How would you describe the Bible

[Amanah]

Do you consider the Bible to be literal?

Do you consider the OT to be Metaphoric?

Do you consider the OT to be mostly types and shadows, many of the stories having never happened?

Or do you think the Bible must be a blend of all three, stories, metaphors, types and shadows.

Jesus taught in parables, are most of the bible stories parables to teach us spiritual truths? but not to be taken literally?

[Scott Hutchinson]

The Bible contains both the symbolic and the literal.The things in the OT. happened for our examples.

[mfblume]

The bible uses metaphors as well as explicit and non-metaphorical statements. When it uses a metaphor, the plain and non-metaphorical side of it will be presented in the bible as well. It is a self-contained book. It explains itself. There are no metaphors that are not revealed outside of the metaphorical concept somewhere else in the bible. And the bible itself makes it plain and self-evident what the metaphors mean in other passages. The good student of the bible will recognize when the bible is using metaphors and when it is not.

If the bible flatly says something will occur outside of a vision (knowing visions may or may not be symbolic) then the event will literally occur, or literally did occur.

The OT stories literally happened, but at the same time they are types and shadows of what would occur in Christ in the NT. God foreknew what He would do for salvation and caused circumstances in the OT to literally occur but also stand as a type and shadow of the salvation of the NT.

[Amanah]

what do you think about the 7 days of creation versus what scientists are telling us now that the earth is billions of years old, are the 7 days metaphoric?

[Amanah]

what about all the battles and wars in the bible where people are killing each other, do you think God fought with different Kings to destroy others?

[Glenda B]

I would describe the Bible as a very important book, it doesn't matter whether it's written in parables, it is the truth and it needs to be read from front to back.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Amanah

what do you think about the 7 days of creation versus what scientists are telling us now that the earth is billions of years old, are the 7 days metaphoric?

The seven days were literal. But I also see where there may be a gap between gen. 1:1 and 1:2, which may account for millions of years.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Amanah

what about all the battles and wars in the bible where people are killing each other, do you think God fought with different Kings to destroy others?

Wars were literal and stand as types of how we fight spiritual wickedness.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Amanah

what do you think about the 7 days of creation versus what scientists are telling us now that the earth is billions of years old, are the 7 days metaphoric?

13.7 billion. This number is actually becoming more and more accurate as various measurements get more precise.

Another example of something that "literally" took place but is usually not interpreted no where near accurate is Noah's flood. There was a literal Noah and all of humanity was wiped out except for him and his family. But it was NOT world wide -it was world wide from his viewpoint and humanities at the time, but the vast majority of the Earth was untouched. This is why we have kangaroo's in Australia and all the various species in far away lands which would have had no way of getting there after departing the ark. And yes, there is evidence of major floods everywhere in the world -because there have been major flood(s) in most of the world!

[NorCal]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The seven days were literal. But I also see where there may be a gap between gen. 1:1 and 1:2, which may account for millions of years.

I was always taught that Creation was 7 Days, but that God made everything as if it had always been. So when he created trees, there were seedlings, saplings, yearlings, and ones that were 1000 years old. Even dead logs.

As for rocks, the same thing occurred.