Should the Bible be taken literally? (Earth, contradiction, translation, blood)

[IceFire]

Well should it? I personally think there are too many contradictions in it for it to be taken as literally the word of god.

[Runt]

Definitely not. It has SOME (not much, but some) value when it is taken metaphorically, but a literal interpretation contradicts reality itself. For example, Genesis gives a step by step account of Creation in which God divides the day from the night BEFORE he creates the sun and the stars. This, if taken literally, is pure ridiculousness.

[hebrew]

The answer to this question is, NO. Some scriptures you should take literally, and other scriptures are purely symbolic. The Adam and Eve story should not be taking literally; and alot of people dont know that. A VERY HIGH LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING is needed to comprehend genesis. Adam and Eve did not really see themselves naked after they ate "the fruit" from the tree, the nakedness shows that they discovered shamefullness and sin. They really didnt eat "an apple"(which is not stated in the bible), but the fruit does stands for knowledge. Adam and Eve were not the first people(broken down in the apocrypha) formed on the earth; but they were the only ones dealing with some type of laws. The trees in genesis 2:15-16 stands for men(ezekial 31:3-9). There were certain men/people who they were not suppose to associated themselves with. The book of genesis takes time to break down, but one thing I can say is THE BIBLE DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITS SELF; FOR THE LORD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OFCONFUSION 1Corinthians 14:33. ICEFIRE, YOU JUST HAVE NO TYPE OF UNDERSTANDING OF
THE SCRIPTURES BECAUSE THE LORD IS NOT DEALING WITH YOU ON THAT LEVEL AMOS 3:7; Thats why you feel the way you do.

[dan]

The bible is the word of God only insofar as it is translated correctly (and there is no perfect translation on the earth right now). If you take it literally in it's current state you will fall into the traps and snares of the Adversary.

[(Q)]

Isn't the Bible simply an account of what its authors thought about god, hence their interpretations of god.

[Ardhanariswar]

fundamentalists beg to differ. sigh.

[atheist_agnostic]

The bible should not be taken literally. The bible has not been translated perfectly as it has been translated numerous times. The metaphorical ideas in the bible are actually quite good and have some valued points. However not all ideas are necessarily good and right. For instance the bible says that if you commit incest then "your blood shall spill." Now this is not saying that you will be killed but instead its metaphorical context is that there shall be consequences for your actions. There are way too many contradictions in the bible to be taken literally but if you take it metaphorically then the amount of faults is considerably smaller.

[Ceridwen018]

Some scriptures you should take literally, and other scriptures are purely symbolic.

And who is it, exactly, who is in charge of distinguishing between the two? I say it's gotta be all or nothing.

[trishtrish10]

thank God there aren't any fundamenatlists here. the Bible is written in every form of literature available at the times: poems, proverbs, metaphors, similies, songs, analogies, parables, etc. if all these forms were to be taken literally u would go insane.

[Ronald]

Originally Posted by Runt

Definitely not. It has SOME (not much, but some) value when it is taken metaphorically, but a literal interpretation contradicts reality itself. For example, Genesis gives a step by step account of Creation in which God divides the day from the night BEFORE he creates the sun and the stars. This, if taken literally, is pure ridiculousness.

Always read the complete book before giving a review.
When He renews the Heavens and Earth and dwells with us there will be no heavenly lights and no need for day and night. Rev.21