How far can one go in not taking the Bible literally?

[whirlingmerc]

I think the Bible is true in what it claims, but there is such a thing as literary genre and true in the sense of the literature It may be literally true in parts, proverbially true in parts, poetic in parts, could use hyperbole or other devices in parts. I take it historically true in the historical parts

Wooden literal? not always.

Take for example in the book of Acts Paul goes back to Jerusalem and is told by a prophets if he does 'the Jews will hand him over to the Romans' well some Jews trying to have a plot against Paul cause the Romans to take Paul and imprison Paul, trials appeals and appeal to Caesar. God superintended a situation where Paul would speak to kings and rulers and the gentiles. Not 'handed over to the Romans' in a wooden literal sense but in a figurative sense.... and so.... consider the sense of the literature... wooden is not always the way to go

I would take lady wisdom and lady folly in proverbs as allegory and proverbs either true in ensemble or in some maxim rule of thumb sense individually.
I would take the book of Jonah as historical (but poetic, with a real sea creature etc... that really swallowed Jonah ) I would take the fire, ground opening, and snakes killing people are historically true.... and .... yes, plagues, long day, sea parting, walls falling.... yes... historically true
I would take the laws as sometimes case law to be considered how it might be approved in similar but not quite the same cases or what it might say about God or justice

The main things remain the plain things and the plain things remain the main things, in the sense of perspicuity of the scriptures where a child hearing the story will likely hear the main things

 

[icehorse]

It's not about cherry-picking if you don't take scripture as the literal and direct words of X divine authority. Plenty of Christians see the Bible as a text which was written across a historical period by particular people with their own backgrounds to reflect their own understandings of God and their personal inspiration. Some take aspects of this so far as to say that the Bible was written inspired by God but transcribed by the writers, so it's God's word in spirit but not in letter, so to speak. I sympathise with the former with a dash of the latter.

Which is to say, it IS about cherry-picking.

 

[icehorse]

I think the Bible is true in what it claims

So do you take all of the bible's claims as true, or only some of them. And if you disregard some of them, by what mechanism do you do that?

 

[whirlingmerc]

QUOTE="icehorse, post: 5105285, member: 52014"]So do you take all of the bible's claims as true, or only some of them. And if you disregard some of them, by what mechanism do you do that?[/QUOTE]

I think they all are true

You need to understand how the speakers and listeners might understand it. How might you understand any literature? you need to try and see how it fits together
I think Hosea and his wife are both true and an allegory for example. A true object lesson in the first few chapters that springboards off the object lesson to speak of the nation of Israel in the last eleven chapters, most of the book.

Similarly Job sets up the situation in opening verses with most of Jobs woes... and then discusses them for the next 40 or so chapters



https://www.slideshare.net/MichaelSc[aman/hosea-and-his-family-a-portrait-of-grace

 

[icehorse]

I think they all are true

okay, so then you believe in even the passages that are now seen to be morally wrong? For example you think we should put adultresses to death?

 

[whirlingmerc]

QUOTE="icehorse, post: 5105285, member: 52014"]So do you take all of the bible's claims as true, or only some of them. And if you disregard some of them, by what mechanism do you do that?

I think they all are true

You need to understand how the speakers and listeners might understand it. How might you understand any literature? you need to try and see how it fits together
I think Hosea and his wife are both true and an allegory for example. A true object lesson in the first few chapters that springboards off the object lesson to speak of the nation of Israel in the last eleven chapters, most of the book.

Similarly Job sets up the situation in opening verses with most of Jobs woes... and then discusses them for the next 40 or so chapters The individual claims of the people discussion may be mostly right but truly good examples of how to give bad advice to someone suffering... likewise there are discussions of two people in Ecclesiastes and they play off each other and qualify each other to take it as a whole not in a little bite.

View attachment 16370

https://www.slideshare.net/MichaelSc[aman/hosea-and-his-family-a-portrait-of-grace[/QUOTE]

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Okay, I'll answer your call-out thread.

The Bible is a collection of books that cover multiple centuries, different cultures and are written by various authors. The understanding of God and the world evolves throughout the texts. The earlier Biblical texts take much from Near Eastern polytheism, where Yahweh is the King of a council of gods. He's almost similar to a Zeus figure and presides over law and order. Eventually, the Hebrews evolved toward monotheism. The Hebrew Bible is the sacred writings and mythology of the Jewish people. It's much like the mythologies of any other people. It includes some history, but it's not meant to be history as we understand it, like with all mythologies. It's about their journey with finding meaning, purpose and the Divine in life.

Ancient peoples typically thought that their deity/deities were on their side in battles or punishing law breakers. Those stories about Yahweh killing unrighteous people are basically warnings. Maybe the people actually did exist and died, and their death was seen as a punishment from the deity. It's like folk tales, which also tend to serve as moral narratives prescribing correct behavior in the tribe. However, I don't take it literally because I really have no reason to and that's not how I read myth. I read myths, including the Bible, for meaning and inspiration, as I believe that's how they should be read. I also interpret the Bible around Jesus Christ, Who I believe is the full revelation of God, and reveals God as a God of love. The Bible, to me, is the story of humanity attempting to understand and grow closer to God. The views of humans evolve as we learn more and more about God and as He reveals more of Himself to us. This seems to be a major theme in the Bible.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I do find it interesting this strong tendency in the atheistic Christianity-critic scene to essentially assume that Christianity is made or broken by whether the evangelical fundamentalist reading of scripture is correct.

Pretty much. This is basically a call-out thread that originally grew out of a rude remark the OP said to me. I didn't want to get into it in the other thread, because it was a derailment.

I'm not an Evangelical, but anti-Christian types seem to want to paint all Christians with a broad fundie brush. It's quite irritating. I take both an academic and spiritual view of the Bible. It's mythology. But mythology doesn't mean "fiction", like the ignorant tend to believe.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Okay, I'll answer your call-out thread.

The Bible is a collection of books that cover multiple centuries, different cultures and are written by various authors. The understanding of God and the world evolves throughout the texts. The earlier Biblical texts take much from Near Eastern polytheism, where Yahweh is the King of a council of gods. He's almost similar to a Zeus figure and presides over law and order. Eventually, the Hebrews evolved toward monotheism. The Hebrew Bible is the sacred writings and mythology of the Jewish people. It's much like the mythologies of any other people. It includes some history, but it's not meant to be history as we understand it, like with all mythologies. It's about their journey with finding meaning, purpose and the Divine in life.

Ancient peoples typically thought that their deity/deities were on their side in battles or punishing law breakers. Those stories about Yahweh killing unrighteous people are basically warnings. Maybe the people actually did exist and died, and their death was seen as a punishment from the deity. It's like folk tales, which also tend to serve as moral narratives prescribing correct behavior in the tribe. However, I don't take it literally because I really have no reason to and that's not how I read myth. I read myths, including the Bible, for meaning and inspiration, as I believe that's how they should be read. I also interpret the Bible around Jesus Christ, Who I believe is the full revelation of God, and reveals God as a God of love. The Bible, to me, is the story of humanity attempting to understand and grow closer to God. The views of humans evolve as we learn more and more about God and as He reveals more of Himself to us. This seems to be a major theme in the Bible.

but God is form eternity and sees the end from the beginning.... and so.... God has a perspective that people on their own would not. God's word might unfold but doesnt evolve

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

but God is form eternity and sees the end from the beginning.... and so.... God has a perspective that people on their own would not. God's word might unfold but doesnt evolve

Humans wrote the Bible and it is our view that evolves.

 

[bobhikes]

Okay, I'll answer your call-out thread.

The Bible is a collection of books that cover multiple centuries, different cultures and are written by various authors. The understanding of God and the world evolves throughout the texts. The earlier Biblical texts take much from Near Eastern polytheism, where Yahweh is the King of a council of gods. He's almost similar to a Zeus figure and presides over law and order. Eventually, the Hebrews evolved toward monotheism. The Hebrew Bible is the sacred writings and mythology of the Jewish people. It's much like the mythologies of any other people. It includes some history, but it's not meant to be history as we understand it, like with all mythologies. It's about their journey with finding meaning, purpose and the Divine in life.

Ancient peoples typically thought that their deity/deities were on their side in battles or punishing law breakers. Those stories about Yahweh killing unrighteous people are basically warnings. Maybe the people actually did exist and died, and their death was seen as a punishment from the deity. It's like folk tales, which also tend to serve as moral narratives prescribing correct behavior in the tribe. However, I don't take it literally because I really have no reason to and that's not how I read myth. I read myths, including the Bible, for meaning and inspiration, as I believe that's how they should be read. I also interpret the Bible around Jesus Christ, Who I believe is the full revelation of God, and reveals God as a God of love. The Bible, to me, is the story of humanity attempting to understand and grow closer to God. The views of humans evolve as we learn more and more about God and as He reveals more of Himself to us. This seems to be a major theme in the Bible.

I am just curious, Does your God preform miracles such as Jesus bringing Lazarus back or was that just a myth. If God can influence human life then by not changing outcomes God is allowing people to die.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am just curious, Does your God preform miracles such as Jesus bringing Lazarus back or was that just a myth. If God can influence human life then by not changing outcomes God is allowing people to die.

I don't know if it happened literally or not. I'm more interested in how the story applies to my daily life.

 

[Kirran]

Which is to say, it IS about cherry-picking.

If you are insistent on understanding it that way, that's how you'll understand it. But taking something as a historical document is not cherry-picking.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Franky, from the record, Jesus believed in adam, the manna, the bronze snake in the wilderness, Jonah, lots wife turning to salt, ... the whole law, prophets and writings. Seems you don't see eye to eye.

How would you take Moses account of people bitten with fiery snakes and making the bronze snake where they could look to it and be saved and Jesus claim to be himself like the bronze snake that would be lifted up that all who look to him would be saved?

 

[RESOLUTION]

Well.. there are plenty of Bible followers that never read the book, so...

Literally that would be impossible.... Rather the NT shows the fulfillment of the OT and now people live in Spirit and Truth.
Does anyone understand what that means, those who have read the bible, that is.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Literally that would be impossible.... Rather the NT shows the fulfillment of the OT and now people live in Spirit and Truth.
Does anyone understand what that means, those who have read the bible, that is.

Then they wouldn't be 'Bible followers' would they? If they defended the book but ignored it.

I agree, with salvation comes a thirst for truth and if someone had no appetite for it chronically perhaps they are not saved

 

[sun rise]

My recurring question is this: By what means to those who admire scripture know how to cherry-pick it?

"cherry-pick" is a pejorative way to describe the process, at least for me.

There are certain almost universal principles present in all the major religions and most of the ethical systems of atheists, I accept that those express universal truths whether in scripture or not.

There are passages in various scriptures that express ethical teachings in the form of stories. Those I can accept for their teachings without concerning myself about whether or not the stories are historically true or not.

There are some parts that might express legends of historical events. I assume that many of these are the end result of a multi-generation "telephone game" with the original events distorted beyond recognition.

This later point I think was illustrated by the research done about crossing the "reed sea" Given this possibility as the study showed, it's easily possible that the Israelites crossed there and it was distorted into the Red Sea somewhere along the way. So I'm skeptical about such stories but not automatically dismissive because there could have been a source to the legend.

 

[icehorse]

If you are insistent on understanding it that way, that's how you'll understand it. But taking something as a historical document is not cherry-picking.

I don't insist on understanding it that way. If you can give me a better perspective, I'll take it.

I must confess I make an assumption when this discussion comes up. The assumption is that religious folks *tend* to say that their god is the source of morality. If that's your claim, then I think the cherry-picking question is one you have to do a good job of answering. If you don't claim that your god is the source of your morality, then I don't need to discuss cherry-picking.

 

[Kirran]

I don't insist on understanding it that way. If you can give me a better perspective, I'll take it.

I must confess I make an assumption when this discussion comes up. The assumption is that religious folks *tend* to say that their god is the source of morality. If that's your claim, then I think the cherry-picking question is one you have to do a good job of answering. If you don't claim that your god is the source of your morality, then I don't need to discuss cherry-picking.

Just don't consider a scripture the literal word of God, easy.

 

[icehorse]

Just don't consider a scripture the literal word of God, easy.

Do you claim that morality comes from your god(s)?