RedDragon94
Love everyone, meditate often
Does scripture have more than one level of meaning or is it set on only one way of viewing things (that being the literal way)?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does scripture have more than one level of meaning or is it set on only one way of viewing things (that being the literal way)?
I chose more than one not because the Bible is unclear or subjective, no much of it is very clear and can't really be interpreted in a different way.Does scripture have more than one level of meaning or is it set on only one way of viewing things (that being the literal way)?
I chose more than one not because the Bible is unclear or subjective
Huh? What do you mean?Can you not also do this to justify any holy text?
Huh? What do you mean?
No, you have to look at the genre of the text. The Bible is made up of 66 different books. The Gospels are clearly historical biography. Prophecies in Isaiah or Daniel are just that, prophecies, and so use a lot of symbolic language that is clearly metaphorical.For example can I also not use this to justify the Koran by saying some parts are literal and some parts are not?
No, you have to look at the genre of the text. The Bible is made up of 66 different books. The Gospels are clearly historical biography. Prophecies in Isaiah or Daniel are just that, prophecies, and so use a lot of symbolic language that is clearly metaphorical.
Okay... when did I say any of this was justification for the Bible's reliability?But the Koran also uses prophecy and neither book has historical evidence.
Okay... when did I say any of this was justification for the Bible's reliability?
I don't get it, what's the point? How does the Bible or Qu'ran having literal and non-literal parts justify it?When did I say that you said that?
I was making two separate points.
I don't get it, what's the point? How does the Bible or Qu'ran having literal and non-literal parts justify it?
Nah, not really. There are different genres and clear symbolic imagery, but if a command is given in the New Testament or a specific teaching you can't really get around that haha.Because then you can ignore the parts that contradict ethics or science which you cannot do if it is all literal.
Nah, not really. There are different genres and clear symbolic imagery, but if a command is given in the New Testament or a specific teaching you can't really get around that haha.
You can't just assert something is non-literal, you'd have to argue for it and demonstrate why this is clear from the text itself.
Adam and Eve, the people, are quite clearly literal yes. I'm not entirely sure on the whole Creation story itself, there are a number of different arguments purely based on the text. Origen in the 4th century, long long before scientific developments, was arguing for an allegorical interpretation based on his textual analysis. As I said, I'm not really 100% decided myself, it isn't a fundamental core doctrine of my faith.Cool, so is the Adam and Eve story literal?
Adam and Eve, the people, are quite clearly literal yes. I'm not entirely sure on the whole Creation story itself, there are a number of different arguments purely based on the text. Origen in the 4th century, long long before scientific developments, was arguing for an allegorical interpretation based on his textual analysis. As I said, I'm not really 100% decided myself, it isn't a fundamental core doctrine of my faith.
Yes. Wouldn't science agree with mitochondrial Eve?So regardless you believe all humans are descend from one maternal and paternal ancestor?
Yes. Wouldn't science agree with mitochondrial Eve?
If mitochondrial Eve exists then we are all descended from one couple. You're aware of how reproduction works... right?Yes however her counterpart. the y-chromosome Adam does not exist.