Here's my issue with that, if one is gonna claim something as true, then there really can't be any metaphors within that. Because then you can twist it to mean anything you want it to mean, as many Christians do.

It's either true as written or not, as Jeannie said you can't have it both ways.

Amen

No hypocrisy allowed

Completely untrue, irrational and unreasonable. Non-Fiction literature is full of metaphors, similes and hyperbole. You are moving the goal post, plain and simple.

Learn a new word, that one doesn't apply! When have Christians decried the use of metaphors?

Examples please of this?

And if even if there were......in those cases they wouldn't have a bearing on the story being told generally speaking. But with the Bible, depending on interpretations, the meaning changes. That does not a true story make.

Why should I give examples, you have already stated that you'll still reject this line of reasoning because "depending on interpretations, the meaning changes". That's true of any use of metaphor! If you don't recognize the metaphor for what it is, the meaning is obviously going to be different from what was intended. I guess that's why I always say to read the scriptures in context and use a Bible Dictionary.



What's with this? This is absolutely terrible grammar, why is it that all of the non-Christians switch to "yoda dialect" when they are trying to be profound?

First of all is something is true, and God wanted us to know it as such, do you think he'd really make it so difficult? What kind of God is that that makes it so damn hard to tell what the truth they want us to know is?

Second, what I meant above was that......in other non fiction books the metaphors and what not you refer to leave no room for any other interpretation beyond what is said. The Bible fails on that point, if it can be taken a million different ways.

Really? You've been thinking? I don't believe you.

I did not "insist" that the Bible is literal. I said that IF the Bible is true, and a serpent who walked upright and could talk tempted Eve, then this looks a lot like a reptile humanoid of some kind to me.

As for what actual words they used to describe it, those change over time and translations. In the original version of the Bible, it was the Elohim who created the earth not God. Elohim is one of the three primary terms used to describe God in the Bible. Elohim is plural and it means "those who came from the sky."

plural means more than one creator.

It's plural and means "God", which in a plurality of excellence. It's like how royalty use the royal "we".

Where you come up with these silly definitions and ideas, it's beyond me.

It's not that hard, all you have to do is read the Bible with an open heart and mind. Don't just accept it, but read it and see if it makes sense. Pray about it. See where that gets you. It really isn't *that* hard, but you'll probably have to stop hating Jews...



It really doesn't. If read in context and referenced to the original language, the metaphors stick out like a sore thumb.

That could be quite an insult to a lot of Christians who believe the Bible literally.



All I want you to tell me, Spider, is that the Bible is full of metaphors. If it is, then anything goes.

Jesus is a metaphor, Christ is a metaphor, The Virgin birth is a metaphor, the crucifiction is a metaphor,

I'm good with that.

Otherwise, the serpent was a reptilian humanoid or if he was the Devil then the devil is a reptilian humanoid.

Take your pick

As for you telling me I'm being ignorant :

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Kleisto's choice of grammar. It's perfectly acceptable.

You just prefer to insult people when they make a valid point that blows your previous position clean out of the water.

Like Jeanniebean has already said. Make up your mind.

If you claim that the biblical fables are mere metaphors, then stick to that and we can all agree with Jeanniebean that Jesus was just a metaphor for humanity, and the concept of being "The Christ" is just a metaphor for a state of mind which we are all supposed to achieve.

And the whole crucifixion thing is just a metaphor suggesting that we must all bear the "cross" of our own actions, and pay for those actions with the consequences that they manifest.

The resurrection of Jesus is just a metaphor meaning that once we have accepted responsibility for our own actions we will be "born anew" with a life where we can finally ascend to a higher state of consciousness.

~~~~~

Hey I like it Jeannie!

The Jesus thing works out quite well as a metaphor.

So if we accept Spider's view that these stories are mere metaphors that each individual must interpret for themselves, then I agree with Jeanniebean's interpretations.

And there also wouldn't be any need to tie Jesus back to the God of the Old Testament because all of that was just a metaphor too.

Work's great!

Even the demigod thing of being half-human and half-god is just a metaphor meaning that we are all spiritual beings in human form.

I have not said, "Ye are Gods"

Fit's like a GLOVE.

So that's Spider's view of the Bible - it's all just metaphorical to be interpreted by the individual who reads it.

Cool

Anyone else have a different view of these ancient stories?

Number one you are so far out of line on the Jews comment, that it doesn't even deserve a response.

Number two, I HAVE read the Bible, enough of it to know that it doesn't make sense and nothing is going to make it make sense. Hence I reject it as any source of truth.

I love the whole open minded thing too, how can anyone be open minded if they in effect by threat of what God will do if they don't believe them, they HAVE to believe something exactly to the letter? They can't. If you wanna be open minded you must be open to the truth no matter where it takes you, even if it means what you've been told is wrong. This is something Christians and a lot of religious people in general cannot get themselves to do. That however is true open mindedness, not just continually dismissing anything that goes against the truth they've been taught.

There aren't actually many people who believe the Bible is literally true. The problem is that they say "The Bible is Literally true", but they mean "I believe everything in the Bible is the truth of the events, but it is written like any other human document, which means it has recorded the lies thought or spoken by some people and some of it is literal while other parts of figures of speech.". You honestly don't have to go past Genesis 4 before you read the serpent's lie, so I have a hard time believing that anyone honestly believes the Bible is literally true. They just aren't verbalizing their stance well.



Full is your word. Has is my (and anyone who has study the Bible) word.



Nope. Guess again. So sorry. Not at all.







I did not say that.

How many Christians have to tell you that there is no threat from God before you'll get it?

1) If you don't believe in God, why believe in hell?

2) If you love and trust God, then there is no fear of hell.

If you are staying up all night sweating about hell, then you must believe in God (and hell), but not love or trust him. Only in that situation could anyone consider hell a "threat".

The truth is, the Bible depicts hell as having been created for demons, but because of our behavior, we are headed there too. So God generously offers to save us from ourselves and the fate we have earned. That's not a threat even in the wildest sense.

Wow, I know that "we" should all be humbled to have someone who was there and can speak of things as though they speak to god daily....not!!

Too funny....

and HYPOCRITICAL, HYPOCRITICAL, HYPOCRITICAL.....

The hypocrisy is too obvious and to be said with such venom and derision as though being spoken down to with it.

The virgin birth is a metaphor

The Christ is a metaphor

Jesus is a metaphor

The entire Bible is now subject to scrutiny as metaphor now.

I still believe in the reptilian humanoid aliens though.

[quote[


I did not say that.


You typed it. Does that count as "saying" it?

post #9909

I said "willfully ignorant", which doesn't mean "ignorant". It means "A bad faith decision to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt. It may also be shown as for a person to have no clue in a decision but still goes ahead in their decision."

I think you know that you should just say "Okay, the use of metaphors doesn't prove the Bible is false" (and you could say that while still claiming the Bible was false for other reasons), but you don't. I have offered reasoned arguments and you have just said "They were stupid!" and "If any of the Bible is a metaphor, then all of it is!".

How can you be "saved" from a metaphor.