The esetoric and literals of the bible

I'm curious to understand how one can take one part of the bible so literally and another as not literal. Where does one draw the line of what is literal and what is not?

azure wrote:

I'm curious to understand how one can take one part of the bible so literally and another as not literal. Where does one draw the line of what is literal and what is not?

Good question azure. I have often wondered about the formula for picking and choosing myself.

There are even many portions of the Bible that cause me to wonder what the esetoric message could be.

Azure,

Then there are times that things in the Bible can be taken as both literal and esoterically.

Such as the the exact story you point out. Yes, there was a storm and Christ said, "Peace be still" and the waters were still. It could also be telling just what you said, the storms in our life and leaning on Christ for the peace and calm.

I don't think anyone will ever tell you (at least I hope they don't) that they know everything there is to know or understand about the Bible. Then there are times that the literal translation doesn't apply in a situation at that given time and the esoteric does and vice versa. I think the meaning behind it all is probably something no one has complete understanding of.

So, for me, this isn't something answered easily. I think you have to take specifics about what you are talking about.

azure wrote:

I'm curious to understand how one can take one part of the bible so literally and another as not literal. Where does one draw the line of what is literal and what is not?

Good question azure. I have often wondered about the formula for picking and choosing myself.

There are even many portions of the Bible that cause me to wonder what the esetoric message could be.

I agree that no one has complete understanding, is this not why they call it the living bible? because it seems to adapt to the reader?

Seems to adapt to the reader? Hmmm. I guess I always looked at it that the reader adapts to it. That is a very intriguing thought, Azure. I'm going to think on that.

Actually, Mesquite, I think you might be surprised there.

Don't you think if they didn't understand these stories maybe they wouldn't have gotten out? Yes, I believe the Bible is divinely protected, but you don't, remember? So, if those people were so ignorant and these stories had no redemming quality as you seem to think and you think men wrote the Bible, why did men choose to leave these in the Bible?

These were evil people God was dealing with. He knew what was in their hearts. He knew their children would grow up doing the exact same thing as their parents, and I would guess on a grander scale.

It was God and the laws He gave men to follow in the Old Testament. The punishment was see ya! Well, they knew that. They were warned. They chose to continue in their wicked ways.

The New Testament (Christ) changed that. We have the laws of love and forgiveness. We have Christ taking our punishment for our sins.

I know you struggle with understanding this. If you didn't I don't think you'd keep bringing it up. For me, once I realized that I cannot constrain God's perfection or Holiness in any word, etc., I then came to understand things much clearer. If I kept trying to constrain God to my limited intelligence of being human, I kept having problems.[

The formula had to do with men that were somehow being spiritually guided in(by) the will of God.

Now that where it's gets dicey for folks that have not experienced the active live God(Holy Spirt) - that's not a belittlement or debase

"I was coming to understand that God might be gently leading me into a new arena of public policy involvement," Munsil wrote recently as he announced his resignation from The Center for Arizona Policy to run for governor. The center is a conservative public policy group Munsil has headed the past 10 years.
One could spend lots of time trying to determine whether the phrase "new arena of public policy involvement" accurately characterizes the roles and duties of a governor.
But then, one could also spend considerable time wondering precisely just how God was "gently leading" Munsil into running.

That's for sure where it gets dicey for me, however that being the criteria, why is it that the bible is not a work in progress? There is certainly no shortage of people today that claim to be in touch with God. Why is their word no better than those whose credentials cannot be corraborated?

Momma Angel wrote:

Actually, Mesquite, I think you might be surprised there.

Don't you think if they didn't understand these stories maybe they wouldn't have gotten out? Yes, I believe the Bible is divinely protected, but you don't, remember? So, if those people were so ignorant and these stories had no redemming quality as you seem to think and you think men wrote the Bible, why did men choose to leave these in the Bible?

Because in those days the development of morals was still in the pits. They just didn't know any better IMO.

You think their moral development was still in the pits? Ok, I will need a bit of clarification on that. I am not quite sure what you mean. So are you saying the ones that "wrote" the Bible were not smart enough to realize that someon would think that God is coming off a bit harsh? You think they were stupid? I guess I need a bit more from you on that too.


Momma Angel wrote:

These were evil people God was dealing with. He knew what was in their hearts. He knew their children would grow up doing the exact same thing as their parents, and I would guess on a grander scale.

A close reading of the book of Numbers reveals that the great sin of the Midianites was that the Hebrew men had been coming into town and consorting with prostitutes of their cities and that then as now, they often came back home with sexually transmitted diseases, which they then promptly spread thoughout the camp. It's really getting to be quite a sordid story for the genesis of a world religion, don't you think?

The kids would grow up to be as bad or worse as their parents, so snuff them? Is that the best you can come up with? It was the Hebrew men that went carousing for Pete's sake. And their punishment?....oh yeah, they get to keep the young virgins for themselves. God sanctioned paedophilia, how pure.

Mesquite, God is so pure you cannot look upon His face and live. Honestly, can you comprehend that? I can't fully comprehend that. So, if He is that perfect don't you think any sin to Him will be just the opposite of what He is? In my mind most definitely telling a lie comes nowhere close to being as bad a killing someone. But, that's MY mind. I don't think God looks at it that way. He has thinkgs He calls sins and things He calls abominations.

God knows everything. He knew whether or not the children of those people would grow up to be like their parents or not. I do not. Yes, it sounds like really unfair punishment to MY mind. But, again, not to God.

And as to God sanctioning paedophilia, well, that needs a bit more explanation from you on exactly what you mean.

Momma Angel wrote:
It was God and the laws He gave men to follow in the Old Testament. The punishment was see ya! Well, they knew that. They were warned. They chose to continue in their wicked ways.

Wrong, God's laws were for the Hebrews. He did not punish them for their carousing. He gave them booty. He was after all, their war god.

Gods laws are meant for everyone. Not everyone accepts that. God's punishment often brought His people back to Him. Look at the Israelites when they left Egypt. Didn't got punish the ones that were worshipping the golden calf? Didn't God also punish coming generations because of the iniquity of the Israelites in the desert?

God knows there will always be those for Him and those against Him. He already knows who they are all. I don't even dare begin to think I understand why He did a lot of the stuff He did. But, it's like this. He is God. I am not. Just as I do not jump to conclusions when I am told of something someone has done or said, I don't with God either. I know God had His reasons. I know He is a just God.

Momma Angel wrote:
The New Testament (Christ) changed that. We have the laws of love and forgiveness. We have Christ taking our punishment for our sins.

I can remember when you tried to convince me that "nothing changed" between the old and new testaments. here . That takes one heck of a stretch to compare the vengeful psychopathic war God of the OT to the loving, forgiving words of Jesus and say they are the same.

Actually, it doesn't take a stretch at all. It only takes a leap of faith.

Momma Angel wrote:
I know you struggle with understanding this. If you didn't I don't think you'd keep bringing it up. For me, once I realized that I cannot constrain God's perfection or Holiness in any word, etc., I then came to understand things much clearer. If I kept trying to constrain God to my limited intelligence of being human, I kept having problems.[

MA, I have NO trouble understanding this. It is most obvious to me that the hebrew war god was concocted by a superstitious, unknowledgeable ancient civilization. Jehovah was a relatively new god to humanity at the time, being pretty much exclusive to his "chosen people", and they did not then or now go about doing much proselytizing to gain converts. According to this barbaric tribe of Hebrews the whole world was 'heathen and pagan' and in severe need of genocidal killing, except of course their virgin children, who did have some value after all.

It's obvious to me that in the Old Testament there was God and man and law. You break the law, you get punished.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ was born, lived, was crucified, died, was buried and resurrected for the forgiveness of sins. It's obvious to me in the New Testament the covenant with God is all about love and forgiveness.

Can you imagine how hard it might have been to find converts at the time in the Old Testament? The thing is, they didn't have Jesus at the time. They didn't have the love and forgiveness like Christ preached. They had God, man and the law. Yet, Christianity lives on. (Questioner, now, I see your point on that one! :wink: )