How literally should the Bible be taken? (Jesus Christ, Earth, gospel)

[finalfrogo]

There are those who would say that the Bible is a perfect account of historical data- that every detail is true.

There are others who would say that some parts are literal, but others are metaphorical.

And finally, the other extreme includes those who think that none of it is literally true, that it is completely metaphorical.

Of course, there are many levels between these.

What do you think?

[Super Universe]

I believe that much of the bible is inherently true, and litteral, but that the human writers of the time did not have the educated vocabulary to understand what was being conveyed and that often they mixed in whatever belief they had (animism) at the time or took other writer's liberties.

Even today we don't know how the universe works. How could they possibly understand everything that was conveyed by beings who are pure sentient energy?

Much of what Jesus said was parable, stories to make a point, but they were very good points.

I think what it really comes down to is the reader. How does your innate nature view life? Kind of like the glass being half empty or half full?

Do you want revenge for wrongs committed against you and your people? Then the God of destruction fits.

Do you have a need to be a member of a group to feel special? Then you would fight anything that you feel threatens that group (science?).

Maybe you just feel tremendous love and want others to experience it as well. Because the glass is really half full.

[Abram]

We know the Old Testament is very true just by the history of what is left over from thier times and the nation "Hebrews" that came from it. The problem with taking it literally is that it's different in every persons eyes. As we can see here on RF.com that there can be so many views on just one line of text from the Bible.

If you twist and torcher the text enough it will say anything you want it to.

I do think though that there is enough proof that we should take it seriously though. It's lasted to long and predicted to many things to disregard it....

[michel]

I personally see the Old testament as a mix of a history book (full of inaccuracies), and parables; I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, but, again have doubts as to the accuracy of the Bible.

[Of a Happy Ending]

The Bible is generally reliable as far as historical accuracy is concerned. Yes, there are certain inconsistencies regarding a few numbers, but in general biblical archaeology has served to prove much of the OT accounts reliable. Of course, that also depends on what angle you work from. Either you accept the OT as authoritative and work from that angle, or you work to verify OT events and use that as the basis on which to judge the authority of the OT. Furthermore, within the OT there are certain stylistic differences that must be noted. The historical works are meant to be taken 100% literally. The wisdom books are generally parables and illustrative stories (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes); these are meant to be taken more metaphorically than the historical works. Then there are the prophets. The prophets are a mixture of history and foretelling. Its quite remarkable to note the accuracy with which the prophets foretold future events regarding Palestine (e.g. the prophecy of Cyrus by name at least 100 years before his birth).

As far as the NT is concerned, the general tone and purpose varies greatly from that of the OT. The gospels are generally reliable and meant to be taken literally, though the parables of Jesus are certainly metaphorical in nature. The works of Paul detail certain historical facts regarding churches with which he was affiliated but wrote on theological issues that must be understood foremost in their historical and cultural context. The prophetic book of the NT (Revelation) is a book of both history and metaphor. On the historical level, the letter was written in code to be understandable to the churches that read it without being overtly noticeable to the authorities surrounding those churches. On another level, Revelation is a book of prophecy that foretells the final judgment and is meant both as a literal picture and a symbolic representation.

So, the answer to your question is quite complex. Differing parts of the Bible must be interpreted in different ways as the Bible is a compilation of literary styles.

Brandon

[jazzalta]

Originally Posted by Of a Happy Ending

The Bible is generally reliable as far as historical accuracy is concerned. Yes, there are certain inconsistencies regarding a few numbers, but in general biblical archaeology has served to prove much of the OT accounts reliable.
Brandon

I recently read a book entitled The Bible Unearthed that disputes much of the biblical archaeology that is currently available. It was written by 2 Mideast archaeologists that have studied the biblical area for many years. I think with current carbon dating and modern science at our disposal, more puzzles are being solved. It is worth a read for the open minded.

[Of a Happy Ending]

Originally Posted by jazzalta

I recently read a book entitled The Bible Unearthed that disputes much of the biblical archaeology that is currently available. It was written by 2 Mideast archaeologists that have studied the biblical area for many years. I think with current carbon dating and modern science at our disposal, more puzzles are being solved. It is worth a read for the open minded.

I might pick that up, but be careful about assuming that "modern science" and the Bible are always at odds. And why we cannot use the Bible to help us unravel those puzzles is a question I have always pondered. The Bible is not solely a religious book, and the skepticism regarding its history should be no more strongly held than when one looks at the Cyrus Cylinder or Babylonian scripts. Jewish history just tends to be overtly religious because their religious and political systems were intertwined. Of course their history will be written with a personal slant, as all histories are. As much as there is no perfectly objective history written today as much as historians strive to do so, there was certainly far less objectivity then when kings and nobles were commissioning that history be written.

As far as being generally reliable goes, I have sources too, I will just have to wait until I get home to list them here (I don't want to be misleading by forgetting a title or an author).

But thank you for the tip on the book.

Brandon

[Fluffy]

I view the Bible as a bunch of assorted books knocked together by a group of people with a specific agenda and not inspired by the divine. These books contain much wisdom but I view the rest as being largely inaccurate. I believe that this wisdom is largely contained within the Gospels and the rest is nearly superfluous since it does not deal with Christ's teachings.

[ChrisP]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I view the Bible as a bunch of assorted books knocked together by a group of people with a specific agenda and not inspired by the divine. These books contain much wisdom but I view the rest as being largely inaccurate. I believe that this wisdom is largely contained within the Gospels and the rest is nearly superfluous since it does not deal with Christ's teachings.

Ditto Fluffy.

Originally Posted by Super Universe

I believe that much of the bible is inherently true, and litteral, but that the human writers of the time did not have the educated vocabulary to understand what was being conveyed and that often they mixed in whatever belief they had (animism) at the time or took other writer's liberties.

Although many of Jesus disciples were working men who wrote in Coptic. Writers such as Luke were educated men who wrote in the scholars tongue of Greek.

The greek of that age (and therefore the Greek the bible was compiled in) is a far more descriptive language with amazing depth and lyricsm.

Please research further.

[cardero]

Since we do not know the authors and have never met them and they cannot be reached for further questioning about the purpose of why these documents were written; and since we cannot validate many of the events that transpired in the Bible and we do not know if any of the authors were "truly inspired" by a BEing claiming to be God I would say take it with a grain/pillar of salt.

"The Bible is and ALL(WAYS) will BE what YOU make of it."
HELLO IT"S ME: An Interview With GOD
Chapter: The Bible
Pg: 14