Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many Biblical experts and historians say that in Numbers 22:28 and 30, when Balaam's donkey speaks to him, one should not take "that part" of the story as literal truth. Apparently, many christians don't take this "part" of the story as literal. It's a slippery slope when you start picking and choosing which parts of the bible stories are literal and which ones are not.
What's the difference between this miracle and other miracles in the bible? They are all inspired by God.
Many Biblical experts and historians say that in Numbers 22:28 and 30, when Balaam's donkey speaks to him, one should not take "that part" of the story as literal truth. Apparently, many christians don't take this "part" of the story as literal. It's a slippery slope when you start picking and choosing which parts of the bible stories are literal and which ones are not.
What's the difference between this miracle and other miracles in the bible? They are all inspired by God.
But this is the whole concept of myth and legend.
Make it up as you go along. IOW, come tgo a conclusions and then try find the "facts"(verses) that support that conclusion. That is how religion works and particularly the xian faith.
Look at this:
A legend (Latin, legenda, "things to be read") is a narrative of human actions that are perceived both by teller and listeners to take place within human history and to possess certain qualities that give the tale verisimilitude. Legend, for its active and passive participants includes no happenings that are outside the realm of "possibility", defined by a highly flexible set of parameters, which may include miracles that are perceived as actually having happened, within the specific tradition of indoctrination where the legend arises, and within which it may be transformed over time, in order to keep it fresh and vital, and realistic. The Brothers Grimm defined legend as folktale historically grounded.[1] A modern folklorist's professional definition of legend was proposed by Timothy R. Tangherlini in 1990:[2]
The bolded part. Tell me what of that is not employed in the xian faith.
Last edited by Alpha8207; 04-15-2009 at 08:44 AM..
Many Biblical experts and historians say that in Numbers 22:28 and 30, when Balaam's donkey speaks to him, one should not take "that part" of the story as literal truth. Apparently, many christians don't take this "part" of the story as literal. It's a slippery slope when you start picking and choosing which parts of the bible stories are literal and which ones are not.
What's the difference between this miracle and other miracles in the bible? They are all inspired by God.
There are some passages in the Bible that just sound like they using symbolism or some sort of metaphor to describe a particular event. I can't conceive of what a talking donkey could possibly be trying to describe because in this particular story Balaam and his donkey actually get into an argument and the donkey asks Balaam why he struck him three times which just makes Balaam even madder. As it turns out an Angel of the Lord confronts Balaam and also asks why he struck his donkey three times. Anyway, it sounds like it's meant to be taken literally. It's not something that I could ever believe myself but I guess if you're going to believe the Bible you've got to be consistent.
Well, one of the problems with Christianity is they have locked themselves into a position of totality. Wherein they are completely bound to one path and there is no flexibility, either they are 100% right or they are wrong. If there is only one true God and it inspired the writing of the Bible, then Christians have no choice but to believe it is all literal no matter how outrageous it may seem. Once Chritians say that parts of the Bible are meant as allegory, then the flood gates open and the Bible is akin to Greek mythology, as it properly should be.
Well, one of the problems with Christianity is they have locked themselves into a position of totality. Wherein they are completely bound to one path and there is no flexibility, either they are 100% right or they are wrong. If there is only one true God and it inspired the writing of the Bible, then Christians have no choice but to believe it is all literal no matter how outrageous it may seem. Once Chritians say that parts of the Bible are meant as allegory, then the flood gates open and the Bible is akin to Greek mythology, as it properly should be.
The truth is no one is a literalist. They all cherry pick to support their own brand of belief. There are so many interpretations thus if the bible is the inerrant word of god, there should only be one interpretation.
Thus the evangelicals have no problem talking f the hell as the lake of fire in Revelation (which it is not) but are quick to state the beast that comes from the sea is allegory thus shooting themselves in the foot time and again.
Basically it all comes down to what you want to or have been taught to believe. Inquiring minds and textual critics usually come to different conclusions and thus the common deflection if one does not hold to the same conclusion, the other party is deceived by the mythical devil. Very convenient.
Well, one of the problems with Christianity is they have locked themselves into a position of totality. Wherein they are completely bound to one path and there is no flexibility, either they are 100% right or they are wrong. If there is only one true God and it inspired the writing of the Bible, then Christians have no choice but to believe it is all literal no matter how outrageous it may seem. Once Chritians say that parts of the Bible are meant as allegory, then the flood gates open and the Bible is akin to Greek mythology, as it properly should be.
So glad you summed that all up for me. All because I believe the donkey literally talked.
Many Biblical experts and historians say that in Numbers 22:28 and 30, when Balaam's donkey speaks to him, one should not take "that part" of the story as literal truth. Apparently, many christians don't take this "part" of the story as literal. It's a slippery slope when you start picking and choosing which parts of the bible stories are literal and which ones are not.
What's the difference between this miracle and other miracles in the bible? They are all inspired by God.
Many "experts" say a lot of crazy things. Some believe DaVinci had a code.
What about the passage would indicate at all that it is allegory? Nothing. I don't have a problem believing that God gave a donkey the ability to speak, or that he caused an angel to speak through the donkey. If God can speak and create the universe from nothing, it's not hard to believe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
