BIBLE: Literally or Not

[jlay]

Yes, they should all be taken literally. That is we should try to literally understand what the author was literally communicating to the audience.

I tell you what Sno. Why don't you go to Iran and piss on a Koran and see if they literally enforce their laws.

[neo-x]

Sno, all of the Bible is not for you, period. Those laws weren't even given to Christians, have nothing to do with Christianity either. It is there to let us know how things in the past happened, there are a few exceptions to be taken with respect to prophecies but that's about it.

[1stjohn0666]

The 6,000 year old Earth comes from Ussher (16th century) an archbishop and amateur mathematician who said the Earth was created on a Sunday 4004 B.C. Now since he was an archbishop people were led to believe that he was correct. The bible for the most part is literal. Take different denominations (30,000 +) all have differing views of what is literal or symbolic. A good example is the 144,000 of Revelation, I see this as symbolic rather than literal. A Jehovahs witness would take the number literal.

[snorider]

Yes, they should all be taken literally. That is we should try to literally understand what the author was literally communicating to the audience.

I tell you what Sno. Why don't you go to Iran and piss on a Koran and see if they literally enforce their laws.

So we are down to whether a religion enforces what they believe?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7952829.stm

Should the pope be put on trial? How many have died and are still dying because of this statement?

Is ignorance manslaughter?

[snorider]

Sno, all of the Bible is not for you, period. Those laws weren't even given to Christians, have nothing to do with Christianity either. It is there to let us know how things in the past happened, there are a few exceptions to be taken with respect to prophecies but that's about it.

The Bible is not for me, it should not be for anyone, not literally. Most people with common sense can differentiate between Moral values without the Bible.
Given the previous examples, the Christian Bible gives perfectly good people the right to do evil acts inspired by God's will (The Bible). Google: I killed in the name of God or the Bible.

[neo-x]

snorider » Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:25 pm

neo-x wrote:
Sno, all of the Bible is not for you, period. Those laws weren't even given to Christians, have nothing to do with Christianity either. It is there to let us know how things in the past happened, there are a few exceptions to be taken with respect to prophecies but that's about it.


The Bible is not for me, it should not be for anyone, not literally. Most people with common sense can differentiate between Moral values without the Bible.
Given the previous examples, the Christian Bible gives perfectly good people the right to do evil acts inspired by God's will (The Bible). Google: I killed in the name of God or the Bible.

The Bible is not for me, it should not be for anyone

Christ is for everyone, the bible is not.

Most people with common sense can differentiate between Moral values without the Bible.

Sure, I do not think that's an issue for Christian faith, it may be for some Christians but I do not care about that.

the Christian Bible gives perfectly good people the right to do evil acts inspired by God's will (The Bible)

Serial killer, Jeffery Dahmer got inspired by the sounds of bones rattling, at the age of 3. I do not get how what inspired me to do something is necessary bad in all cases. And if you are talking about the old testament account of wars, I do not see how it is relevant to Christianity.

So tell me what are you really fighting against, a book, the bible, that's it?

[PaulSacramento]

The Bible is not for me, it should not be for anyone, not literally. Most people with common sense can differentiate between Moral values without the Bible.
Given the previous examples, the Christian Bible gives perfectly good people the right to do evil acts inspired by God's will (The Bible). Google: I killed in the name of God or the Bible.

No, not everyone gets their faith from the bible, I know I didn't.
While it is possible to differentiate morals without the bible, NOW, we do need to realize that the bible is NOT JUST a book of morals, it is also the hsitory of a people and of two religions.
The bible shows the Good, the Bad and the ugly of what humans are and explains why they are that way.
You may not agree, but that doesn't make it wrong.
People kill in the name of many things, that has nothing to do with anything.
People killed before God "came around" in the bible, people killed during and after, people kill because they believe and people kill because they don't believe.
Funny thing is that the bible makes it clear THAT will happen.
The bible is to be taken as literal but that means that it's literary genre must be take into account, where it is history, it is history, where it is parable, it is parable, where it makes no comment, it makes no comment.

[snorider]

The Bible is not for me, it should not be for anyone, not literally. Most people with common sense can differentiate between Moral values without the Bible.

This is the problem, a lot of people are raised believing the bible is literally true. They raise their children the same way.

Children do not know how to differentiate until a later age.
Jesus Camp, I'm sure you've seen it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH_wPUVlJ38

Given the previous examples, the Christian Bible gives perfectly good people the right to do evil acts inspired by God's will (The Bible). Google: I killed in the name of God or the Bible.

No, not everyone gets their faith from the bible, I know I didn't.
While it is possible to differentiate morals without the bible, NOW, we do need to realize that the bible is NOT JUST a book of morals, it is also the hsitory of a people and of two religions.

History? There is a reason why the Bible isn't taught in any school or university.
If you define the Bible as a poetic piece of our first attempt to understand the world I would accept that.

The bible shows the Good, the Bad and the ugly of what humans are and explains why they are that way. You may not agree, but that doesn't make it wrong.

The Bible is literally full of good, hatred, jealousy, murder, and genocide. It is not a good moral framework.
If you would like I can provide many examples.

People kill in the name of many things, that has nothing to do with anything.

The extremists of any religion do the most harm, it allows people to do things they wouldn't normally do. Christianity is no exception, abortion clinics have been bombed.

The pope condemned condoms in the name of religion. The Pope would be considered an extremist, obviously. Many people died or are still dying listening to the Pope's advice. The highest religious authority for Christianity.

I don't think I need to point out 9/11.

People killed before God "came around" in the bible, people killed during and after, people kill because they believe and people kill because they don't believe.
Funny thing is that the bible makes it clear THAT will happen.

This brings shivers down my spine.

The bible is to be taken as literal but that means that it's literary genre must be take into account, where it is history, it is history, where it is parable, it is parable, where it makes no comment, it makes no comment.

Picking and choosing is not the answer, especially when young ones are involved.
Ignore this passage of the Bible, pay attention to this one.
What kind of leaders are we creating here?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Picking and choosing is not the answer, especially when young ones are involved.
Ignore this passage of the Bible, pay attention to this one.
What kind of leaders are we creating here?

No one is picking and choosing or ignoring, they are reading in it's proper context, what exactly do you not comprehend about the word exegesis.

Here is the definition according to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis

Exegesis (from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out') is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for exegesis of the Bible; however, in contemporary usage it has broadened to mean a critical explanation of any text, and the term "Biblical exegesis" is used for greater specificity.

Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.

[snorider]

Picking and choosing is not the answer, especially when young ones are involved.
Ignore this passage of the Bible, pay attention to this one.
What kind of leaders are we creating here?

No one is picking and choosing or ignoring, they are reading in it's proper context, what exactly do you not comprehend about the word exegesis.

Here is the definition according to wiki //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis

Exegesis (from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out') is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for exegesis of the Bible; however, in contemporary usage it has broadened to mean a critical explanation of any text, and the term "Biblical exegesis" is used for greater specificity.

Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.

You are not the first to use this recently, cute.

Let's break it down piece by piece: Exegesis:
(agreed by dictionary.com)
"Exegesis : is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text."
My Interpretation of the meaning: (Interpretation of a text) A Christian's interpretation vs (Others)*

(not agreed by dictionary.com, but christian websites as their interpretation)
Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds for the author, the text, and the original audience. Other analysis includes classification of the type of literary genres present in the text, and an analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.

It's ironic that that dictionary.com does not recognize this part. That's ok, let's allow the second eloquent Christian interpretation part that is not identified by the national dictionary stand.


As a Christian, how would you interpret this? I know there are some non-theists on this board, I would like your interpretation as well.

Genesis 4


This is pretty early in the Bible, I'll be happy to post more examples,
-Jordan

[Danieltwotwenty]

"Exegesis : is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially a religious text."

What exactly do you think a critical explanation is, if dictionary.com does not go into further detail does not mean that there is no more information about what exegesis is.

The wikipedia article I posted is a well accepted definition and explanation of what exegesis is, it is not some Christian propaganda like you are insinuating.

So please enlighten us to exactly what is involved in a critical explanation...........

The Bible text you have displayed is fairly simple to understand, I don't see what there is to explain, Cain killed Abel because he was jealous that God didn't think his offering was geuine, he kept the best for himself instead of trusting God to provide for him. Cain was disobedient and a murderer and was justly penalised for it.

Lets break it down

4 Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth[c] a man.” 2 Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

Seems pretty simple here, it is a historical account of Cain being born, then able.

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Notice here the word some, Cain bought his offering to the Lord and only bought a small portion of what he had where as Abel bought the best he had and lots of it. Abel trusted in the Lord to look after him, Cain had deciet in his heart and did not trust the Lord to look after him. God was displeased with Cain.

6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

God tries to instruct Cain on where he had gone wrong.

8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”[d] While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

Cain kills his brother because he is blaming other for his sinfulness.

9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”

“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

God gives Cain a chance to repent and confess his sin, Cain does not.

10 The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

God passes judgement on Cain for his evil deeds.

13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.

God shows his mercy and prevents Cain from being killed.

17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

More history.

19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. 20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes. 22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of[g] bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

More history.

23 Lamech said to his wives,


“Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
24 If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times.”

Apparantly the violence continues from Cains line of people.

25 Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth,[h] saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.

More recorded History.

At that time people began to call on the name of the Lord.

Again more historical accounts.

I am not a Biblical scholar and this is just scratching the surface of the meaning of this passage, I am sure there could be a huge amount more added to this simple explanation.

Dan

[neo-x]

Sno,

what's your point?

[PaulSacramento]

Accepting what is written in the bible base don its literary genre is NOT "picking and choosing", it is doing justice to the writers and NOT "picking and choosing".
One does NOT take parables literally, one does not take hyperbole literally and taking something literal is NOT that same as taking it "literal and concrete".
I can say, " The sun is literally setting my skin on fire" and we get the literal meaning of it - I am getting a sun burn- and understand that it is NOT literal and concrete ( my skin is not actually on fire i.e: flames are not coming out of my skin).

The bible is composed of many literary genres and that is widely accepted.
Some are historical accounts, others are poems, others are parables, others are "myth-stories" ( stories that can't be proven but have been based down as explanations of something), others are legal statutes, while others are quite simply, letters.

You can't apply the same criteria to all of them.

[PaulSacramento]

One of the many issues that bible critics have is the language in the bible and how it (seems) to justify horrfic things.
An example of this is the "command to exterminate" the enemies of Israel.
Now, the context of this is actually a language one, this was typical ANE "speak" to give description of the mangnitude and scope of the war/battle, very much as we still do now ( the whole town was wiped off the map...).
How do we knwo this BESIDES the fact that this was common "war speak" for that time?
Well, DID Israel wipe them out?
Well, according to the a skeptics website, NO:

Dt.7:1
"When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, ... and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites.

Jos.15:63
"As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.."
Jos.16:10
"And they drave not out the Cananites that dwell in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day.."

Jos.17:12-13
"Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land ... The children of Israel ... did not utterly drive them out."
Jg.1:21
"An the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day."
Jg.1:27-36
"Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and her towns, ... But the Canaanites would dwell in that land. And it cam to pass ... that they ... did not utterly drive them out."
Jg.3:1-5
"Now these are the nations which the Lord left ... the Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites.

So, either they failed miserably or there was no genocide or even attempted genocide at all.

Fact is, what we have is a case of typical ANE writing, something that we still use today.
The wording describes the severity of the war NOT the actual LITERAL AND CONCRETE divine command to exterminate a people.

Much like a ruler would say, "Crush them all, leave no tree standing and no rock unturned" and the soldiers would understand that they would NOT have to knock down every single tree and over turn every stone.

The writers of the various books of the bible ( and later editors and copyists) would have written in accordance with the type of writing of their day, using the same words and expressions and terms of their day.

[snorider]

We have established that scripture has to be taken with a grain of salt. If we can't literally trust the Bible, the inspired word of God. What basis is there for establishing my lifestyle from it?


The tomb and resurrection of Jesus is extremely important, just look at the differences between the Gospels:

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_tomb

The four accounts

According to Mark, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome find that the tomb has been opened:
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' " Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

— Mark 16:1-8 (NIV)

According to Matthew, an angel in shining garments is seen by Mary and Mary opening the tomb, and the angel tells them not to be afraid since Jesus is risen from the dead:
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you.

So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

— Matthew 28:1-10 (NIV)

According to Luke, the women discover the tomb has been opened, and two men in shining garments come up to them and tell them not to be afraid since Jesus is risen.
On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' " Then they remembered his words.

— Luke 24:1-8 (NIV)

The gospel of John contains the most complete narrative including the appearance of Jesus:
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!" So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.)

Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. They asked her, "Woman, why are you crying?" "They have taken my Lord away," she said, "and I don't know where they have put him." At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

— John 20:1-13 (NIV)

By comparison, the apocryphal Gospel of Peter describes two men carrying a third out of the tomb, with a cross following them and speaking:
And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend with a great light and approach the tomb. And the stone that was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.

When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they too were close by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes.

— Gospel of Peter, 9-10[6]


Most of the accounts state that the tomb was empty. So what? Isn't the most logical explanation that the body was removed from the tomb?


Now, the Gospels were written forty to seventy years after Jesus died correct? Given Jesus was the Son of God, why did it take forty years for the first Gospel to show up? We are talking about the son of God here. I would think that writing the Gospels would be a pretty high priority. I suppose we just have to rely on "Faith" that Jesus did physically ascend to Heaven?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, all I am reading here are contradicting stories about an extremely important event.