By reading the first passage that you have posted I have a question.  Did God literally not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment?  I ask this because if God did not literally do this then how can we ever make sense of this passage?

I am a bit confused by your use of the word "literal".  By "literal" do you mean physical?  Or can something non-physical (i.e. spiritual) also be literal?  Hell, as I understand it, is not a physical place, but a spiritual one (where souls dwell, not bodies).

By reading the second passage I have another question.  Did the serpent literally beguiled Eve through his subtility?  If Paul is talking about a non-literal Eve and non-literal serpent what is Paul literally talking about?

It was probably spiritual, so a spiritual beguiling.  You can use metaphor and allegory to talk about spiritual things such as sin, which is what I think Genesis and Paul do.

So "nephesh" (or the other word as pointed out in the other posts): "means you will begin to die, die, and continue to die."  Okay, so far so good, the word means to die, now: "So when Adam bit the apple, he began to die (physically) and he died (spiritually) and he continues to die (physically and spiritually)."  Okay, in the very next sentence you lost me.  How do you draw the conclusion that he died both physically and spiritually instead of just one or the other?  You just said that "nephesh" means to "begin to die, die and continue to die", but in the definition that you wrote it does not specify one kind of death over another.  Please elaborate how "nephesh", or the actual word from that passage, means both spiritual and physical death.  When I read Genesis I see most of it as an allegory of the soul and man's falling into a state of sin, not physical falling/dying.

Did you know that Dictionaries also portray a foundational worldview through definitions establishing a system of values that may or may not be compatible with a Christian Biblical worldview?  That is why objectivity in words and language are very important tools when establishing a personal worldview.

A good point, and this illustrate the fluidity of language.  There has been a lot of confusions about definitions in these forums, and that is because there is often no universally accepted "true" definition of most words!

Message was edited by: TTPAdmin1

By literal I am talking about a literal event in history.  So let me re-phrase the question Was there a literal event in history when God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment?  I ask this because if this event was not a literal historical event how can we ever make sense of it literally?  And as for Hell, it will be a physical place for physical bodies in the end.

Yes, God literally cast the angels into hell when they sinned.  I think that angels are spiritual beings and sin is a spiritual act, and also that hell is a spiritual place.  But why do you think that non-eternal bodies would rest in an eternal place (assuming you believe hell is an eternal place and bodies are non-eternal)? (I am sure there is some scripture that you are probably referring to, but I cannot think of any off the top of my head)

I have been reading a little about allegorical interpretations of the Bible to understand them a little better.  One of the main arguments is that Genesis (indeed all of the Bible) was written in a way that the people of the time could understand.  Today we read "the pillars of the earth" or "the sun stood still" and might say "that was metaphor or allegory, not literal".  But at the time, some of these erroneous beliefs about the earth, sun, stars, etc. were common among people of the Middle East (including Jews).  So to them these probably made perfect and literal sense, given the context of their knowledge about the world.  Another example, this time from the New Testament, is the parable of the mustard seed.  Jesus calls it "the least of all seeds", but today we know that there are other seeds that are smaller.  But if we consider his audience - Jews 2000 years ago - that was the smallest seed that they had or knew of, so the parable made perfect sense to them.

As far as the times when Jesus refers to the Old Testament and creation as literal historical events, I would say the same thing: he is speaking to people that had those ideas about cosmology, geology, etc., so to them his statements made perfect sense.  So going back to "natural reading", shouldn't this context be considered as well when reading the Bible?  You probably disagree about Genesis being written with the ideas of the people of the time, but how then do you reconcile Jesus's apparently false claim that the mustard seed is the smallest if you disregard that it was said in the context of the ideas and knowledge of the time?

I see Genesis, indeed much of the Bible, as allegory about the nature and will of God, the breaking of our relationship with him, and finally our reconciliation to him.  "The tree of knowledge of good and evil" is sometimes translated as "the tree of conscience".  We are not born knowing good and evil, but we learn, and eventually we become conscious of what is good and evil.  So perhaps in growing up we fall away from God, because at a certain age we become conscience of good and evil.  Anyway, just a little idea I had while reading a bit.  I haven't thought those middle sentences all the way through, but I thought it could be an interesting way of thinking about that part of Genesis.

Could you please tell me how you came to define sin as rebellion? Is that your idea or someone else’s idea? I’ve even heard some people define sin as “a lack of self-esteem.” On what basis have you determined sin means rebellion? Where did you get that definition?

Sin is acting (or thinking, a spiritual "action") against the will of God, so in the sense that it is against God's will I would call it rebellion.  We see this many times in the Bible: people ignoring God's will and sometimes even outrightly contradicting it, and they are punished for it.

In the beginning God made a perfect world with no death (physical and spiritual).  The moment Adam sinned, death (physical and spiritual) entered the world… … …If you still cannot see the connection, then read the article on my previous post.

Ahh, okay I see, this was a fault on my part.  I forgot to consider your view that the world was perfect before the fall (physically and spiritually), so of course it would follow that the death that came after the fall was both kinds.

I think that you are still misunderstanding me.  I am agree with you that the sun "stood still".  What I'm saying is that the phrasing "stood still" was written from the perspective of the ancient Hebrews who thought that it was the sun that moved around the earth.  Therefore, a strict literal (natural) interpretation would support a geocentric model.  This is exaclty what the church has done in the past.

Relativity is concerned with relative motion.  When looking at the earth relative to the sun, it is the earth that revolves around the sun.  The sun is moving relative to other stars because the universe is expanding.  But this point doesn't really affect what we are talking about.

So the truths that Jesus explained through parables are actually historically accurate stories?  Or was Jesus lying?  I always thought that parables weren't literal history, but you can explain why I'm wrong if you like.

The intention of the question I asked was to look at each passage on a case by case basis.  Making a blanket statement such as yours just doesn't work.

Exactly, and that is where my understanding of a figurative creation account comes from.  It wasn't an offhand conjecture that I made up on my own.

It is your opinion that it is "clear".  This particular topic would require a much more thorough explanation on my part so I'll come back to it in a later thread.

Sometimes a "natural" reading can lead us astray because we fail to see the deeper meaning behind it.  There are a lot of references to things that were important or symbolic to those people at those time.  Taking the bible and reading it like a newspaper is what critics do.  Just search the web for criticisms of the bible and you will find page after page of "naturally read" scriptures that appear to be erroneous.  However, most of those critics can be answered by looking beyond a "natural" reading.  Putting the bible in the context of the culture, including cosmology, trade systems, the meaning of numbers, and even myths from surrounding cultures is where we should start.  In the same way that you think man is fallable at interpretting nature, man is so much more fallable at interpretting a document from thousands of years ago so a "natural" newspaper style reading of the bible is certainly not a good starting point.

So what if the creation account and flood account are poetic styles that don't represent how a historical text would have been written?  What if they are full of symbolism that is meaningful to that culture at that day in non-scientific ways?  What if scholars understand the creation/flood accounts to be figurative because of the way they are written, and the context of the surrounding cultures?

God bless,

Phil

Phil and TTPAdmin,

I apologize for not citing the posts I will remember to place them with the post next time.  Phil the reason why I posted articles is for you to read them.  I remember posting with you months ago and I remember you were extremely bias against YEC and AiG.  I was not sure if you would even bother reading any articles from their cite.  But if you are open to read some of those articles I am glad.  I have read alot of your articles as well and I will not accept them.  My decision to know and accept YEC as true is more than an intellectual decision, but it was a moral decision.  I know that if I do not accept God's Word as true and inerrant then I am taking what He said and making it my own.  I know that if I make His Word my own then I set myself on a pedastal above Him.  You have an issue with pride.  You will not budge for no one.  You do not have a biblical worldview you have Phil's worldview.

Respectfully,

Desicess