[jlisenbe]

Sub "level" there if you like. Meaning stays the same.

[Wondergirl]

I don't like, so I won't.

[dwashbur]

There are no "levels". They are called genres, categories.

Sounds to me like it's just a matter of terminology. Library science doesn't separate fiction into historical and non-historical, but so what? I've seen plenty of works cataloged in fiction that should have been in the 800s, and vice versa.

Call it what you like. The fact is, the division exists.

[jlisenbe]

This certainly settles the issue of whether or not, "Fiction is fiction."

"All Quiet is not fiction; it's historical fiction." So one is not the other.

Sounds to me like it's just a matter of terminology.

Sound like a reasonable stopping point.

[Wondergirl]

I've seen plenty of works cataloged in fiction that should have been in the 800s, and vice versa.

All fiction of any genre used to be in the 800s (literature). American Fiction in English was at 813.54. There was no "fiction" section with FIC/Author on the spine; all books had numbers on their spines -- Dewey Decimal (or Library of Congress) classifications.

Dewey Decimal Classifications:

• 810 American literature in English
• 811 American poetry in English
• 812 American drama in English
• 813 American fiction in English
• 814 American essays in English
• 815 American speeches in English
• 816 American letters in English
• 817 American humor and satire in English
• 818 American miscellaneous writings in English
• 819 No longer used—formerly Puzzle activities

[Athos]

Sounds to me .................................................. ..........

Have you given up on replying to my post #216? Especially your reference to Genesis, if that is what it was.

I hope you're not reverting to your hit-and-run approach to this board again. Once in a while is ok.

Your regular participation is welcome here.

[jlisenbe]

Have you given up on replying to my post #216?

This is coming from the person who refused to state his view on the resurrection, has refused to disclose his own religious beliefs, and will not state what kind of evidence he would accept concerning the resurrection. Now if he want others to be forthcoming, he should accept that challenge himself.

[dwashbur]

Have you given up on replying to my post #216? Especially your reference to Genesis, if that is what it was.

I hope you're not reverting to your hit-and-run approach to this board again. Once in a while is ok.

Your regular participation is welcome here.

Thanks. Back at you.

Not so much hit-and-run as "life is insane and I can only get here occasionally".

The "talking snake" in Genesis is clearly a euphemism for hasatan, the adversary who appears later on especially in Job. Could other animals talk before the Fall? The question never occurred to me. But the story in Genesis 3 is clearly talking about something more than your basic garter snake.

As I said, life has gotten crazy and I have limited time. It seems to me this discussion is going nowhere, so I'm going to politely bow out for now.

[Athos]

Not so much hit-and-run as "life is insane and I can only get here occasionally"

LOL - I know exactly what you mean!

The "talking snake" in Genesis is clearly a euphemism for hasatan, the adversary who appears later on especially in Job.

Yes, the snake is Satan (hasatan). I don't think that's ever been denied. The question is - based on that story - can snakes talk? I say no, the story is just that, a story with a message. Some here have claimed the snake did literally talk. That's like saying Mickey Mouse is an actual talking mouse. It's not easy to take anyone seriously who makes such a claim.

Could other animals talk before the Fall? The question never occurred to me.

It never occurred to me either.

But the story in Genesis 3 is clearly talking about something more than your basic garter snake.

Yes, it's talking about the story of Adam and Eve. That has never been denied either.

It seems to me this discussion is going nowhere, so I'm going to politely bow out for now.

That is your privilege to bow out, but I wonder why you could never unequivocally deny the notion of a talking snake.

Anyway, this discussion is much more than simply "going nowhere". It was part of challenging the literal-ness of the Bible. It began with the belief of Jesus saying in the Gospel of Matthew that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment.

After many deflections and denials - all of which were answered - it included the "talking snake" belief. This belief is a mainstay of fundamentalists and white evangelicals, about which I will have more to say at "Religious Discussions".

[jlisenbe]

After many deflections and denials - all of which were answered.

Must be meant to be taken humorously?

[waltero]

Hey, Walter. A thought just hit me. How do you define, "the love of God"? Maybe that is where we are missing each other. What is your definition of the term?

I am God's Love.

I Honestly Don't know what you guys are going on about. I thought I'd wait, wait till you were done with all this Malarkey.


What is the purpose of the Bible? It is to make men and women wise unto salvation. It’s not a book about astronomy. It’s not a scientific textbook. It’s a book that has been written to make us wise for salvation. So we should be very, very careful, then, about trying to extrapolate scientific terminology and deductions from a book that does not have that as its express purpose.

Ultimately, the Bible can only be interpreted for us by the Holy Spirit. Because true understanding is not natural to us. And if you listened carefully to the psalmist, you would realize that Milne is right when he says, “What we understand of [God’s] truth is related less to the capacity of our brains than to the extent of our obedience.” “What we learn of God’s truth is related less to the capacity of our brains than to the extent of our obedience.”

What the Bible says is that God has breathed out the holy Scriptures and that it is this which provides Scripture with its reliability and with its authority—that God has spoken, revealing truth and at the same time preserving the human authors from error, and doing so in such a way so as not to violate their personalities.

[jlisenbe]

I am God's Love.

Not following you on that one. Are you saying that when the Bible refers to God's love, it is specifically referring to Waltero?

Glad to see you back!

I think this was your best paragraph. "What the Bible says is that God has breathed out the holy Scriptures and that it is this which provides Scripture with its reliability and with its authority—that God has spoken, revealing truth and at the same time preserving the human authors from error, and doing so in such a way so as not to violate their personalities."

[waltero]

Glad to see you back!

Thanks.

Not following you on that one. Are you saying that when the Bible refers to God's love, it is specifically referring to Waltero?

Yes...it takes God's love to love God.

"What the Bible says is that God has breathed out the holy Scriptures and that it is this which provides Scripture with its reliability and with its authority—that God has spoken, revealing truth and at the same time preserving the human authors from error, and doing so in such a way so as not to violate their personalities."

It’s in 2 Peter 1:21. And there, speaking of the work of God in Scripture, says in verse 21, “For prophesy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

What God has to say to us is much more important than what we have to say to him. And indeed, we have nothing to say to him until first, we have heard from him.

[Wondergirl]

"What God has to say to us is much more important than what we have to say to him.

What does God have to say to us? Where or how?

And indeed, we have nothing to say to him until first, we have heard from him.

We cannot reach out to Him first?

[jlisenbe]

You said, "I am God's love." I replied, "Are you saying that when the Bible refers to God's love, it is specifically referring to Waltero?" That would seem to be the logical conclusion of you saying, "I (Waltero) am God's love." So how does this reply of yours answer the question? "Yes...it takes God's love to love God."

"We cannot reach out to Him first?"

Not according to the Bible.

[Wondergirl]

"We cannot reach out to Him first?"
Not according to the Bible.

Yes, we can -- according to the Bible.

Prov. 8:17: I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.

Acts17:27: God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

Heb. 11:6: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

James 4:8: Come near to God and he will come near to you.

[jlisenbe]

None of those say that we can come to God without Him first calling us. However, these passages ALL say that no one can come to God unless God first reaches out to that person. The first three come from Christ Himself. It is hard to imagine how He could have put it much clearer.

John 6:44. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

John 6:65. And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

John 3:3. Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

1 Corinthians 2:14. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

John 16:7 But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the [c]Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

[Wondergirl]

My verses are much more explicit. God wants us to seek Him and will respond.

[jlisenbe]

Your verses are explicit about what they are speaking of. They do not, however, say that man can come to God without God first calling Him.

But you can reject the words of Jesus if you want. Your choice.

[Wondergirl]

Your verses are explicit about what they are speaking of. They do not, however, say that man can come to God without God first calling Him.

Again --
Prov. 8:17: I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.

Acts17:27: God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

Heb. 11:6: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

James 4:8: Come near to God and he will come near to you.

But you can reject the words of Jesus if you want. Your choice.

No, I'm not rejecting anything. You are twisting His words.