Why I'm Not a Biblical Literalist

[_just me]

Now say it like Church Lady!

Or is it .... SATAN???

Much better, thanks.

[_bcspace]

Because without such specification on these major events and happenings, it becomes a lie or fabrication and not a metaphor.

So it must be declared to be a metaphor by the text itself?

To be a metaphor only. Yes. Example: "Jesus spake this parable unto them...."

What about Jonah and the whale?

Has to be some historicity to it.

It would be a good metaphor for self transformation (becoming a new person etc.).
Some might say that you don't need to declare something a metaphor if it walks like a metaphor and quacks like a metaphor and if it is too fantastic as to be seriously intended to be literal.

It's not unreasonable for something to be historical and a metaphor as well.

[_Hoops]

Seriously. So those who believe in works plus grace do so because of the wiles of Satan or because it's a perfectly logical interpretation of the New Testament?

Those who choose to believe in works plus faith are mislead. Willfully. It is much easier to believe in works plus faith, in my opinion. But, I might add, I know of no Christian denomination that preaches this to the extent that LDS and others do. There are individual sects, the bakke study Bible folks come to mind (I think I have that right), but they are almost immediately and almost universally criticized for it.

No, what are the critical differences are the nature of Christ and The Trinity. That is the line that one cannot cross without venturing unbiblical and nonchristian. I think there's a few more but I haven't thought about it, just walked in to hotel.

[_Hoops]

Or is it .... SATAN???

Much better, thanks.[/quote]

LOL. I enjoyed that. Thanks!!

[_Hoops]

It's so much easier and fun to blame the wiles of Satan :)

Ha! It is for sure! (which is why I rarely, if ever, do)

[_Hoops]

If God took the time to make sure the version of the Bible you use is accurate why wouldn't he take the time to make sure they all were?

Just where are these Bibles where these huge chasms of doctrinal divide are?

[_Hoops]

Wait. What was the question? Sorry, we both think and speak from different places so I have to keep that in mind when discussing with you. I don't try to get lost or misunderstand, it just happens. :/

Lol. It was your question about Noah and flood.

[_just me]

Wait. What was the question? Sorry, we both think and speak from different places so I have to keep that in mind when discussing with you. I don't try to get lost or misunderstand, it just happens. :/

Lol. It was your question about Noah and flood.

Was my question why God killed innocent people in the flood? I didn't phrase anything in the form of a question, I went back and looked. What question of mine would you question exactly?

(I hope you did well at your tournament)

[_Hoops]

Was my question why God killed innocent people in the flood? I didn't phrase anything in the form of a question, I went back and looked. What question of mine would you question exactly?

(I hope you did well at your tournament)

You're right. I should have written statement, not question.

We are preparing for the tournament now, practice again tomorrow then travelling to another tournament site.

[_just me]

Was my question why God killed innocent people in the flood? I didn't phrase anything in the form of a question, I went back and looked. What question of mine would you question exactly?

(I hope you did well at your tournament)

You're right. I should have written statement, not question.

We are preparing for the tournament now, practice again tomorrow then travelling to another tournament site.

Phew, it's all getting clearer. Anyway, if you are questioning that God killed innocent people (I'm still kinda assuming that is what we are talking about) then we both probably have different views on what innocence is.