Liberal Christians: Genealogies in the Bible?

If you consider that the OT is a history of how a particular tribe of people understood God, and not the words of God itself, the “monstrous” parts of the OT become a lot easier to understand.

You didn’t ask me, but I consider it a parable about what happens when you try to run away from God. Not literal.

Have you even read the NT? Because that’s not part of it.

Not if you use another verse to interpret the first, which it looks like they did. If you believe that the Bible states that 1 day=a thousand years, then you are still being literal.

You say that, but I don’t see any indication that you believe it. Almost any fact I question you deny.

Sorry, if she wasn’t a virgin that parts not truth, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

Metaphorically alive, generally means dead.

You claimed that it was a general belief, not that just a few guys held that belief. I’m asking you to support your claim. If you can’t, you should just admit it.

Not sure.

Sounds like Plato’s guess was better to me. I wonder if Lucretius made a guess.

Sounds like they were just questioning time before the earth and moon were created, that sounds like they were taking Genesis pretty literal, and again you are trying to prove a general consensus. Usher Chronology sure looks to be taking things literally.

Oh, I don’t deny that the OT is in part a history of how the ancient Israelites imagined God to be. I’m just saying that the God they imagined, like Zeus, Odin, and most other sky gods, was a freaking monster with the moral sensibilities of a housecat and the moral authority of an inanimate carbon rod. There’s some good advice in the OT, but there’s also the story of Yahweh murdering David & Bathsheba’s infant son because He was angry at David, which I mention not because it’s the worst thing Yahweh does (it’s not even in the top 100) but because it’s the most personally offensive to me.

And of course there’s the whole Yahweh-not-existing part.

You’re asking about things that are unknowable, irrelevant, or both. The Bible (to quote Hooker) contains all knowledge necessary for salvation. It’s not a history book or science text.

Usher’s work was mid-17th century.

I’m willing to back off my “generally” assertion and say that early church scholars had a diversity of views (not unlike modern religious scholars). In addition to Clement, Origen, and Augustine, there was Ambrose, Hilary and Philo who all promoted an allegorical understanding of Creation. In any case, your claim that the normal interpretation was literal until modern times is false. It’s a millennia-old argument.

If the knowledge is inaccurate, what are you being saved from?

But does it?

So?

Good, you learned something.

I guess I would have to see you quote them.

I don’t think I claimed to know what “normal interpretation” is, I think it was you doing that.

I know that “literal” is recently being used in new ways, but in terms of literary interpretation, “literal” means interpreting the words as written. Interpreting one day to be a millennium is not a literal interpretation. In fact, it’s clear case of a metaphor.

If the Bible says that a thousand years is as a day to God, and you believe that to be true, then you are taking the Bible literally.

I guess you’re out of luck then, because I don’t have time for an extra homework assignment.

Actually it looks like it was TonySinclair who said

which is what I was refuting. It was widely (but not universally) accepted in the earliest centuries. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jewish scholarship was the same, but I haven’t studied in that area.

And unfortunately, because this is an interesting thread, this is probably my last post in it. I’m headed out on vacation now to a cabin in the woods with no internet or even electricity until the 14th. Happy Independence Day to my fellow Americans.

That’s fine, I’ll just remain a doubting Thomas.

Traditionally I think the Jews date the earth at ~5700 years based on a fairly literal interpretation of events.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_world_is_6000yrs_old_why_Jewish_calendar_at_5700

Even if the Bible says to use a metaphor, it’s still a metaphorical interpretation, not a literal one.

I’d take that as more evidence that the Bible should not interpreted literally.

I thought it was the author of 2 Peter doing his own post-hoc rationalizing as to why Jesus didn’t return for his 2nd coming like the gospel says he promised. It’s a pretty good meme, but still only gets you to a 6000 year old creation. Not that any of you liberal Christians care what words mean though. It’s all true to you, even when you know it isn’t.

There are places that offer “deliverance” from demons… if demons are real then there is the possibility that people today - perhaps even yourself - could be oppressed by them. e.g.

If you had schizophrenia and believed in demons you’d probably think that demons could be the cause of the voices (BTW I know of many people of schizophrenia due to having a mental illness and being in groups which involve mentally ill people) So then you’d try getting deliverance or an exorcism. BTW I know a guy who gets his wife to pray to Jesus whenever his voices are affecting him too much (e.g. when he wants to have a cigarette and the voices don’t want him to)

BTW if you believe each day of creation was 1000 years, then plants were created 1000 years before the sun…

It would be mostly based on the genealogies… using them to create the calendar suggests they take those numbers seriously.

This is a non sequitur.

You addressed this thread to “Liberal Christians” who generally don’t play any of the literalist games with scripture.

Adherents of Judaism, like adherents of Christianity, come in a number of flavors, some of whom are literalist and some of whom are not. It is not accurate to claim that “Jews” are either literalist or not without defining which specific sect, (or even which specific school or synagogue), holds a particular belief.

My reply was based on replies like Czarcasms:
“If you believe that the Bible states that 1 day=a thousand years, then you are still being literal.”
I’m saying that there are problems for anyone that might believe that.