Most importently, faith cannot hinge upon whether the words are to be taken literally as the word of God or that faith would be discarded upon finding out that various mistaken understandings were false.
The Revelation Chapter and other descriptions as written down, are attempts to document visionary experience and imagery. Not allergory, but imperfect attempts at writing about inner experience.
Using Myths and histories such as in genesis and elsewhere, combined with real visionary experiences impossible to properly put into words and the result if taken literally produce confusion in the mind of those trying to decipher it.
Faith must not hinge upon literalized or allegorical meaning.
Unlike progressives, Christians are logical. If Christ and His apostles (who quoted and referred to Genesis as literal events) are wrong, then Christ is not God who added to Himself human nature via the virgin birth, and dwelt among us.
For believers, it seems to be a matter of demonstrating faith. I submit it is much more important to some atheists to take the Bible literally because it provides fodder for unbelief. (Keep in mind the best of atheists offer no excuse, just an assertion that deep within themselves, they find no belief.)
Not entirely. Jews writings actually show various beliefs about this, one of which Christian tradition more closely follows. Back in the day, there were more than one sect/variation of Judaism. Once Christianity took hold the surviving Jewish sects did wish to emphasize differences between Judaism and Christianity. What John wrote/described in Revelation is taken from well-known Jewish literature of the day, and some of it had been around for over a hundred years.
This being said, Job is a prime example of Satan being more of a prosecutor than an accuser. He was definitely an adversary. What was well known in Roman times was the idea of people who were said to have had no satans, adversaries, enemies were often accused by their friends, those who were in a position to betray them.
We cannot credit the devil as being a Christian construct. This idea was known in Judaism long before Christianity. After Christianity, Jews let it fall by the wayside, perhaps because of misinterpretations and mistranslations in Job; perhaps to emphasize differences between the two faiths.
I believe there are portions of the Bible that should be taken literally, but even Jesus taught using parables that were not literal but meant to illustrate a spiritual lesson.
The creation story in the first chapter of Genesis matches pretty neatly with the current scientific understanding. The creation story in the second chapter is more like a childrenâs story.
Okay. The term âPersonal Saviorâ was coined in the mid 1800s and became popular among a sect known as Evangelicals. This tells me you would consider joining an Evangelical community (something many Christians elect not to do). Once you join your Evangelical community, how do you see that changing your life?
I wonder what Job would have said if heâd known God had sent his suffering as part of a bet with Satan. If Iâd been in Jobâs place itâs at that point that Iâd have informed God he was a psycho not worth worshipping.
He repented that he made man. Therefore he acknowledges that he made a mistake in creating man.
Then he compounds his mistake by killing everyone in the Flood, except he lets Noah and his family live, thus ensuring that sin-natured man would still live.
If you donât believe that God did this to kill off the angel-human spawn, then what possible reason could God have to ârepent he made man,â then kill all but a handful, who had the same nature as everyone he had killed?
Would you say God wants us to fight among ourselves about it?
He must do, otherwise he would not have deliberately deceived us.
Itâs like Iâve always said, if there is a God, he created the Earth and mankind as one gigantic soap opera for His amusement, not caring one whit about the suffering He visited and visits upon his creations.
Ok. When I contradicted your claim Satan wasnât in the Garden of Eden, I cited scripture proving he was (Gen. 3:1-2). You disputed that identification, so I documented the Bible interprets Satan is âthat old serpentâ. The oldest mention of a serpent is in Gen. 3:1-2.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Rev. 12:9 KJV)
You replied (#221) that was a âChristian constructâ.
That is incoherent, cognitive dissonance. You hallucinated âa Christian constructâ (which could mean anything) and spat that out as if it were a refutation.
An analogy would be, âwhen out of bullets, throw the gun at the monster and runâ
The book of Revelation was written by John.
John was a follower of Christ.
That makes John a Christian.
John created the construct that the serpent was Satan.
Therefore, the idea that the serpent is Satan is a Christian construct.