chapka

Not sure if this belongs in GRD or BC&H...

I have an honest question for biblical literalists regarding something I've always been curious about: why does so much fundamentalist/evangelical eschatology demand less literal rigor from Revelation than it does from Genesis?

In other words, there's a lot of discussion on boards like RaptureReady about what Revelation "really" means--whether certain passages are talking about the U.N., or the E.U., or Wicca, or Ba'hai. Whether bioimplant chips are the "number of the beast". The significance of the Chernobyl disaster. Whether this or that person is the "beast" (Revelation of course never uses the word "antichrist") with seven heads and ten horns which will rule the earth during the Tribulation.

Nobody ever steps in and says, "Listen, the Bible says the Beast will have seven heads and ten horns. Kofi Annan does not have seven heads and ten horns. Therefore Kofi Annan is not the Beast." It's taken for granted that these descriptions are allegorical. But suggest the same of Genesis, and suddenly you're not a literalist any more. In fact, it's in Revelation itself that the Bible contains its strictest adjuration against reading more into the words than is written--a passage often used by Creationists to attack "day-agers" and others they see as insufficiently literal.

The only explanation I've ever heard for this has been that Revelation is "obviously" not meant to be taken literally because it's prophecy, not history. But to my mind, this is a cop-out rather than a reasonable explanation.

First of all, there's no label on any particular part of the bible that says, "This part is prophecy, this history." Who makes this call in questionable cases--for example, the Song of Solomon?

Secondly, if God is capable of talking about future events in a metaphorical way, why is he not equally capable of talking about past events in the same way? Both books were presumably not written by first-hand witnesses of creation or armageddon, but by people inspired by God. Who makes the decision that visions of the future can be allegorical, but not visions of the past?

I guess what I'm saying is, if you believe in sola scriptura, there's nothing to indicate that the same type of reading wouldn't apply to Genesis as it does to Revelation. Unless you believe in the seven literal heads of the Beast of Armageddon, how can you criticize someone else for not believing in the six literal days of Creation?

Symptom

there's nothing rational about the bible. it's bookended by two of the weirdest pieces of fiction ever written by man, and you're right, it is stupid for fundies to insist that one be taken literally and the other not. you can see their justification - the creation story of genesis is written in very dry, matter-of-fact descriptions, while the revelation sounds like an acid trip gone haywire. the point still stands though - the rapture ready crowd wants desperately to believe that they are living in the end times, just as they desperately want to believe that genesis is the literal story of the creation of the earth. so they use their powers of doublethink and say one is literal and the other is not. hopefully they'll "see the light" someday...

Avatar

Whether this or that person is the "beast" (Revelation of course never uses the word "antichrist") with seven heads and ten horns which will rule the earth during the Tribulation.

It's PENTEX!!!

http://www.game-times.com/thestore/p...etoPentex.html

http://www.kmant.com/WerewolfASubsidiaries.htm

http://www.white-wolf.com/pentexcommercial.mov

For the humor impaired...I'm being facetious...

chapka

Only I can't, really. That's my point; the imagery of Genesis is just as formalized and implausible as the Revelation--instead of angels blowing trumpets and opening seals, we have the evening, and the morning, and the next day. The idea that Adam actually personally named every animal on earth is just as implausible as the seas literally turning to blood. And things that would surely be dealt with in a historical record (Cain's wife, for instance) are passed over as unimportant (as indeed they are to an allegorical reading).

Xulfer Cirtsag

Well, I'm sure Satan with his genetic engineers will easily install Kofi Annan with seven heads and ten horns. We've got fundies genetically engineering red heifers, right? So why can't Satan give Kofi Annan seven heads?

I gotta say that we're now reaching a point where science can lend credence to these mythologies and that may continue to have odd effects on the fundie community. :devil1:

Plognark

In response to the OP: Because the whole thing is a big fucking mess and they're trying to support one particular flavor of Christian belief?

What do I win?

Symptom

I suppose. depends on how you look at it. I imagine when they read the bible they see whatever they want to see, but no surprise there.

Cynthia of Syracuse

Let's try this in BC&H.

chapka

bump.

No inerrantists willing to address this issue? Links, even?

Mordy

Reveletion states that it is a symbolic book, theres no issues about it. Only an <deleted> would try to compare revelation and genesis 1. As a ex-christian, compromised christians who believe both evolution and the bible are laughable, jesus himself believed genesis 1 was literal.

I'll toss out some evidence for you just so you all know I'm not making it up, Passages in the Gospels which show that Jesus and John the Baptizer believed Moses to be the author:

Matthew 19:7-8 "...why did Moses say a man could merely write an official letter of divorce and send her away?", they asked. Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted divorce...'"

Matthew 22:24 "Moses said, 'If a man dies without children...'"

Mark 7:10 "For instance, Moses gave you this law from God..."

Mark 12:24 "...haven't you ever read about this in the writings of Moses, in the story of the burning bush..."

Luke 24:44 "...I told you that everything written about me by Moses and the prophets and in the Psalms must all come true."

John 1:17 "For the law was given through Moses..."

John 5:46 "But if you had believed Moses, you would have believed me because he wrote about me. And since you don't believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?"

John 7:23 "...do it, so as not to break the law of Moses..."

Passages elsewhere in the Christian Scriptures: Acts 26:22 "...I teach nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen..."

Romans 10:5 "For Moses wrote..."

End of quotes...

So many things in the bible are stated plainly by jesus that he accepted them and most christians are trinitarians not unitarians, so you have a problem when god (jesus) believes its all literal but as a christian and YOU do not. This is the contradiction, inconsistent claims TO knowledge by inconsistent use of knowledge from an authority. Christians say they know their god is the real and one and only god because they learned the teaching from the bibles own authority, but then they throw it out when jesus (god) says he believes moses wrote the old testament. If anyone thinks this is not the ultimate in blinkered thought you have to be the most blind bastard on earth.

You can't say as a christian you believe god is real and then disbelieve whatever jesus said he believed.

But all brand of old earth creationists or theistic evolutionists refuse to accept them at face value when they are clearly meant to be taken that way given the context. They are hypocrites in denial about a dead and thoroughly debunked worldview.