• 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!

Should Scripture Be Taken Literally?

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Here is a post of mine regarding this topic in an another thread.

Imho, Christianity at present, distorted as it is by roman editting and interpretation, is quite different from that originally taught by Christ.

The christian scriptures are more like a book with many pages torn off, and hence the reason one is not about to make coherent sense of it as a whole.
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Here is a post of mine regarding this topic in an another thread.

Imho, Christianity at present, distorted as it is by roman editting and interpretation, is quite different from that originally taught by Christ.

The christian scriptures are more like a book with many pages torn off, and hence the reason one is not about to make coherent sense of it as a whole.
and several other gospels not allowed in the cannon
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, that's not true. Believers take things both literally and metaphorically. IMO, "unbelievers" take all of it literally, and therefore they can't believe it any of it.

It's closer to being that I don't consider metaphor to give truth. It can point to a truth, but is not itself a truth.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Since Moses spoke face to face with God over 40 years and was the writer of the first five books, which include Genesis, I would say no part is the stuff of myth. In fact the attention to details and places and times is not at all consistent with the literature style of myth.


It is necessary to distinguish between the form of portrayal and the content that is portrayed.

Scripture was not written from beginning to end as some novel, but the story of God's history with his people. Genesis was an afterthought, its present form compiled during the Babylonian Exile during which time the Israelites gave new content to the Babylonian account Enuma Elish with its own fashion of depicting the origins. In Gen those sinister powers of Enuma Elish are left moot with the words "The earth was without form, and void'. The Bible readapts its images. A second creation account in Gen written earlier and with different imagery, others in the Psalms, Wisdom with other images and without the 7 days. The images are adapted freely because they are only images.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
While this is true of the form we now have, it was a compilation of many ancient traditions.

I already described the Pentateuch as a compilation of many ancient traditions and myths, including Babylonian, Ugarit, Canaanite and Babylonian. The argument is that the Pentateuch cannot be claimed as dating earlier as Moses as the author, and that represents history. By the evidence they are compilations set in history and not historical accounts
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Original sin post-dates both of these figures so I don't know how they took it literally. Philo was also a Jew, so presumably didn't believe that about Jesus either.

I know Phillo was a Jew, that is not an issue. Nonetheless you are neglecting the fact that the myths are described by Paul and the Church Fathers as Genesis as literal and the basis for the beliefs.

The point was that, to some degree, they were not taken literally. The degree to which they did so is debatable, but it shows that allegory has always been a part of Biblical interpretation.

Philo:

What is meant by the tree of life, and why it was placed in the middle of the Paradise? (#Ge 2:9). Some people have believed that, if there were really plants of a corporeal and deadly nature, there are also some which are causes of life and immortality, because, they say, life and death are opposed to one another, and because some plants are ascertained to be unwholesome, therefore of necessity there must be others from which health may be derived. But what these are which are wholesome they know not; for generation, as the opinion of the wise has it, is the beginning of corruption. But perhaps we ought to look on these things as spoken in an allegorical sense; for some say the tree of life belongs to the earth, inasmuch as it is the earth which produces everything which is of use for life, whether it be the life of mankind or of any other animal; since God has appointed the situation in the centre for this plant, and the centre of the universe is the earth. There are others who assert that what is meant by the tree of life is the centre between the seven circles of heaven; but some affirm that it is the sun which is meant, as that is nearly in the centre, between the different planets, and is likewise the cause of the four seasons, and since it is owing to him that every thing which exists is called into existence. Others again understand by the tree of life the direction of the soul, for this it is which renders the sense nervous and solid, so as to produce actions corresponding to its nature, and to the community of the parts of the body. But whatever is in the middle is in a manner the primary cause and beginning of things, like the leader of a chorus. But still, the best and wisest authorities have considered that by the tree of life is indicated the best of all the virtues of man, piety, by which alone the mind attains to immortality.



Sorry, I don't understand this point. Can you explain what you mean please?

No it is not debatable that Paul and the Church Fathers considered the myths of Genesis as factual.

First Barnabus, more to follow:

From: ECG: Creation and the Church Fathers
The first Church Father who mentions the days of Creation is Barnabas (not Paul’s companion) who wrote a letter in AD 130. He says:

“Now what is said at the very beginning of Creation about the Sabbath, is this: In six days God created the works of his hands, and finished them on the seventh day; and he rested on that day, and sanctified it. Notice particularly, my children, the significance of ‘he finished them in six days.’ What that means is, that He is going to bring the world to an end in six thousand years, since with Him one day means a thousand years; witness His own saying, ‘Behold, a day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, my children, in six days – six thousand years, that is – there is going to be an end of everything.” (The Epistle of Barnabas 15)2

Barnabas is referring here to the traditional view of both the Jewish Rabbis and the early church leaders, that the days of Creation were literal six days, but that Psalm 90:4 (and for the Christians, 2 Peter 3:8) prophetically pointed to the coming of the Messiah after 6,000 years (and for the Christians, the return of Christ).3 This is not to be confused with the modern idea in the church, which wrenches verses out of context and makes the days of Creation to be evolutionary billions of years. Such a view has nothing to do with traditional Christianity; it is an attempt to make the Bible palatable to the masses who have been indoctrinated by the pagan religion of evolutionism."

It is well demonstrated that the myths and some of the text of the Pentateuch evolved from Babylonian, Ugarit, and Canaanite myths and texts with distinct and close parallels factually and linguistically. There are no other Hebrew texts dated prior to 700-600 BCE.

The cultural and linguistic link between Hebrew and Canaanite is conclusive. Hebrew is the only surviving Canaanite language. Canaanite female God idols were common in ancient Hebrew villages.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
..., we read in the NT how Paul said,
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, ...​
^ scraping the bottom of the apologetic barrel yet again:
  • many scholars view 2 Timothy as pseudepigrapha, and
  • to suggest that "scripture" included future texts is almost comically dumb.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's closer to being that I don't consider metaphor to give truth. It can point to a truth, but is not itself a truth.
Yes, I would agree with this. In fact, I'd say all of language is metaphor this way. It points to meaning in ourselves beyond the mere referent.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Next Church Father that takes Genesis literally:

From: ECG: Creation and the Church Fathers
Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (AD 120 – 202), was discipled by Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had himself been taught by the Apostle John. He tells us clearly that a literal Adam and Eve were created and fell into sin on the literal first day of Creation (an idea influenced by the Rabbis). He writes:

“For it is said, 'There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning, one day.' Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die.”4

When he refers to Adam sinning and bringing death to the human race on the sixth day, he also points out that Christ also died on the sixth day in order to redeem us from the curse of sin. It is impossible to manipulate the text to make Irenaeus look as if he believed in the long-age days of the modernist theologians.

Agreeing with Barnabas, he explains that the literal six-day Creation points to six thousand years of history before Christ’s return:

“And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works. This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.”5
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not true. Without the story being true, there is n
You sentence cut off there. Not sure how you were planning to finish it? What I had said was, "They didn't need to be real individuals for the truth of what they represent to be real." So I assume you are trying to say without the story being true, the meaning of the story cannot be real? Yet, there are countless stories out there which are pure fiction, yet they speak of truths we can learn from and live by. Why in your mind must, for instance, Romeo and Juliet be real people in order for the truth of the love the portray be something real in our lives we can relate to through the characters?

Right, everything is interpreted; however, some things are taken as historical fact, other as stories, parables, or fiction. The material in the Bible is not difficult so that it is easy to understand what is intended.
If you don't find the material in the Bible to be challenging, then I suspect you haven't begun to understand much of what is in there. :) And can you point me to where it tells the reader you should interpret stories like Adam and Eve as "historical facts"? That's a very modern concept. Do you have any verses that tells us these things should be understood as matters of science and history? Or is that just your interpretation of the what you think they must have meant us to understand them as? If so, that's a very big assumption.

While that is true, it is also a fact that people who do not have a background on material they read, in many cases come to the totally wrong conclusions. That is why we have teachers, and if not, we have people who have studied the material and may direct us to a correct conclusion.
I personally do not believe the Bible is about drawing "right or wrong conclusions". In fact drawing "conclusions" sort of defeats the entire purpose of it, which to me is about inspiration. It would be like someone trying to "conclude" what a poem means! That totally misses the point! It's about inspiring imagination, possibilities, insights, hopes, etc. "Conclusion" is the opposite of all of that.

For sure.

Really!
Luke 11:52 “Woe to YOU who are versed in the Law, because YOU took away the key of knowledge; YOU yourselves did not go in, and those going in YOU hindered!”​
This has nothing whatsoever to do with having "correct" doctrines. It is basically saying you can be theologically knowledgeable, and know nothing about the truth of them which is what comes from the heart. Don't replace heart knowledge (spiritual truth) with head knowledge (religious beliefs).
John 17:3 3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.​
The knowledge of God is NOT a theological doctrinal head knowledge. It is Knowledge of the Spirit to the heart and the soul, and all too often all that head knowledge stuff gets in the way. Someone who has never read one verse of scripture, can have an Ocean of Knowledge about God, whereas someone with 15 degrees in theology may have no Knowledge of God whatsoever.
Matthew 15:3-9 3 In reply he said to them: “Why is it YOU also overstep the commandment of God because of YOUR tradition? 4 For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Let him that reviles father or mother end up in death.’ 5 But YOU say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have by which you might get benefit from me is a gift dedicated to God,” 6 he must not honor his father at all.’ And so YOU have made the word of God invalid because of YOUR tradition. 7 YOU hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU, when he said, 8 ‘This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. 9 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines.’”
Exactly. This confirms what I have said, and disproves your claim we a judgement by correct beliefs. It's the Pharisees who did that, straining at gnats (beliefs and practices), while swallowing the camel of hypocrisy because they had no actual heart knowledge of God, being obsessed with being "right" or "doctrinal correctness". Are you new to Christianity that you don't know this?


Thus the works we get judged for is also what we claim regarding the Word of God, the Holy Writ.
No. It. Is. Not. You have misapplied the meaning of those verses. Your interpretation of them is flawed, and you end up missing the message that they were saying.

If a person makes a mistake, the punishment is small, but if a person misleads people willfully as to what God is telling us, it is most likely a sin against the holy spirit, blasphemy.
Most sincere people will teach what they sincerely believe to be helpful and true. According to you, that means nothing if they don't have the doctrine right? God will judge them as "wrong" and send them to hell? I feel very badly for you if you hold such an image of God in your mind.

The Knowledge of God I hold tells me something very different. But I don't judge you as willfully misleading people. It's just a matter of you sincerely sharing what you believe to be true, for where you are at with what knowledge you have at this stage in your life. God doesn't judge you on "being right" in my eyes. You might wish to try to relax your beliefs enough to allow you to see others as God sees them.

So, this statement of yours is not what the scriptures teach. It is not empty faith, but faith with accurate knowledge.
You do not understand faith and beliefs then. An "empty faith" would be one where it's all head ideas, beliefs, doctrines, theologies, and no heart knowledge. Faith, is heart knowledge. Faith in fact can accept that the beliefs our minds hold to be true, can in fact be limited, partial, or outright in error. To me, if you have beliefs without that sort of Faith, then you have an "empty faith" or no actual faith at all.

A "True Believer", those who think the have it right!, typically have next to no actual faith at all. If they did, why then are they so afraid to consider other ideas? Would they ever actually modify, change, or drop a belief? I have many times. My Faith is what allows that to happen, which is what allows me to continue to grow. That's Faith. Not this, "right belief" BS.

As may be seen from this, accurate knowledge about the Gospel of Christ is somewhat demanded here. The Helter-Skelter ignorant faith may actually not lead to salvation.
Demanded? This make God sound like a vending machine which you must operate with the exact combination of coinage in order to get Him to spit out your personal Salvation Bar. :) This is not God. It our imagination of God as some abstract Machine. God is Love, not a tollbooth on the highway to heaven.
 
Last edited:

socharlie

Active Member
I watched a debate between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Pell last night in which Cardinal Pell professes that the Catholic Church views the story of the Garden of Eden as "...a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account." and that "...it’s a religious story told for religious purposes."


Which begs the question, if one of the largest religious institutions in the world that uses the Bible conveys that there are parts of the Bible that should not be taken literally, and that they are "mythological," who has the authority to decide what parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which ones are "stories told for religious purposes?"
we decide based on our spiritual level, we are not dealing with dogmatic set in stone text, it is a theological treatise designed to elevate human consciousness.
 

Grandliseur

Well-Known Member
^ scraping the bottom of the apologetic barrel yet again:
  • many scholars view 2 Timothy as pseudepigrapha, and
  • to suggest that "scripture" included future texts is almost comically dumb.
How Jews view the NT is not really the problem here. Our Holy Writ includes this. You will find that if you appreciate your own Holy Writ so as not to speak ill of it, you speaking ill of this Holy Writ of ours is going to bring judgment onto your head. But, that is your problem.

For a people who observed God's powerful works in favor of themselves, and protecting them against enemies they could not conquer themselves, it should serve as a warning to you that even the Jewish priesthood and the temple were done away with. It seems you have a hard time accepting God's warnings, even when they are so stark. The Messiah came, and we have accepted him; your Messiah hasn't come yet, you think, and you are waiting in vain. Most of you do not even wait any longer; many of the archaeological finds validating your Holy Writ are ignored because of the inconvenience it would bring on you and the Political situation.

Thus, the dumb thing is what is done when you ignore God's clear messages. Christians answer according to our faith; you answer according to your faith. If this is dumb, then I think you should look in a mirror.
 
Top