manomanomanoman -- sure wish I could treat my checkbook allegorically!!
(literal interpretation --- no money left) :(
(allegorical interpretation -- I must have money left, I still have checks!)
Nice smiley dmiller. So (he asks with sarcasm creeping into his voice, or at least his font) you believe that the bible is 100% literal? No figures of speech? That really was a talking snake in Genesis?
The creep exists, as his cronies do. I remember one guy telling me it was not a harmonious army. Lots of bullying and dissension going on. That was one thing that the Way taught that was enlightening to me.
Nowadays it seems like Joyce Meyer is one of the few ones who will address this subject directly. Most churches it seems don't want to even acknowledge it's existence for fear of people thinking their some weird cult group.
I think that's nonsense. Half the new testament is about the little slug.
Nice smiley dmiller. So (he asks with sarcasm creeping into his voice, or at least his font) you believe that the bible is 100% literal? No figures of speech? That really was a talking snake in Genesis?
I .... was .... joking ....!!
Apparently it was a bad joke, eh?
Or at least ill-timed. Mea culpa.
I certainly believe that it is allegorical in parts (figures of speech, parables, etc.), and I also believe that much of it is literal as well. To me the devil does not fit in the allegory part of it.
Were I to hold to an agnostic belief like you do Oak, then I could easily dismiss the devil as allegorical, since I would have done the same with God. (I think I said that right!)
If God is not a genuine being but just some *good* force, then the devil would (by default) not be a genuine being either, but just some sort of *bad* force. I see where you are coming from, and it makes sense given what you believe.
But since I believe in a real God, to me it follows that there is a real devil as well. No -- I don't believe in a literal talking snake, but I do believe that some kind of literal being was doing the talking there in Genesis, not an allegorical one.
Joking or no, dmiller, your post that I responded to indicates that you believe that an allegorical interpretation is not possible, not that you don't agree with it. Yes, I got it that you were using humor to make your point. :P
I certainly believe that it is allegorical in parts (figures of speech, parables, etc.), and I also believe that much of it is literal as well. To me the devil does not fit in the allegory part of it.
Actually, arguing from the point of view that the bible is true, the position that the devil is a literal being can be supported more easily than a figurative devil can...in my opinion.
Were I to hold to an agnostic belief like you do Oak, then I could easily dismiss the devil as allegorical, since I would have done the same with God. (I think I said that right!)
It really has nothing to do with an agnostic view. There are Christians who do not believe that the bible is talking about a literal adversary when it talks about the devil. A typcal agnostic wouldn't even get to the existance of the devil, being so busy wondering about the existance of God.
If God is not a genuine being but just some *good* force, then the devil would (by default) not be a genuine being either, but just some sort of *bad* force.
I'd agree with that. One could hardly believe that God is a figurative representation of "good" while believeing in a literal devil. Possible, i guess, just not likely.
I see where you are coming from, and it makes sense given what you believe
With respect, I don't really think you do see where I am coming from. I put forth the idea of a figurative devil as a possibilty, in response to this:
QUOTE(likeaeagle @ Dec 1 2005, 12:59 PM)
my bible says he does.
...not as a statement of my own personal belief. I personally do not believe that there is a devil, literal or figurative. I thought that the statement "my bible says he does" did not take into account differing Christian beliefs about the devil and evil.
Again, with respect, I'm not sure that you really know what I believe.
But since I believe in a real God, to me it follows that there is a real devil as well.
It is certainly a valid biblical position that there is both a real God and a real devil. It does not necessarily follow that a "real" God means that there is a "real" devil.
No -- I don't believe in a literal talking snake, but I do believe that some kind of literal being was doing the talking there in Genesis, not an allegorical one.
I think I clearly labelled my remark about a "talking snake" as sarcasm <_<
Edited by Oakspear
14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 15There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 17And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 18And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you
Joking or no, dmiller, your post that I responded to indicates that you believe that an allegorical interpretation is not possible, not that you don't agree with it. Yes, I got it that you were using humor to make your point. :P
Hmm. Now that you put it that way -----. :)
Of course allegorical interpretations are in evidence all over the book. Starting in Genesis with the snake.
Serpent is the word *Nachash*, meaning shining one. A heavanly being, angelic persona, whatever, but definitely not a snake (and yes I caught the sarcasm you used). ;)
I've always believed that portions of the bible were allegorical. Just not as much of it as some do.
Actually, arguing from the point of view that the bible is true, the position that the devil is a literal being can be supported more easily than a figurative devil can...in my opinion.
My point exactly!
It really has nothing to do with an agnostic view. There are Christians who do not believe that the bible is talking about a literal adversary when it talks about the devil. A typcal agnostic wouldn't even get to the existance of the devil, being so busy wondering about the existance of God.
Ya got a good point there. Seemed to me that folks who dismiss (or question) the existance of God would automatically do the same when the devil question came up, but I did forget about all the christians who dismiss the devil, yet profess to believe in a literal God. And you made a better point yet, about the agnostic putting *priorities* first!!
I'd agree with that. One could hardly believe that God is a figurative representation of "good" while believeing in a literal devil. Possible, i guess, just not likely.
Thanks for agreeing, but what I said was comparing a literal God to a literal devil, not one being figurative, and the other literal. In my thinking, either both are literal, or both are figurative (unlike aforesaid christians who can pick and choose -- and ascribe qualities to either or, depending on their denomination).
With respect, I don't really think you do see where I am coming from. I put forth the idea of a figurative devil as a possibilty, in response to this:
(likeaeagle @ Dec 1 2005, 12:59 PM)
my bible says he does.
...not as a statement of my own personal belief. I personally do not believe that there is a devil, literal or figurative. I thought that the statement "my bible says he does" did not take into account differing Christian beliefs about the devil and evil.
Again, with respect, I'm not sure that you really know what I believe.
Well --- I'll agree that I don't really know what you do or don't believe, but I think the statement *my bible says he does* takes into account the entire spectrum of christian beliefs, albeit from one vantage point.
Some would say --- my bible says he does.
Others might say -- my bible says maybe he does.
Others might say -- my bible says no way.
Others might say -- what's a bible?
Guess this is how the many denominations started, eh? And when I say *entire spectrum*, you can read into it PITST (Private Interpretation Through Selective Thinking)), since every last somebody (myself included) thinks they know what the bible purports to say, or at least are convinced that they have some handle on the truth, and are willing to declare such depending on whatever fellowship, denomination, etc., they choose to follow.
It is certainly a valid biblical position that there is both a real God and a real devil. It does not necessarily follow that a "real" God means that there is a "real" devil.
Why not?? Again -- you just made the point that if one follows the *biblical position*, that all this is plausible, whereas if one does not follow the biblical position then it is all speculative, in which case you would be right (even though I don't know what you really think). B)
Whewwww!!! This took a while to answer, and since everyone needs something to believe in, I believe I'll have a beer now! ;)
Have two beers, I think you sprained something writing that post.
I hate to be nitpicky (okay, I like being nitpicky) but although Bullinger says that nachashmeans "shining one", nachash is a normal Hebrew word for serpent aka snake. Blueletterbible.com says that nachash means serpent, but that it derives from the word "to hiss". But even assuming that Bullinger is correct, the root of a word only gives an indication of the meaning of a word, and is not always a reliable guide to the actual meaning. Words change, and as they branch off from the root take on shades of meaning and connotations that are not in the root.
Bullinger (and Wierwille) often referred to a word's root to plum (or is it plumb?) meanings that weren't necessarily there.
Anyway, we know it's not a literal snake, mainly because it's talking, not because it's the word nachash. There are literal references to snakes that use the same word.
Recommended Posts
likeaneagle
my bible says he does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
themex
Well, mine too. :huh:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please direct threads of a DOCTRINAL nature
to the DOCTRINAL forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I dunno bout *THE* devil, but I sure have been face to face with pure evil a time or two. :(
But then again this was just a *trick* question, wasn`t it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
it's an imagination of the heart
which is real
as real as it gets
same with God
which way one chooses is
the honest fruit
for both come from the same source
what is the perspective
and how we choose to see it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
manomanomanoman -- sure wish I could treat my checkbook allegorically!!
(literal interpretation --- no money left) :(
(allegorical interpretation -- I must have money left, I still have checks!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
The creep exists, as his cronies do. I remember one guy telling me it was not a harmonious army. Lots of bullying and dissension going on. That was one thing that the Way taught that was enlightening to me.
Nowadays it seems like Joyce Meyer is one of the few ones who will address this subject directly. Most churches it seems don't want to even acknowledge it's existence for fear of people thinking their some weird cult group.
I think that's nonsense. Half the new testament is about the little slug.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
if you think the evil is is something far removed from yourself-you are miss informed
who is willing to to look it straight in the eye and face it and burn it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I .... was .... joking ....!!
Apparently it was a bad joke, eh?
Or at least ill-timed. Mea culpa.
I certainly believe that it is allegorical in parts (figures of speech, parables, etc.), and I also believe that much of it is literal as well. To me the devil does not fit in the allegory part of it.
Were I to hold to an agnostic belief like you do Oak, then I could easily dismiss the devil as allegorical, since I would have done the same with God. (I think I said that right!)
If God is not a genuine being but just some *good* force, then the devil would (by default) not be a genuine being either, but just some sort of *bad* force. I see where you are coming from, and it makes sense given what you believe.
But since I believe in a real God, to me it follows that there is a real devil as well. No -- I don't believe in a literal talking snake, but I do believe that some kind of literal being was doing the talking there in Genesis, not an allegorical one.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Again, with respect, I'm not sure that you really know what I believe.
It is certainly a valid biblical position that there is both a real God and a real devil. It does not necessarily follow that a "real" God means that there is a "real" devil. I think I clearly labelled my remark about a "talking snake" as sarcasm <_< Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
14And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: 15There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. 16If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. 17And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. 18And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you
does that help?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
Yah I believe the devil really exists.
Digi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
these also come from within-same source
what can change? and how?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmm. Now that you put it that way -----. :)
Of course allegorical interpretations are in evidence all over the book. Starting in Genesis with the snake.
Serpent is the word *Nachash*, meaning shining one. A heavanly being, angelic persona, whatever, but definitely not a snake (and yes I caught the sarcasm you used). ;)
I've always believed that portions of the bible were allegorical. Just not as much of it as some do.
My point exactly!Ya got a good point there. Seemed to me that folks who dismiss (or question) the existance of God would automatically do the same when the devil question came up, but I did forget about all the christians who dismiss the devil, yet profess to believe in a literal God. And you made a better point yet, about the agnostic putting *priorities* first!!
Thanks for agreeing, but what I said was comparing a literal God to a literal devil, not one being figurative, and the other literal. In my thinking, either both are literal, or both are figurative (unlike aforesaid christians who can pick and choose -- and ascribe qualities to either or, depending on their denomination).Well --- I'll agree that I don't really know what you do or don't believe, but I think the statement *my bible says he does* takes into account the entire spectrum of christian beliefs, albeit from one vantage point.
Some would say --- my bible says he does.
Others might say -- my bible says maybe he does.
Others might say -- my bible says no way.
Others might say -- what's a bible?
Guess this is how the many denominations started, eh? And when I say *entire spectrum*, you can read into it PITST (Private Interpretation Through Selective Thinking)), since every last somebody (myself included) thinks they know what the bible purports to say, or at least are convinced that they have some handle on the truth, and are willing to declare such depending on whatever fellowship, denomination, etc., they choose to follow.
Why not?? Again -- you just made the point that if one follows the *biblical position*, that all this is plausible, whereas if one does not follow the biblical position then it is all speculative, in which case you would be right (even though I don't know what you really think). B)
Whewwww!!! This took a while to answer, and since everyone needs something to believe in, I believe I'll have a beer now! ;)
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
dmiller:
Have two beers, I think you sprained something writing that post.
I hate to be nitpicky (okay, I like being nitpicky) but although Bullinger says that nachash means "shining one", nachash is a normal Hebrew word for serpent aka snake. Blueletterbible.com says that nachash means serpent, but that it derives from the word "to hiss". But even assuming that Bullinger is correct, the root of a word only gives an indication of the meaning of a word, and is not always a reliable guide to the actual meaning. Words change, and as they branch off from the root take on shades of meaning and connotations that are not in the root.
Bullinger (and Wierwille) often referred to a word's root to plum (or is it plumb?) meanings that weren't necessarily there.
Anyway, we know it's not a literal snake, mainly because it's talking, not because it's the word nachash. There are literal references to snakes that use the same word.
D*mn, now I need a beer, and it only 2;30AM.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Too Gray Now
Oak,
I think it is plumb: To examine closely or deeply; probe: “Shallow ideas are plumbed and discarded” (Gilbert Highet).
I just didn't think I could say "deeply - probe" in this forum... ya know? So, I had to get Gilbert Highet to say it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.