• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

My Question About The Bible

Sundance

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
As can be (and has been in the past) observed, I am a poet, a storyteller, and a huge bookworm. I am also a polytheist. On top of all of this, I am a adorer of The Bible. I love it! To me, it's a beautiful mixture of history, some stories, poetry, songs, wise sayings, and a bit of future-seeing. I can and do understand this. However, I notice that many individuals are turned off of The Bible due to being taught that the whole of it is the literal truth.

My question for those who uphold The Bible as literal truth AS WELL AS those who reject it for this reason:

Why does the entirety of The Bible have to be literally true for It to have value? Why must all of the events recorded be historical happenings for there to be lessons which can be learned from The Bible? Can't there be truths taught through stories, poetry, songs, and wise sayings?
 
Last edited:

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Does something have to be literal for it to be truth? Can't truth and guidance for living life be taught through stories?

Many truths are taught through stories and metaphors. But a historical fact is a historical fact. If both things are going on at the same time, lets say God uses us as puppets to tell a story. Both the historical facts and the truth of the story need to be true.
 

Sundance

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Many truths are taught through stories and metaphors. But a historical fact is a historical fact. If both things are going on at the same time, lets say God uses us as puppets to tell a story. Both the historical facts and the truth of the story need to be true.

I agree with you. However, what if you have no tangible evidence or something which can archaeologically prove something to be historical fact? What if it’s a mixture of fact of fiction? Would it have no value? Of course, I wouldn't at all say that.
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
It doesn't have to be literal but I might have done what Jefferson did by now, cut the parts out that make sense. The important thing has always been what christ said. I have a strong suspicion the miracles were made up because they fit too perfectly into a larger theological story.

I like to celecbrate the life of Christ not his death.
The Jefferson Bible (The Life & Morals of Jesus of Nazareth)
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I agree with you. However, what if you have no tangible evidence or something which can archaeologically prove something to be historical fact? What if it’s a mixture of fact of fiction? Would it have no value? Of course, I wouldn't at all say that.

None of us were there, so we're not going to have tangible evidence for everything. Since the Old testament was mostly about Jews, the existence of Jews is tangible evidence. Temple remains etc. There is plenty of historical evidence.
 

Sundance

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
None of us were there, so we're not going to have tangible evidence for everything. Since the Old testament was mostly about Jews, the existence of Jews is tangible evidence. Temple remains etc. There is plenty of historical evidence.

Absolutely! I do not disagree with you here, Kemosloby. However, what do you do about the aspects of The Bible which appear less than historical or factual? How do you view them?
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Absolutely! I do not disagree with you here, Kemosloby. However, what do you do about the aspects of The Bible which appear less than historical or factual? How do you view them?

You mean like the parts that evolution theory views as false? Did man come from monkeys or did God create Adam as man. None of us were there. Nothing hinges on it in the scientific world. You could launch a rocket without knowing if man came from a monkey. So there is no proof either way. Science has a theory which scientists collaborate together and believe, but there is no proof to disprove the bibles creation account. Even if evolution was possible, or the big bang was possible, which there is no proof of, it still doesn't mean it happened that way.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
You mean like the parts that evolution theory views as false? Did man come from monkeys or did God create Adam as man. None of us were there. Nothing hinges on it in the scientific world. You could launch a rocket without knowing if man came from a monkey. So there is no proof either way. Science has a theory which scientists collaborate together and believe, but there is no proof to disprove the bibles creation account. Even if evolution was possible, or the big bang was possible, which there is no proof of, it still doesn't mean it happened that way.
You are ignoring about 50% of scientific research which about part for the course of those that deny science.

Personally as a non-Christian if the Bible consisted of the Sermon on the Mount and a few other selected passages such as the statement of the two greatest commandments we're be ahead of the game compared to today
 

Kemosloby

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You are ignoring about 50% of scientific research which about part for the course of those that deny science.

Personally as a non-Christian if the Bible consisted of the Sermon on the Mount and a few other selected passages such as the statement of the two greatest commandments we're be ahead of the game compared to today

First of all the saying is "par for the course", it's a golf thing. Par is average. Secondly "we're" was not used correctly, It should be "we would" or "we'd".
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
My question for those who uphold The Bible as literal truth AS WELL AS those who reject it for this reason:

Why does the entirety of The Bible have to be literally true for It to have value? Why must all of the events recorded be historical happenings for there to be lessons which can be learned from The Bible? Can't there be truths taught through stories, poetry, songs, and wise sayings?
If something presents itself as truth---in this case, the whole Bible---but you then give yourself the option of declaring certain parts to be fiction, how do you know your cherry picking is infallible, that some of the parts you've retained aren't also fiction? This is one reason I can see why some Christians are Bible literalists.

.
 

Sundance

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
If something presents itself as truth---in this case, the whole Bible---but you then give yourself the option of declaring certain parts to be fiction, how do you know your cherry picking is infallible, that some of the parts you've retained aren't also fiction? This is one reason I can see why some Christians are Bible literalists.

.

I don't know, to be honest, Skwim. However, that still does not answer my question: why is there believed to be nothing of value in, no kinds of deeper truth to be learned from something which may not be entirely historical?
 
Last edited:

Tmac

Active Member
As can be (and has been in the past) observed, I am a poet, a storyteller, and a huge bookworm. I am also a polytheist. On top of all of this, I am a adorer of The Bible. I love it! To me, it's a beautiful mixture of history, some stories, poetry, songs, wise sayings, and a bit of future-seeing. I can and do understand this. However, I notice that many individuals are turned off of The Bible due to being taught that the whole of it is the literal truth.

My question for those who uphold The Bible as literal truth AS WELL AS those who reject it for this reason:

Why does the entirety of The Bible have to be literally true for It to have value? Why must all of the events recorded be historical happenings for there to be lessons which can be learned from The Bible? Can't there be truths taught through stories, poetry, songs, and wise sayings?

What a beautiful question, it says a lot about you. Always have trouble with people that keep what they believe in a book. They never put froth the thought in their own words, its like their beliefs are to keep them in line rather than something to learn something about....
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Why does the entirety of The Bible have to be literally true for It to have value? Why must all of the events recorded be historical happenings for there to be lessons which can be learned from The Bible? Can't there be truths taught through stories, poetry, songs, and wise sayings?
I'm a believer in the Bible. (Just to give you a point of reference)

The principle you are asking, in and of itself, is correct. There are many books, poems and stories that are not true and yet expound a truth or a value.

If one does not believe in the Bible, it doesn't mean someone can't learn a truth in it. For an example, the story of the first group of Israelites as they looked at the promised land and said "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."

One may not believe it is historical and yet who has ever won a medal, accomplished an extraordinary feat, defeated an army when their hearts said "I can't do it because the competition/task/army are giants"?

So the truth of "as a man thinks in his heart, so is he" is still a truth even if you don't believe the story.

However, for a believer, the history becomes a truth on steroids (so to speak) when you believe it is not only a truth but a history of actual events.
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Why does the entirety of The Bible have to be literally true for It to have value? Why must all of the events recorded be historical happenings for there to be lessons which can be learned from The Bible? Can't there be truths taught through stories, poetry, songs, and wise sayings?
There's simply no evidence whatsoever that would suggest that the scriptures are inerrant, and even if they were, our minds are not inerrant.

Also, all religious scriptures are subjective, not objective, so we shouldn't be looking at them as if they're objective history or science. The Semitic mindset thousands of years ago was quite different than the objective western mindset of today. Therefore, we have to try and read the scriptures, not like how we in the west would tend to read them, but how those in eretz Israel thousands of years ago would tend to read them.

IOW, what was the author really trying to say?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The Semitic mindset thousands of years ago was quite different than the objective western mindset of today. Therefore, we have to try and read the scriptures, not like how we in the west would tend to read them, but how those in eretz Israel thousands of years ago would tend to read them.

This is imperative!!!
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know, to be honest, Skwim. However, that still does not answer my question: why is there believed to be nothing of value in, no kinds of deeper truth to be learned from something which may not be entirely historical?
Nobody is ever claiming that. For examples the works of Shakespeare are constant source of wisdom and inspiration and insight into the human condition for those who peruse them. The problem is Bible is considered literally true by some and elevated above others and often better works of literature due to the claims that its specially revealed or inspired by God. I am certain that a weekly Shakespeare study group will provide better service to the human soul and wisdom than a weekly Bible study group. Yet we have almost none of the former and thousands of the latter. It's the idolization of the Bible as God's special work and its unjustified elevation over better creations of literature that I oppose.
 

Sundance

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Nobody is ever claiming that. For examples the works of Shakespeare are constant source of wisdom and inspiration and insight into the human condition for those who peruse them. The problem is Bible is considered literally true by some and elevated above others and often better works of literature due to the claims that its specially revealed or inspired by God. I am certain that a weekly Shakespeare study group will provide better service to the human soul and wisdom than a weekly Bible study group. Yet we have almost none of the former and thousands of the latter. It's the idolization of the Bible as God's special work and its unjustified elevation over better creations of literature that I oppose.

I understand your point, sayak. Though, which literary works are ‘better’ than others is an entirely subjective matter. To me, both are equally valuable.

Truthfully, I would love to see weekly study groups centered around the works of great playwrights, poets, philosophical thinkers, scientists, and the various religions of the world. :D
 
Top