A Case for Not Reading The Bible Literally
- Thread starter biblestudent78
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Davidstarr:
A talking snake is not the issue. The issue is why did God put evil, not Satan (in the form of a snake) in the garden knowing exactly what would happen to Adam and Eve? or do you believe that God is not "all knowing" If God did not create evil, who did? If God has no power over satan, why not? If satan is co-eternal as is God, where does the bible teach that?
ScooterJackson,
There are two creation stories in Genesis. In both evil is placed in the garden, so the question is what does it mean that evil was coresident with Adam and Eve?
Option 1 - God+ created Adam and Eve and Evil at the same time or there would be no evil in the garden
Corollary 1. If God did not but evil in the garden then evil must have equal eternal life with God+and God+ is powerless to prevent evil and He was powerless to protect Adam and Eve. Or perhaps He never intended to.
Option 2 - God+ knew exactly what would happen. it was His will- plan for mankind to fall as he gave no warning to Adam about the existence of evil. Hint: An eternal orchard keeper would never worship his employer, thankful perhaps, friendship perhaps but not worshipful. (there is no evidence that Adam & Eve ever worshipped God in the garden)
Option 3 - God+ had no idea of what Adam and Eve would do once evil came into the garden, meaning God+ was not omnipotent.
Satan is a created being, NOT co-eternal with God.
All sentient life forms which God has created have free will, the ability to choose.
God did not create Satan. He created Lucifer, the son of the morning, the anointed cherub that covereth.
Lucifer (by his rebellion) chose to recreate himself and became Satan, the enemy of God.
It was a test to show Adam and Eve what kind of people they were. God tests us that way too.
Actually...
God created Adam and Eve knowing they would sin.
But...
The price for their sin was already paid by Christ from the foundation of the earth.
All things were created by Him (Christ) so, the template of creation is necessarily bound to Christ. This includes His how He planned to redeem man knowing they would fall from grace.
Some may ask "Well then, why the test?" As in "What was the purpose of the tree if Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from it?"
The purpose for creating man is manifold. It includes ruling over the creation, including the angels. For this, man could not rely on his own strength as he was made lower than the angels. Man would need empowerment by God to have influence and rule among the heavenly beings. Man's enemy knew this, and attempted to cut off man at the genesis of his reign: only doing what he sees His Father doing. So first, the enemy twists the words of God and secondly, appeals to the appetites of Adam and Eve's clothing: their flesh. By identifying with their habitation and not the spirit within them that was from God, they became subject to the elements and ultimately to death.
Roger316:
Let me clarify your theology. God puts sin in the world to test us but also knows we fail 100% of the time.
OMC:
I'm as given to scriptural speculation as the next guy. On the other hand, majoring in minors gets tedious. We have no clean conceptual model of post mortem events. If we awaken to Jesus, a heaven of constant worry about our friends and families that are not there does not fit the "everlasting happiness model. If we arise to torcher followed by annihilation, we will thank God for his mercy given that our second death were our first death. Conscious eternal torment was an idea foreign to God's people for 900 years and has ambiguities in the biblical corpus. Perhaps our only consolation if it turns out we served a God of who delights in pain and torcher as vividly as He is described in Revelation, then will see all the Great Kings of Israel and Judah and the panoply of all those bible characters who tried to follow God across the arch of history but failed.
You're right that Scripture does not give us a fully developed timeline of every postmortem event, and I agree that speculation can easily outrun revelation.
But I think you're moving too quickly from "we don't know everything" to "therefore the warnings about judgment may not mean what they appear to mean."
The Bible does not present God as delighting in suffering.
He says, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Ezek. 33:11).
The God revealed in Christ weeps over Jerusalem, prays for His enemies, and gives His own life for sinners.
Whatever Revelation means, it cannot mean that God suddenly becomes a different character than the One revealed throughout Scripture.
I would also be careful about suggesting that many of the great figures of biblical history ultimately failed.
Hebrews 11 presents Abraham, Moses, David, Samuel, and the prophets as examples of faith, not cautionary tales.
Their salvation was never grounded in sinless performance but in God's mercy.
As for loved ones who may not be present in the age to come, Scripture does not give a detailed answer.
What it does say is that God will wipe away every tear, and that His judgments are true and righteous altogether.
The question is not whether we can currently imagine how perfect justice and perfect joy coexist.
The question is whether we trust the God who promises both.
In the end, I think the safest position is not to soften judgment passages because they trouble us, nor to expand them beyond what is written.
We should affirm what Scripture clearly states: Christ will return, the dead will be raised, all humanity will be judged, the righteous will inherit life, and God's judgment will be perfectly just.
Beyond that, humility is wiser than dogmatism.
As Abraham said, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
That question remains the anchor when our understanding of the details runs out.
Thank you.
I'll start with the Tree of Life. If it's a literal tree whose fruit will sustain life in perpetuity, then there's more than one way to attain eternal life, i.e., eating fruit from that tree, or redemption through Christ. Most believers would probably agree, since the Bible is explicitly clear on this in John 14:6, that there is only one way to attain eternal life. Conclusion: the Tree of Life is a metaphor for Christ. I can't be the only one who's concluded this.
So then it stands to reason that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is also metaphoric and, in my view, symbolic of "the serpent" referenced in Genesis 3, the "sons of God" referenced in Genesis 6, "the enemy" who sowed tares among the wheat in Matthew 13, "that wicked one" referenced in I John 3, "the angels which kept not their first estate" in Jude verse 6, etc., etc., etc.
Change my mind.
I don't think the Tree of Life argument works the way you're presenting it.
You're assuming that if the Tree of Life were literal, it would constitute a second, independent means of obtaining eternal life alongside Christ. But Scripture never says that.
In Genesis 3:22, God says: "lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever."
The text presents the tree as God's appointed means of sustaining life, not as an alternative savior competing with God.
The same God who saves through Christ can also preserve life through means He ordains.
We do not argue that manna became a second source of salvation because God used it to sustain Israel.
Nor do we argue that the bronze serpent became a rival redeemer because God used it as an instrument of healing.
More importantly, Scripture frequently contains both literal realities and typological significance simultaneously.
Christ is called the Passover Lamb, but that does not mean the original Passover lambs were not real lambs.
Christ is the true Bread from heaven, but that does not mean the manna never literally existed.
Likewise, Christ may well be the ultimate fulfillment of everything the Tree of Life represents without requiring the tree itself to be merely symbolic.
In fact, Revelation continues to speak of the Tree of Life as a distinct object: "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life" (Rev. 2:7). "On either side of the river, was there the tree of life" (Rev. 22:2).
The burden therefore is not on me to prove the tree is literal.
The burden is on you to show why a literal tree with typological significance is impossible.
John 14:6 teaches there is only one Savior and one way to the Father.
It does not teach that God cannot use appointed means, symbols, ordinances, or even a literal Tree of Life within His redemptive.
So I don't think the conclusion follows: "Christ is the only way to eternal life; therefore the Tree of Life cannot be literal."
Rather, Christ can be the exclusive source of eternal life while the Tree of Life remains one of the symbols, means, or manifestations through which that life is represented and enjoyed.
Those ideas are not mutually exclusive.
My understanding the tree
of life is for sinless Adam, eve, to eat and sustain life.Once they sinned, God basically took that resource away. The only path is Jesus now, for sinners.
I think mankind's dominion was only over the things of this world (Gen 1:26 & 28).
That would not include ruling over angels. They are not of this world.
I tend to disagree. The tree of life was there in the garden available for Adam and Eve to eat from BEFORE they sinned and had need of a Savior.
If it is a metaphor for Jesus then why would it even be there in the garden BEFORE they needed Jesus?
After the fall they were kicked out of the garden to prevent them from eating the fruit of the tree of life and living forever.
Does this mean that once a person sins they cannot reach Jesus for salvation?
If the tree of life is a metaphor....
In my view, which is not rigid, the "serpent" is a metaphor for the fallen angels (aka the sons of God referenced in Genesis 6:1-4), and man's sin was fornicating with them.
If it wasn't something along those lines, why did they cover their genitals in shame afterwards? Why not their mouths?
Why did the woman's punishment concern child bearing and submission?
Why are there no daughters listed among Cain's descendants, but every one of Adam's (except Noah) had sons and daughters (again, Genesis 6:1-4)?
Why is Cain not listed in Adam's genealogy and, in fact, completely separate from it?
Why is it emphasized that Seth looked like Adam?
Why are there so many places in scripture that imply that Cain was not of Adam?
Why are there so many places in scripture that use eating as a metaphor for intercourse/fornication/adultery, but some can't/won't/don't fathom that Genesis 3 is doing the same thing?
So many questions.
If it wasn't something along those lines, why did they cover their genitals in shame afterwards? Why not their mouths?
Why did the woman's punishment concern child bearing and submission?
Why are there no daughters listed among Cain's descendants, but every one of Adam's (except Noah) had sons and daughters (again, Genesis 6:1-4)?
Why is Cain not listed in Adam's genealogy and, in fact, completely separate from it?
Why is it emphasized that Seth looked like Adam?
Why are there so many places in scripture that imply that Cain was not of Adam?
Why are there so many places in scripture that use eating as a metaphor for intercourse/fornication/adultery, but some can't/won't/don't fathom that Genesis 3 is doing the same thing?
So many questions.
Disagree, and I prefer to call it sound doctrine.
That's a tough one to argue, but a couple of things to note concerning that verse. Eve attributes her acquisition to the LORD, and it's the only verse that says she "conceived" (see 4:25). Neither Abel nor Seth get that distinction. Maybe relevant maybe not, but it doesn't seem wise to me to discount the whole thing because I can't explain one verse.
I addressed this last night. The "serpent" was not a beast of the field, but more cunning than any of them. Quite an attribute.
Did you see anything I wrote that was racist? No, you didn't because it's not there. I was in fact condemning Branham and Murray. Beast relations? Only if one believes that the "serpent" was a literal beast. I don't believe that.
He participated in adultery along with his wife in some sort of swinger/swap situation. Remember? I'm one who thinks the "serpent/tree/fruit" narrative is metaphoric.
If .. huge if here. If these were the only scriptures one might worry about salvation. These are not about salvation. Context.. I don't know why.. to know some believe that word means cut off others believe it means to left up. How odd they did in that time cut off branches yet also branches that were not bearing fruit, not getting enough light, would lift it up so it would get more light and bear more fruit. To leave this out, just because one doesn't want to believe it does not make what your personal belief is true. Yeah if I believed so easy to lose salvation the.. duh its cut off! Yet He was not talking about salvation. For whom the Father gives the son.. He never loses any. This is where the classic adding to God's word comes in. But that doesn't mean we can't walk away. I thought what Jesus said is what Jesus meant. So if he said he doesn't lose any, he doesn't lose any.
For me, those in Christ are the branches that bear fruit. Because we're in the vine, we can't bear fruit of ourselves, and those that don't bear fruit are not of Him. We're never of Him. There is no verse in the Bible that says you can lose your salvation. There's no verse in the Bible saying "once saved, always saved." Christians do it, say it, to cause fear, to promote what they personally believe, not that Jesus Christ came, died on the cross for the world's sin, was buried, rose the third day, is the only way to the Father. He loves you. He died for you. Today is the day of salvation. That's what matters.
In Romans 11, the natural branches were broken off because of their unbelief. Then if the natural branches do not persist in their unbelief, they can be grafted back into their own olive tree because God has the power to restore them. Opps
Show me even one verse in scripture that says the "sons of God" were angels.
Jesus said angels in heaven do not marry yet these ones did.
So, what then? Fallen angels? Let's just call them for what they are, demons and devils.
Do you really believe that those demons (who left their first estate in heaven) can still be called "sons of God"?
Rom 8:14 may interest you. The sons of God are obviously NOT fallen angels.
I think you need to reevaluate the books of Enoch and compare them to the scriptures for accuracy.
There just too many lies in the books of Enoch that show this writing cannot be trusted.