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

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by kal-el

I see I'm dealing with a mentally decrepit individual. ...

And you are pontificating iconoclastic, morphologic, ballyho.

With so little of worth to say, it's a shame that you don't choose silence.

[linwood]

Originally Posted by kal-el

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

Even if it were inspired by a perfect entity it would still not necessarily mean the text could be taken absolutely literally.
One would need to know the intent this entity had by bringing the book into existence.

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.

Indeed, but so far the only person I`ve seen in this thread who states that the Bible is perfect or infallible is you.
Nothing is perfect, nothing is infallible.

By you asserting that different groups change/alter verses to suit their own objectivity, you are conceding that the bible isn't infallible.

I am not conceding any such thing.
As I`ve never held the belief that the Bible was inerrant I cannot concede it`s errancy.
Not all Abrahamic theists believe the Bible is inerrent or entirely literal

I think you are assuming far too much about those who use the Bible as a part of their worldview.

[i believe in tranquility]

an response to the original question: "is the bible meant to be taken literally?"

The creation stories are not, and other parts of the OT, but most of the NT should be takem literally.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by kal-el

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.


Correct.


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.


I suppose this is scripture based? Opinion based?


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.


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

Well, it is not cherry-picking its called "reading for comprehension", sorry you can't do it.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

Quote:Originally Posted by kal-el
I see I'm dealing with a mentally decrepit individual. ...

And you are pontificating iconoclastic, morphologic, ballyho.
"With so little of worth to say, it's a shame that you don't choose silence."


What can one expect from someone who signs himself "Superman"?

Regards,
Scott

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by kal-el

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?

I never said that I do. We do not interpret the Bible individually as I already said. We look to the Church to see how it has always been interpreted, which is not so hard to do. You seem to be labouring under the assumption that all Christians are Protestant sola scripturalists when the vast majority of us are neither.

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

The Church wrote and collected the Bible and preserved it for the last 1600 years or so. Do you actually believe that everything of value to Christianity was written down in the Bible? The Bible is the written Tradition of the Church but it is still only a subsection of the whole Tradition. The Bible acknowledges this explicitly in more than one place. You show your ignorance when you claim that to hold to truths not written in the Bible is to add to God's word. Do you think God wrote the Bible? No, men did. Men who heard God's word. It is perfectly possible for God's word to include more than was written down and all three Apostolic churches and Judaism holds to the belief that there is an oral Tradition to be used alongside the written Scriptures.

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 are the only one in this thread that I can see exhibitting signs of stupidity. No the Bible is not infallible, nor inerrant. The Truth contained within the Bible may be but as it was written down by fallible men it can never be infallible. The words in the Bible did not come 'out of God's mouth' as you ignorantly state but were written down by men who were inspired to do so. Fallible men cannot produce infallible writings and it seems that you are woefully ignorant of not only the process by which the Scriptures were written, collected and canonised but also of the views of the vast majority of Christians (to be specific, all prior to the Reformation and the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches today) as to what the significance of that Scripture is. By all means continue to dismiss Christianity on the basis of your own misinterpretations of Scripture but you are only dismissing your personal (and distinctly Protestant in methodology) view of it and not the faith itself, which you clearly do not understand at all.

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.

That's right, you just keep tilting at straw men. So far as I can see, you're the only person here who has claimed the Bible is infallible. If that's the best argument you can come up with against Christianity then you have no argument at all.

James

[sandy whitelinger]

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.

Jesus always took it literally.

The idea that passages mut be taken for other than what they mean seems to go back to the idea of replacement theology. There were too many confusing passages while the state of Israel did not exist. "Scholars" got around this by either allogorizing passages or replacing Israel with the church. Unfortunately the tradition has carried on, possibly by sheer momentum. It is now fashionable to allogorize passages when one does not care to agree with them.

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

No Sandy,

It has become popular to allegorize those passages when they are known to be false or impossible.

B.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by MdmSzdWhtGuy

No Sandy,

It has become popular to allegorize those passages when they are known to be false or impossible.

B.

False to those who don't want to believe that God is in the miracle business? Or as I said to those who don't want to believe that the Bible means what it says.