Do You Think The Bible is Literal or Allegorical

[TheBear]

12345

[Nelle]

Bear, I'll be honest and say at 1 in the morning, I've not studied thoroughly your post.

But briefly

So how should the biblical creation be presented as part of an academic curriculum?
- Possibly as a literary work that has been subject to much alteration and interpretation through the ages.
That's not acceptable to me. I'm in serious danger of waffling, so I'll TRY to make sense, and others can clarify or ask for clarification. :P John says, In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God. The bible is known as the Living Word. God's word. And God doesn't change. So how can his message change? I can't pick and choose what parts of the bible I believe are true, and reject other parts. I either accept it all as God's truth, or reject it all as inaccurate and just a book, not God's word. (and there, perhaps, we have the difference between Christians and those not believing.)
- Possibly as a religious belief that is particular to a sub-section of the modern christian community.
The bible says that God created the world. If you call yourself a Christian (follower of Christ), who came to fulfill the law, the Old Testament, then you'd be believing that God created. How? Well, if the bible doesn't say exactly how, I suppose people can debate, but it's not an issue that affects salvation really. Personally, I don't see why I shouldn't take it literally.
- Definately not as "alternative" science.
To be honest, I sometimes think Evolution requires just as much, if not more faith than Creation. That's from my Creation believing point of view though. :P I think it would be cool for the evidence to be presented - fossils, sedimentary layers, and say 'the Evolution theory explains this evidence this way, and the Creation theory explains this evidence this way. You decide for yourself what is true'.

Sorry if that's garbled.

[*Efjay*]

What Bear said.

Also, the definition of the word Theory is important. It does matter that there is a difference of meaning between laymen's terms & scientific terms. Look it up.

You are free to believe what you want to believe. But creation is a religious thing, My children are not being raised that way so I don't think it should be taught in public schools. As I said before, save it for scripture & church.
As a real question thats not intended to be offensive, But isn't the teachings of creation & other religious beliefs like that what Sunday school would be for?

[*Efjay*]

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think both creation and evolution should be taught in school? Are they in some schools? Can they even be? Or do you just accept that it's something that you'll have to teach your kids about at home?

I thought I was answering that. My thoughts are that the religious theory should be taught outside of the public schooling system.

[butterfly_warrior]

Can I ask one question of all the people who are saying that science can not support creation? Have you studied the science that is used to support evolution? Have you looked into how the scientific evidence can be interpreted to support creation?

I am a scientist, I have done both. I studied chemistry, geology and physics at university, and while I have not looked studied much in the area of biology, I have a friend who studied extensively in that area and has talked to me in great detail about her studies and her beliefs.

Even before I became a Christian, I had serious doubts about the science used to support the age of the Earth, which is one of the things that the theory of evolution is based upon. When the scientists are saying that they use radioactive dating of rocks (I can't remember the exact isotopes, but it's not carbon-14!) to date the Earth and because of what they have discovered there, the Earth is many millions of years old... and then in the next breath talk about how they used this dating method on rock formed in a volcanic eruption that is known to be only around 10 years old and it dates again at several millions of years old... How can this method be trusted with any degree of accuracy? This was something that stuck in my mind and cast doubt on the rest of the scientific claims made in the name of supporting evolution.

In studying the scientific evidence and how it can support creation - I found absolutely no inconsistencies like that I found above.

Now, can we please stop writing me off as a brain-washed fundamentalist who believes all that she is fed? Please?

Also, I have to absolutely agree with Nelle here. We can't pick and choose which parts of the bible are truth and which are not. Who gets to decide which bits are fact and which are not if we are going to go down that path?

BW

[christy]

Okay now as a poster, rather than a mod. FJ creationism is vital to a Christian. If we don't believe the God created the earth, we are unable to have faith. Its not a "story" to most of us. True the biblical version of creationism can be seen as an analogy or story, BUT the underlying truth of the story is one of the basics of Christianity, and other religions.

I actually find it hard to hear that someone tells me that belongs in Sunday school personally. Especially just after saying you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. If we are to theories in school we should teach ALL theories and not one as fact.

ETA: Sorry FJ that second purple post was not directed at you, it was after re reading some of the thread and deciding more than a gentle reminder was needed

[*Efjay*]

But creation is a religious belief. I don't have a huge bank of knowladge is this area, but to me it is just as offensive as me saying it belongs in Sunday school for christians to say it should be taught in main steam schooling. For me its a religious belief & should remain in a religious setting.
I think its just going to confuse the crap out of my kids who are not brought up with the rest of the christain beliefs to have that one part thrown in.

The way I see it, is evolution is the non religious way of looking at things. So in a public school thats what should be taught. Public schools are not a place for religous topics.

If evelotion is a theory or if its actually the way it happen doesn't really matter to me, to me its the non religious view so that what I want taught to my children. To me, I blieve its the way it happen.

[christy]

BUT this is the Christianity forum. IF you were in the breastfeeding forum asking for help in educating someone, and someone came in and suggested formula feeding should be the main thing taught, how would you feel?

[sneakysparkle]

But creation is a religious belief. I don't have a huge bank of knowladge is this area, but to me it is just as offensive as me saying it belongs in Sunday school for christians to say it should be taught in main steam schooling. For me its a religious belief & should remain in a religious setting.
I think its just going to confuse the crap out of my kids who are not brought up with the rest of the christain beliefs to have that one part thrown in.

The way I see it, is evolution is the non religious way of looking at things. So in a public school thats what should be taught. Public schools are not a place for religous topics.

If evelotion is a theory or if its actually the way it happen doesn't really matter to me, to me its the non religious view so that what I want taught to my children. To me, I blieve its the way it happen.

To Christians creation is part of our beliefs, but there are people who believe in "Intelligent Design" instead of evolution who aren't Christians, therefore don't necessarily believe it was God. It doesn't have to be about religion. I think its important to present different "theories" to our children and not just one.

[Yael]

Maimonidies, in particular, commented that the account of Creation should not be taken literally.

I would like your source for this please.

[Heaven]

I have to confess that I'm having a hard time seeing how providing references to quotes from the scripture and leaders of the christian church is not appropriate for the Christian forum.

The guidelines explain

3) No quotes that are deemed offensive, regardless of where they come from ? be it the Bible, Koran, Torah or religious leaders.
Everyone should remember this; not everything that is thought should be said, not everything that is said should be written down, and not everything that is written down should be published.

So, to the topic of this thread... I take the Bible literally. I don't see why God would have chosen to have His word recorded in a way that would be open to individual interpretation. I think He would want us to all be able to understand what He said, not just in the days that the Bible was written but forever. So I just read it myself and have faith that God has presented it to me in such a way that even I am able to understand it. If it was mainly allegorical than I don't think I'd be very good at interpreting it, lol.

That's my take on it anyway.

[TheBear]

I would like your source for this please.

The Guide for the Perplexed 2:17

[~StarBright~]

Hi everyone!

I quite like discussions such as these- The Bear- i find myself very interested in your point of view, i am someone who has not really quite decided what i exactly beleive in, so i love reading difffernet perspectives on things- thank you for your inputs and ideas!

I guess the input i would like to contribute is that i can accept that neither creation- nor evolution can be "proven"- so i therefore feel that BOTH of these "theories" should be taught with the same idea- that we DONT REALLY KNOW 100%-(although im sorry- but i must admit i see more evidence of evolution in the world than i see of religious beleif- at least scietist dont try anfd kill eachother when they disagree- they see it as a good thing and try to learn from eachother's mistakes and discoveries)

i will agree that i am not religious and therefore i dont really think i would appriciate my son being taught at school that "g-d created the world" as its not something i 100% agree with- i would accept however him being taught that some people in the world beleive that "g-d created the world- and this is why....." go on to explain the bible etc and that SOME other people in the world beleive that this other thing happened...... go on to explain big bang theory evolution etc.

And just to throw another thing in- not really sure how it relates- but i have alway had a problem figuring out how different races of people are all children of Adam and Eve... how did the aboriginal people or the african american people fit in that theory?????? Can anyone answer that one for me?

[butterfly_warrior]

I have read an explanation as to how we ended up with different skin tones dominating in different areas, but it is somewhat lengthy and I don't have time to go through it while working. Just posting to remind myself to sort it out later tonight.

BW

[Heaven]

Genesis 11

The Tower of Babel

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there. 3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

So...people of different languages formed their own 'groups' in different places in the world. Therefore, the gene pool was much smaller in these little groups as they didn't have the entire population to mix with and certain physical features were emphasised in different groups. Just like in a family, everyone has similar features. And as time went on they became more distinct. I'm very scientific aren't I?? lol. Anyway, that's the view I agree with.