• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bible Literalists Please Explain . . .

Skwim

Veteran Member
.

. . . where you get the impression that the Bible is to be taken literally. Is there some passage that clearly instructs the reader to take every word, idea, and account literally?

.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If physical death entered the world through the sins of Adam then there shouldn’t be fossils of dead creatures older than the first humans. And yet there clearly are, so why do people take such an unscientific interpretation of the Bible to be true? Beats me...
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
.

. . . where you get the impression that the Bible is to be taken literally. Is there some passage that clearly instructs the reader to take every word, idea, and account literally?

.
I think you just have to look at the context. For instance, it seems pretty obvious that G-d wasn't promising that he would give the land of Canaan to Abraham's semen. So probably not literal. On the other hand, there's no reason to not understand that there wasn't a literal prophetic experience taking place in which G-d iterated His promise to Abraham that his children would be given the land.
 

Earthling

David Henson
If physical death entered the world through the sins of Adam then there shouldn’t be fossils of dead creatures older than the first humans. And yet there clearly are, so why do people take such an unscientific interpretation of the Bible to be true? Beats me...

Well, first of all, since man was created last where is the logic in your statement?

Edited To Add: I should also point out that animals were never meant to live forever, only humans, due to their being created in God's image.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Edited To Add: I should also point out that animals were never meant to live forever, only humans, due to their being created in God's image.
Then you agree that animals died of natural causes prior to Adam - that is to say - decomposition is perfectly natural without sin entering the equation for animals.
But physically humans are animals, whereas "God is a spirit" John 4:24 so to be made in God's image, man must also be a spirit. Or do you contend like the trinitarians do that God is literally/physically a man?!
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Then you agree that animals died of natural causes prior to Adam - that is to say - decomposition is perfectly natural without sin entering the equation for animals.
But physically humans are animals, whereas "God is a spirit" John 4:24 so to be made in God's image, man must also be a spirit. Or do you contend like the trinitarians do that God is literally/physically a man?!
I think one interpretation is that Man has a soul and that is what is meant by "God's image". Another (weaker) version of the same idea would be that Man has an intellect enabling him to respond to God personally. More modern theology would not deny that Man arose from the other animals via evolution (i.e. differential reproduction, which involves death) and that the death spoken of in Genesis is spiritual rather than physical.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Then you agree that animals died of natural causes prior to Adam - that is to say - decomposition is perfectly natural without sin entering the equation for animals.

Yes.

But physically humans are animals, whereas "God is a spirit" John 4:24 so to be made in God's image, man must also be a spirit. Or do you contend like the trinitarians do that God is literally/physically a man?!

The word God simply means venerated. From a root word that means mighty. A man can be a god, Like Jesus, Moses, The Judges of Israel, Tammuz. The same as a man can be a Lord. God, that is, Jehovah, is a spirit being. Spirit simply means unseen yet producing results. Wind, breath, mental inclination, spirit beings, etc.

You claim that humans are animals, which comes from a scientific determination contrary to the Bible, although the Bible does present some similarities. They both have souls, i.e. blood, life, life experiences, etc. But if you were to name the characteristics of man that differ from the animals then you would have, pretty much, the meaning of the image of God. Altruism, creativity (music, art, etc.), language, those sorts of things.
 

Earthling

David Henson
I think one interpretation is that Man has a soul and that is what is meant by "God's image". Another (weaker) version of the same idea would be that Man has an intellect enabling him to respond to God personally. More modern theology would not deny that Man arose from the other animals via evolution (i.e. differential reproduction, which involves death) and that the death spoken of in Genesis is spiritual rather than physical.

Wouldn't you generally agree that the "more modern theology" of which you speak is simply pandering to intellectualism? Adam didn't die spiritually, he died physically. He wouldn't have had he not sinned. If Adam's death were merely spiritual then there would be no need of the Messiah to die a physical death as ransom. The entire point of the Bible, from Genesis 3:15 on through the conclusion of Revelation would be moot in accepting evolution.

It's a trade off made of ignorance or apathy.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Wouldn't you generally agree that the "more modern theology" of which you speak is simply pandering to intellectualism? Adam didn't die spiritually, he died physically. He wouldn't have had he not sinned. If Adam's death were merely spiritual then there would be no need of the Messiah to die a physical death as ransom. The entire point of the Bible, from Genesis 3:15 on through the conclusion of Revelation would be moot in accepting evolution.

It's a trade off made of ignorance or apathy.
It's pandering to science, certainly and thus to common sense. It's just the sort of wishy-washy sell-out you would expect from those people in the Dept of Theology at Oxford, the Jesuits and similar groups cursed with education and intelligence.

I expect they rationalise it by saying religion is not a lot of use if nobody but the stupid can believe it. What fools.
 

Earthling

David Henson
It's pandering to science, certainly and thus to common sense. It's just the sort of wishy-washy sell-out you would expect from those people in the Dept of Theology at Oxford, the Jesuits and similar groups cursed with education and intelligence.

I expect they rationalise it by saying religion is not a lot of use if nobody but the stupid can believe it. What fools.

Well, that doesn't confirm my suspicion of pandering as much as it would if you were begging Richard Dawkins to at least recognize the cultural significance of any actual meaning long lost with apostasy, so what else could there be? The salary of the clergy maybe? Little boys? Do animals have pederasts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, first of all, since man was created last where is the logic in your statement?

Edited To Add: I should also point out that animals were never meant to live forever, only humans, due to their being created in God's image.

I have a thought that is close to this. Anything that eat the fruit from the tree of life would genetically live forever.

Genesis 3:22

"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

So it appears that after he sinned by breaking Gods command, it was possible to still eat from the tree of life and live forever, thus the need to banish him from the garden.
 

Earthling

David Henson
I have a thought that is close to this. Anything that eat the fruit from the tree of life would genetically live forever.

Genesis 3:22

"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

So it appears that after he sinned by breaking Gods command, it was possible to still eat from the tree of life and live forever, thus the need to banish him from the garden.

Well, in a sense, yes, though not a literal sense. The tree of knowledge of what is good and bad and the tree of life have no special qualities, they simply represent things. The tree of knowledge represented God's sovereignty and the tree of life represented God's granting of everlasting life to those that are worthy of it. On the first tree the Jerusalem Bible of 1966 says the following: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, [Genesis 3:5, Genesis 3:22]. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride."
 
Well, in a sense, yes, though not a literal sense. The tree of knowledge of what is good and bad and the tree of life have no special qualities, they simply represent things. The tree of knowledge represented God's sovereignty and the tree of life represented God's granting of everlasting life to those that are worthy of it. On the first tree the Jerusalem Bible of 1966 says the following: "This knowledge is a privilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, is to lay hands on, [Genesis 3:5, Genesis 3:22]. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen man does not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being. The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride."

So both trees wer literal trees that had no power in and of themselves, they just represented Gods sovereignty and Gods gift of eternal life? They wer literal trees though, yes?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
If physical death entered the world through the sins of Adam then there shouldn’t be fossils of dead creatures older than the first humans. And yet there clearly are, so why do people take such an unscientific interpretation of the Bible to be true? Beats me...

Not just "creatures" but human beings.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
I think you just have to look at the context. For instance, it seems pretty obvious that G-d wasn't promising that he would give the land of Canaan to Abraham's semen. So probably not literal. On the other hand, there's no reason to not understand that there wasn't a literal prophetic experience taking place in which G-d iterated His promise to Abraham that his children would be given the land.

Apparently the prophet Ezekiel said with respect to the combined "stick" of "Judah" and "the stick of Ephraim", that "they shall live on the and that I gave to Jacob My servant" (Ezekiel 37:24-25). Apparently some of the children of Abraham were given land by God. On the other hand, one of the grand kids, Essau/Edom, is looking at less than optimum results.
 

Earthling

David Henson
Probably because because various denominations often interpret scriptures differently they find it a safe place to begin. Sort of a common ground, so to speak.

.

Well, perhaps, but, I don't think they consider variations in interpretation in any way up for consideration, as in a responsibility towards that interpretation due to the fact that it is much more advantageous for them to take a "face value" interpretation. Which makes sense from their perspective, because such an interpretation makes the text itself seem nonsensical. For example, in the book of Revelation all of the apparent descriptions of celestial phenomenon on it's own sounds ridiculous to a practical or, for lack of a more accurate term, rational being. That some uninformed fanatical denomination (probably the average, unfortunately) says it's celestial phenomenon only gives the average skeptic the easy task of judging accordingly, which is fine in and of itself, but a more careful consideration would give them a much more understandable and acceptable conclusion . . . but that most certainly isn't what they want and why should they work harder at coming to a conclusion they don't want or doesn't make the opposition look out of their minds?
 

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
If physical death entered the world through the sins of Adam then there shouldn’t be fossils of dead creatures older than the first humans. And yet there clearly are, so why do people take such an unscientific interpretation of the Bible to be true? Beats me...

First a person has to understand, Man was here on earth, Way before Adam and Eve came to be on earth But sin it's self, didn't come into this world until Adam and Eve.

This is why we can find fossil's of dinosaur's bones, because man was there. But not human mankind of flesh and blood.
Man of flesh and blood didn't come about until male and female of flesh and blood were created.
 
Top