Is the entire bible to be taken literally?

[Yarr the Pirate]

I cite, par example, the follwing verses:

Leviticus 11:7 - 'Regard the pig as unclean, for though has a cloven hoof, it does not chew the cud.'

Leviticus 20:27 - 'Put to death any man or woman among you who is a necromancer or magician. Stone them with stones.'

Deuteronomy 13:13 - 17 - 'If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it.'

And let's not forget the classic example:

Deuteronomy 22: 28 - 29 - 'If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.'


Creationists would tell us that there is scientific, steadfast proof for the bible to be taken literally (not just the Christian Scriptures, but the Hebrew ones as well!). Does this mean that rape victims should marry their rapists, we should kill all those who don't follow our religion, stone Lance Burton, and never eat pigs?

Why are we told to take Genesis literally, but no other part of the bible?



(sidebar: Why is there a fight to put the Ten Commandments up in public places, but no such fight for the Sermon on the Mount?)

[gluadys]

(sidebar: Why is there a fight to put the Ten Commandments up in public places, but no such fight for the Sermon on the Mount?)

The Sermon on the Mount is a lot longer.

Hannah Joy

What about the Golden Rule? Its even shorter than the 10 Commandments. And a lot less controversial.

[gluadys]

[quote="hannahjoy"] To say that Genesis should be taken literally means that the historical portions, including Genesis 1, are to be taken as accurate history.

How do you know Genesis 1 is historical?

[YEC]

[
What about the Golden Rule? Its even shorter than the 10 Commandments. And a lot less controversial.

hey, evolutionism is controversial...lets toss it.

[YEC]

To say that Genesis should be taken literally means that the historical portions, including Genesis 1, are to be taken as accurate history.

How do you know Genesis 1 is historical?

Besides the rest of Gods Word presenting it that way...science also agrees with it.

[gluadys]

gluadys posted the following:
Paul's references to Adam would seem to say he did not think of Adam as a historical person, but as an archetype.



Why do you say that?

Because most of the time he is contrasting Adam with Christ in the same way that in other passages he is contrasting the natural man or man of flesh with the spiritual man. Adam is the type of the natural man or man of flesh. Christ is the type of the spiritual man.

In this verse Adam as well as Moses is presentd as literal rather than an archtype

ROM 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Why do you say that? The time of Adam=time of creation, the beginning. The time of Moses=the time the Law was given to Israel. No reason either needs to be referring to a literal time or a literal person. Its just more probable that there was a historical Moses, than that there was a historical Adam. We can't actually demonstrate that either existed.

[Yarr the Pirate]

well YEC, if you insist on saying Genesis is historical, you have to come up with scientific proof for all these things:

A massive global flood

A vapor canopy that somehow didn't crush all inhabitants of the Earth or melt them

The creation of plant life before the sun

Two different creations <--- My main reason for not taking the bible literally

Proof of giants living among men

And just for fun, prove that the Phillistines were in the region that Abraham arrived at 600 years before they were there

[gluadys]

How do you know Genesis 1 is historical?

Besides the rest of Gods Word presenting it that way...science also agrees with it. (Emphasis added)

Yeah, sure YEC. You should have stopped in mid-sentence. Not that I agree the first part is right either.

But Genesis 1 only agrees with science if it is not interpreted literally.

[YEC]

So why are not the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus taken out of the bible while we are in this dispensation?

Please understand my argument better: I never accused the bible of being a myth. I simply propose a nonliteral approach as necessary. Just because something is nonliteral does not mean that it is mythological. It can be allegorical, metaphorical, or simply written in a dumbed-down version because the words of God are too incomprehensible to humans. Thus, the lineage chart makes no sense in this discussion.

Please also refrain form mangling my points as you are wont to do.

What would you consider the resurrection of Jesus Christ? Literal? mythical? allegorical?

[Yarr the Pirate]

That's up to whoever wants to believe it and surprise surprise has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Please answer the above list that I posted.

Because you said science backs up Genesis, I am certain you have more than enough evidence to prove those above events.

If you're not going to answer that list, I believe that puts you at three? or is it four by now? questions of mine that you refuse to answer and continue to dodge.

Why can't you answer simple questions?

[ipu]

yarr posted the followingHannah, your post makes a lot of sense, but I have to ask - didn't Jesus himself say tht he had not come to destroy the law, meaning that we should still follow it?
. . .


yarr, you forgot the ending of the verse..with out it, like the way you presented it, you can twist it to say what it doesn't really say.

MAT 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I trust that helps.

Please see thread devoted to Matthew 5:17-18.

-- Alan