that the church doesn’t require either of us to change our views and I’m happy that you are sure of yours.

We disagree, Se la vee, Mon Ami. (That’s French I think )

Peace to you, Pat.

 

[Valke2]

getting back to the original topic, I found a little Kabbalah quote that I thought might be relevant:

As wine must sit in a jar,
so Torah must sit in this garment.
So look only at what is under the garment!
So all those words and all those stories–
they are garments!

 

[patg]

We disagree, Se la vee, Mon Ami. (That’s French I think )

Peace to you, Pat.

Thanks, that’s probably the best we can do! I’m sorry about derailing everything from the original question.

 

[trth_skr]

getting back to the original topic, I found a little Kabbalah quote that I thought might be relevant:

As wine must sit in a jar,
so Torah must sit in this garment.
So look only at what is under the garment!
So all those words and all those stories–
they are garments!

Interesting.

The Kabbalah is the jewish version of Christian Gnosticism.

Sounds very “Da Vinci-codish”, i.e., look for the “secret messages” in the text. Well, there are no secret messages. There are different levels of meaning, but all generally can be true (historical, allegorical,…).

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Valke2]

Interesting.

The Kabbalah is the jewish version of Christian Gnosticism.

Sounds very “Da Vinci-codish”, i.e., look for the “secret messages” in the text. Well, there are no secret messages. There are different levels of meaning, but all generally can be true (historical, allegorical,…).

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

I think you could say “different levels of meaning” and hit pretty close to what the text was trying to say. At least, I can live with it.