Is the entire bible to be taken literally?

Yarr the Pirate · Post by **Yarr the Pirate** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:07 pm

I cite, par example, the follwing verses:

Leviticus 11:7 - 'Regard the pig as unclean, for though has a cloven hoof, it does not chew the cud.'

Leviticus 20:27 - 'Put to death any man or woman among you who is a necromancer or magician. Stone them with stones.'

Deuteronomy 13:13 - 17 - 'If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it.'

And let's not forget the classic example:

Deuteronomy 22: 28 - 29 - 'If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.'

Creationists would tell us that there is scientific, steadfast proof for the bible to be taken literally (not just the Christian Scriptures, but the Hebrew ones as well!). Does this mean that rape victims should marry their rapists, we should kill all those who don't follow our religion, stone Lance Burton, and never eat pigs?

Why are we told to take Genesis literally, but no other part of the bible?

(sidebar: Why is there a fight to put the Ten Commandments up in public places, but no such fight for the Sermon on the Mount?)

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:13 pm

What does a view on OT dispensation have to do with Genesis?

Yarr the Pirate · Post by **Yarr the Pirate** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:16 pm

Nothing - it has something to do with Deuteronomy and Leviticus, which last time I checked, are parts of the bible. The bible that creationists say should be taken literally. Nice try at changing the subject, as usual.

Are you saying only Genesis is to be taken ltierally? On what grounds is it to be taken literally as opposed to the rest of the bible which is supposed to be the inerrant word of God?

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:19 pm

But anyway, Genesis is written as a historical account and not some sort of mythical parable.

The authors of the New Testament, Paul and Timothy in particular presented the creation as a historical event.
Also Barnabus presented the six day creation as a historical event and not a parable.

I can provide references if you need them.

Yarr the Pirate · Post by **Yarr the Pirate** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 6:21 pm

that's all very well and good, but I'm asking about Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Why can you only talk about Genesis? Why won't you talk about Deuteronomy and Leviticus?

I ask again - on what grounds is Genesis supposed to be taken literally while Deuteronomy and Leviticus are not?

Why can't you answer that question?

gluadys · Post by **gluadys** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:01 pm

YEC wrote:But anyway, Genesis is written as a historical account and not some sort of mythical parable.

Can you substantiate this?

The authors of the New Testament, Paul and Timothy in particular presented the creation as a historical event.
Also Barnabus presented the six day creation as a historical event and not a parable.

Don't you mean that they referred to it? How do you know they thought it was a historical account? Paul's references to Adam would seem to say he did not think of Adam as a historical person, but as an archetype.

Besides, regardless of what a speaker thinks, does referring to somebody else's writing automatically make that writing historical if it wasn't historical in the first place?

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:33 pm

Deuteronomy and Leviticus can be taken as literal....i fail to see your problem.

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:38 pm

Here is one simple example...
Perhaps you could tell us where the linage changes from literal to...not so literal.

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,
Matthat,
Levi,
Melki,
Jannai,
Joseph,
Mattathias,
Amos,
Nahum,
Esli,
Naggai,
Maath,
Mattathias,
Semein,
Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
Zerubbabel,
Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melki,
Addi,
Cosam,
Elmadam,
Er,
Joshua,
Eliezer,
Jorim,
Matthat,
Levi,
Simeon,
Judah,
Joseph,
Jonam,
Eliakim,
Melea,
Menna,
Mattatha,
Nathan,
David,
Jesse,
Obed,
Boaz,
Salmon,
Nahshon,
Amminadab,
Ram,
Hezron,
Perez,
Judah,
Jacob,
Isaac,
Abraham,
Terah,
Nahor,
Serug,
Reu,
Peleg,
Eber,
Shelah,
Cainan,
Arphaxad,
Shem,
Noah,
Lamech,
Methuselah,
Enoch,
Jared,
Mahalalel,
Kenan,
Enosh,
Seth,
Adam,
God.

YEC · Post by **YEC** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:42 pm

gluadys posted the following:
Paul's references to Adam would seem to say he did not think of Adam as a historical person, but as an archetype.

Why do you say that?

In this verse Adam as well as Moses is presentd as literal rather than an archtype

ROM 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Yarr the Pirate · Post by **Yarr the Pirate** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 8:51 pm

Well, if they are to be taken literally (adverbs are fun), that means you support the law that rape victims must marry their rapists and that men who have crushed testicles should not be allowed into church, along with the idea that we should stone Lance Burton and David Copperfield.

I mean, you couldn't take the book of Genesis literally and then just say to God "I don't feel like following the rest of your bible, Genesis is all I'm going to need today, thanks."

Good to know you believe in stoning and the punishment of raped women.

It's all I was asking. Thanks for answering.