Is the bible meant to be taken literally? (gospel, tradition)

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by kal-el

In my experiences, once the bible is shown to contain numerous errors, theists assert, "That's not to be taken literally". I usually take things literally unless told otherwise. Something that's meant to be fiction usually begins with "once upon a time". The very name Gospel means truth. It seems to me that the bible goes to great lenghts to show that the bible is the infallible word of god. And an "omniscient" entity wouldn't be so incongrous as to leave his word up to interpretations.

There is literal truth and metaphorical truth. What is literal is literal and what is metaphorical is still true.

Christ spoke mainly in parables. A parable is a metaphor which contains inner truths. Is one supposed to thi9nk Jesus was telling literal truth about "fig trees"? Hardly - fig trees were not of much interest to Jesus - He was teaching truth about those who might claim Prophethood after Him. Was the story of the prodigal son a literal truth about one man and his father? Of course, not. It was metaphor. Is the story of creation in Genesis literal truth? Of course, not, but it contains inner spiritual truths within the metaphor.

One has to read scripture with a discerning eye - after all when Jesus says "Let he who has eyes, see", He is not talking about medical blindness but the lack of discernment to find what is literally ture and what is metaphorically true in revelation.

Regards,
Scott

[kal-el]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

Some is literal, some isn't,

Well then, since you have the ability to distinguish between myths and non-myths, I'm sure you won't have a problem enlightening me, as the bible makes no clear distinction. BTW, do you believe in Noah's ark, Jonah's little escapade with a great fish?

and this has been the interpretation of the Church since the beginning.

Well if the church claims that they know some of it is meant not to be taken literally, they are being dishonest, and if they assert that the bible claims this, they are guilty of adding onto god's word:

Proverbs 30:6

Do not add on to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.

I'd like to see the 'great lengths' the Bible goes to to show that it is the infallible word of God, because I don't see it at all. That sounds like a post-Reformation sola scripturalist idea.

Would you like some fries with that cup of stupid? Seriously though, what the bible isn't infallible? Almost everywhere in the bible (OT), this "god" fellow utilizs threats and violence against those who do not follow his rules. He claims that he is perfect, and how can fallible writings pontificate from an infallible entity's mouth?

You see, we don't believe that God leaves His word up to individual interpretations either.

Right, it is impossible to misinterpret an infallible word. If something is infallible, then it's rather impossible for a fallible human to misconstrue it.

[kal-el]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

There is literal truth and metaphorical truth. What is literal is literal and what is metaphorical is still true.

Yes, but one cannot cherry-pick what passages are meant to be taken literally and what's not. If you say for example Genesis is not meant to be taken literally, then maybe the entire bible isn't meant to be taken literally.

Christ spoke mainly in parables. A parable is a metaphor which contains inner truths.

Correct.

Is one supposed to thi9nk Jesus was telling literal truth about "fig trees"? Hardly - fig trees were not of much interest to Jesus - He was teaching truth about those who might claim Prophethood after Him.

Why not? Every passage in the bible has a heading on it. In this case it is, "The fig tree withers", not the "Parable of the fig tree". You are portraying wishful thinking as fact here.

Was the story of the prodigal son a literal truth about one man and his father? Of course, not. It was metaphor.

I suppose this is scripture based? Opinion based?

Is the story of creation in Genesis literal truth? Of course, not, but it contains inner spiritual truths within the metaphor.

You're being hypocritical. The bible does not hint at Genesis being anything other than the truth. You're just emiting humanistic airy hope here.

One has to read scripture with a discerning eye - after all when Jesus says "Let he who has eyes, see", He is not talking about medical blindness but the lack of discernment to find what is literally ture and what is metaphorically true in revelation.

Wow, a whole lots of wishful thinking, not a shred of truth in scripture.

[kal-el]

Originally Posted by dawny0826

I "take" the bible pretty literally and don't have issues accepting it as truth.

Wow, that's quite a revelation. If you have no problems accepting it as truth, I suppose you believe that you can move a mountain? Can you cast out demons and heal the sick? You believe you are immune to deadly poison? There are talking donkey's and snakes? The earth is flat?

[linwood]

You're being hypocritical. The bible does not hint at Genesis being anything other than the truth. You're just emiting humanistic airy hope here.

I`d say it more than hints at being allegory.
There are two seperate distinct creation stories within Genesis.
This would seem to me to show that it is not to be taken as literal fact but metaphor.

The trouble arises when one person or group attempts to subject another person or group to their standard for objectivity.

[kal-el]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Gospel means "good news."

Actually, it means "fact" or "truth" http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=gospel

It is helpful to remember that the documents of the Bible are the product of and was preserved by a culture that held that truth does not need to be literal fact.

Right, the bible was written and intended for uneducated people, and it was always written by man, not some man in the clouds. If one says it's inspired by god, that is irrelevant. I could say I was inspired by god to write a book about how superman exists, and people would believe me because I was inspired by god.

More specifically, a literal fact to our culture is that which can be proven scientifically and appeals to a rational framework that considers interpretation of scientific knowledge.

Correct.

For us, truth is scientific fact. For them, myth is truth. It was perfectly acceptable to exaggerate and add to traditions to make them more appealing and to give hope, and still retain faithfulness and credibility to an actual event.

I agree with this manifesto.

It is better to think of the Bible as we think of the incarnation of Christ. Christ is perfectly God and perfectly human. The Bible is perfectly God's action and completely recorded and preserved by humanity. As such, it is riddled with the imperfection of our feeble hands and hearts. God entrusted His Message to humanity, and we are stewards of the message.

Actually, when reading the bible, I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not only ********, but rather barbaric ******** at that.

[kal-el]

Originally Posted by linwood

I`d say it more than hints at being allegory.
There are two seperate distinct creation stories within Genesis.
This would seem to me to show that it is not to be taken as literal fact but metaphor.

Yes it does, but it is "inspired" by a perfect entity, hence no need for interpretation, right?

The trouble arises when one person or group attempts to subject another person or group to their standard for objectivity.

O, so tiring. If something is perfect, it is impossible to falsify it. If it is infallible, then it is beyond the capabilites of a fallible being to make it fallible. By you asserting that different groups change/alter verses to suit their own objectivity, you are conceding that the bible isn't infallible.

[Terrywoodenpic]

Originally Posted by kal-el

Yes it does, but it is "inspired" by a perfect entity, hence no need for interpretation, right?
O, so tiring. If something is perfect, it is impossible to falsify it. If it is infallible, then it is beyond the capabilites of a fallible being to make it fallible. By you asserting that different groups change/alter verses to suit their own objectivity, you are conceding that the bible isn't infallible.

What on earth are you arguing about?
Very few Christians believe the Bible is anything like infallible.
And those that do would see your line of thought as rubbish .
You are wistling in the wind.

Terry___________________
Blessed are the merciful, mercy shall be shown unto them.

[kal-el]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

What on earth are you arguing about?

O, geese, the tilte of the thread is "should the bible be taken literally", I guess you need to look into this: http://secure.hop.com/index.cfm?AFID=158

Very few Christians believe the Bible is anything like infallible.

Then why believe? I'd say the next logical step would be to admit that god could be a figment of their imaginations.

And those that do would see your line of thought as rubbish .
You are wistling in the wind.

And you are pontificating iconoclastic, morphologic, ballyho.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by kal-el

Actually, it means "fact" or "truth"

No, it does not.

Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gOdspel (translation of Late Latin evangelium), from gOd good + spell tale -- more at SPELL
- Merriam-Webster

[Middle English, from Old English gdspel(ultimately translation of Greek euangelion) : gd, good; see good + spel, news.]
- Dictionary.com

In Christianity, gospel means "good news". The word gospel derives from the Old English word for "good news", a translation of the Greek word ευαγγέλιον, evangelion. From this word comes the term "evangelist."
- Wikipedia

The word Gospel usually designates a written record of Christ's words and deeds. It is very likely derived from the Anglo-Saxon god (good) and spell (to tell), and is generally treated as the exact equivalent of the Greek euaggelion (eu well, aggello, I bear a message), and the Latin Evangelium, which has passed into French, German, Italian, and other modern languages. The Greek euaggelion originally signified the "reward of good tidings" given to the messenger, and subsequently "good tidings". Its other important meanings will be set forth in the body of the present general article on the Gospels.
- Catholic Encyclopaedia

Originally Posted by kal-el

Right, the bible was written and intended for uneducated people, and it was always written by man, not some man in the clouds.

To call the authors of the Bible "uneducated" is a childishly ignorant ad hominem.

Originally Posted by kal-el

Actually, when reading the bible, I have come to the conclusion that Christianity is not only ********, but rather barbaric ******** at that.

You also came to a conclusion about the etymology of 'gospel' so, clearly, your conclusions are of questionable worth.