christians and non-literal understanding of the bible

Barney, I think Maliakah makes a pretty good point about God's choosing of a method to communicate with us. A better question might be why does he not continue to communicate as he did in the past. But trying to use human logic to explore the mind of God is like trying to use simiam logic to probe humanity. I'm not sure you can trust the results of your research.

Hi Grace Seeker:

Perhaps this will be instructive to all who would read the Bible.

There are and perhaps always will be some relatively minor differences in interpretation to certain verses in the Bible. With careful study, honest debate and patience, even these can be resolved. However, differences in interpretation assume that there was a basic understanding of the verse.

The example passages that you quoted earlier, like someone believing that sins are actually red from the “sins like scarlet” verse, must refer to persons who simply have not understood the verse at all.

Those who say "God wrote it. I believe it. That settles it." normally say this in the context of being pressured to compromise on what they believe to be absolute moral issues and not an issue that lends itself to more than one interpretation. For instance, God clearly stated that adultery and fornication were wrong. Some Christians would normally repeat the statement about “God wrote it …” in response to their peers trying to pressure them into engaging in pre-marital sex, for instance.

The issues with Creation, Moses parting the Red Sea, the Hebrew boys surviving the fire, Daniel surviving the lion’s den, Sampson’s strength, Jesus’ miracles, etc are what I believe Malaikah was referring to. Perhaps she can confirm this. These are not introduced as parables, visions, example stories, teaching metaphors, or any similar myth. They are described as historical accounts.

Some Christians are clearly embarrassed by these accounts and try to fit in by claiming that they are metaphors etc. If the information is not as it is described, then there is probably an attempt to deceive or confuse the reader. Let me clarify that.

If a passage is described as a parable, then we must assume that we are reading a parable and we understand it and interpret it as such. If it is described or introduced as a vision, then we must assume that we are reading a vision. However, if it is described or introduced as a historical account, then who has the authority to determine that it was actually a metaphor? Who has the authority to decide that what Jesus introduced as a parable was actually a historical account and not a parable? Clearly the Bible would then be a book of utter confusion. Actually, since one could never understand the Bible since one would not know whether one was reading a metaphor or an instruction, we would have to conclude that the Bible has been corrupted beyond all redemption.

As previously stated, the Bible must be read with a fair degree of common sense. To avoid understanding verses out of their proper context, the Bible should be read in its entirety before even contemplating forming a dogmatic conclusion on any one part.

Regards,
Grenville

You are free to hold to that view. I just don't happen to join you in all aspects of it.

Hi Grace Seeker:

Fair enough. I believe that we agree on the essentials. Believing in the supernatural events as previously described may not be an essential requirement.

Best regards,
Grenville