What in the Bíble has to be taken literally what not

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Bardock42
Well, maybe with explaination

clickclick
For instance some of the stuff in revelations. This is of course IMO but I think the Bible is meant more for lessons and messages rather than being an accurate historic document on all accounts.

Additionally, the terminology they had when these books were written had some kind of hindrance on their understandability today.

DenKi
bible was just once some story what some man made upo thousands of years ago, It was prob a book what everyone got then started to believe

WindDancer
This is a rather difficult thing to point out. Certain books in the Old Testament have certain historical content whereas other sections could be fictional. Since I'm not a Bible quoter I can only say that the book of Numbers is one of the books with Historic insights. For example the first chapter mentions different names of cities and princes. Which leads to me belive that there was a Hebrew Kingship during the time of Moses. Set aside any supernatural stuff and you can see a Chronology of the ancient Hebrew generations.

Storm
What one person needs in one situation may be radically different from what another person needs at another time and place. What would be problematic for god? is to utter the same set of teachings without regard to circumstance. Writers understood that they were in a relationship with a living god who was responding to their own, very unique circumstances. God' s response to a different set of people facing different circumstances would be different.

We humans have a tremendous capacity for filtering, distorting or spinning any text we read, any event we observe, any truth we learn. The biblical writers and editors were no different in this than any of us. Fact is that century after century, generation after generation, people have found wisdom and inspiration upon its pages.

BackFire
Here's the short simple answer that most believers will insinuate. Anything that flatters the bible and those who follow it should be taken literally. Anything questionable, such as god killing babies as a punishment to their parents, should not be taken literally. This seems to be the case most of the time.

Imperial_Samura
I always thought, at best, that the bible had a core, a middle truth, the moral, as it were, but that core was surrounded by a mist as it were. The problem is many people take the mist and shape it into what they want, totally ignoring the core....

Yes, there is a lot of symbolisms in the bible, and reference to actual historic events, all told like a story, but a lot of it is hard to take literally, as it seems so, unbelievable? Not really the right word, but it will do.

clickclick
I disagree with you there.

BackFire
Keep in mind I don't agree with that myself, but that's how most people who believe in teh Bible seem to think. Anything with questionable values or morals that happens in the bible shouldn't be taken literally, according to most of them.

big gay kirk
Most of the history is factual, but it has to be remembered that it is written from a (biased) hebrew/jewish viewpoint.... for instance, was Pharoah trying to get his Hebrew slaves back (Exodus) or was he making sure they were going....

Gregory
To my knowledge, there's no extra-Biblical evidence that the exodus even happened.

Imperial_Samura
There are some historical records, carvings in Egypt, that indicate at some point the Jews left, although as to whether it was a massive exodus is less likely...

But yes, the Bible does make reference to a number of real places, events and people, so in a way there are facts, but then the creators of the Bible interpreted as to what these facts mean... so it depends on ones beliefs as to what one sees as "real"

big gay kirk
Also the existence of the Exodus depends on which dating system you use... according to one, the Pharoah of Exodus was Rameses II.... according to another, Rameses II was ruling in Egypt at the time Saul was ruling in Israel... it doesn't help that the "names " of the Kings of Judah and Israel given in the Bible are actually titles... their personal names were different, and so when a king is identified in an extra-biblical source, it is easy to show that the Bible is thus "Disproved..."

Also the evidence available can be used to show that Moses was actually a Pharoah himself, named Thutmoses, who was of a dynasty known as the Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings, who were kicked out of Egypt by rebels...

Jackie Malfoy
I may be wrong but alot of christens groups takes the bible very literally while some cathloics don't.So I am not sure about any of it.However.,JM

finti
the bible is a book full of shit so whats to be taken literally is the fact that it is a book full of shit , so take it for what it is worth. a book full of shit

big gay kirk
Not often i disagree with Finti... but.... I would say that some of it is shit, but most of it is biased history.... the New Testament is mainly St Paul trying to get powerful and rich...

MC Mike
None. It's a metaphor.

Cinemaddiction
The basic principles/morals of the stories that are self-contained are what were intended to be taken to heart. The Bible has its share of outdated material, granted, but nobody should take it word for word.

mr.smiley
the bible has been a major part of a lot of peoples lives.
i think things are changing though.
things that worked then don't work now.
things that worked 50 years ago don't work now.

Evil Dead
You pretty much have to just pick and choose. You must remember that the bible is not a book.........it is a compilation of many books, written by many people at various points in history. Some books of the bible were probably written to relay historical fact...........while others were probably written stictly as morality tales...........while others still were probably written strictly from the "believer" standpoint, biased by the author's previous religious beliefs.

DirectorFitz
I guess the main one with not to take literally is Revelations...it's all symbolism, but still the truth. For instance, it mentions the Anti-Christ riding in on a white horse, and he brings false peace to all nations...true and not true...the Anti-Christ riding a horse is symbolism for a "hero" coming to save the day...with false peace to promise to the world.

finti
make up your mind

crickey77
I think this stuff is fascinating. I don't know to what degree I take the Revelations literally. But it is interesting how it is portrayed in entertainment. Has anyone heard about this new Revelations show that is coming out in the spring. It is about a Harvard scholar and a nun and the end of the world. It sounds interesting because it considers religion and science, where as a lot of movies only have one or the other.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.