The Bible, taken literally?

Recently, I was watching a clip on Google Video. The show was apart of the Penn and Teller series. The purpose of this show is to "debunk" various theories and topics.

One that I recently saw that I thought would be a good debate topic is their episode on the Bible and when taken literally, is inaccurate.

In the episode they discuss the different merits of the details presented in the Bible including the first 6 days, Noah's Ark, and more.

I have provided a link below that leads straight to the clip itself. The clip is about 30 minutes long but is worth the watch in my opinion.

They do use profanity and are of course biased towards debunking the Bible as factual, but they do present some very valid points and is quite humorous. And don't worry, they give both sides of the argument.

MOD ADVIOSRY POST: The Penn and Teller clip contains profanity and has some strong opinions on the accuracy of the Torah and NT. Please use descrection when deciding to view this clip and please understand if you are offended or upset by someone stating the Bible is blantantly inaccurate and mis-represented I would advise you do not view the clip.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8463073960287313294&q=penn+and+teller

BS is my favorite show by a good stretch. I agreed with much of what they say. I say any religious text taken literally is usually BS. It would be downright silly if I took the eddas for truth rather than taking them as lessons and cool stories.

The bs is taking the Bible literally.
It was never the intent of the writers that it should be.
The Bible is never BS. there are things to learn in all of it.

Terrywoodenpic said:

The bs is taking the Bible literally.
It was never the intent of the writers that it should be.

Click to expand...

How do you come to know the intent of the authors?

Terrywoodenpic said:

The bs is taking the Bible literally.
It was never the intent of the writers that it should be.
The Bible is never BS. there are things to learn in all of it.

Click to expand...

I do not think I would go as far as to say it was BS either but I would also encourage that there is something to learn from almost every book that was ever written.

Jayhawker Soule said:

How do you come to know the intent of the authors?

Click to expand...

It would have been unusual for the times.
People then had no trouble understanding which stories were fact and which were illustrative. We have lost that ability.

MOD ADVIOSRY POST: The Penn and Teller clip contains profanity and has some strong opinions on the accuracy of the Torah and NT. Please use descrection when deciding to view this clip and please understand if you are offended or upset by someone stating the Bible is blantantly inaccurate and mis-represented I would advise you do not view the clip.

Terrywoodenpic said:

The bs is taking the Bible literally.
It was never the intent of the writers that it should be.
The Bible is never BS. there are things to learn in all of it.

Click to expand...

But there are some who take the bible literally, are there not ?

Terrywoodenpic said:

It was never the intent of the writers that it should be.

Click to expand...

Matthew 27:51-54

• And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
• And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
• And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
• Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

It is refreshing that we need not take such things literally.

Jayhawker Soule said:

Matthew 27:51-54

• And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
• And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
• And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
• Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

It is refreshing that we need not take such things literally.

Click to expand...

so how would one take that?

waacman said:

so how would one take that?

Click to expand...

I take it as a baseless and preposterous fabrication.

The defender's notes might help you;

27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Defenders notes:
This veil was a heavy curtain separating the Holy Place in the temple from the Holy of Holies, behind which the glory of God met with the high priest just once each year, on the Day of Atonement. For it to be torn in two, especially from top to bottom, even in an earthquake, would seem to require a miracle, possibly an unseen angelic hand. Symbolically, this tearing of the veil would mean that Christ had now opened the way for all to enter directly into the presence of God. We now may have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh" (Hebrews 10:19,20).
27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Defender's Notes:-
Not only had the light of the world gone out, but also the earth's great foundation Rock had been smitten (compare Exodus 17:6). But the veil had been rent and the graves of the saints were opened. The saints whose bodies were raised could only have been the men and women who had died in faith before the first coming of Christ. Until Christ set them free, their souls had been resting in that division of Hades called "Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:22). However, when "he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive" after He had "descended first into the lower parts of the earth" (Ephesians 4:8,9).
27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Defender's notes:-
The Old Testament saints could only receive their glorified resurrection bodies after Christ had been raised, for Christ must "become the firstfruits of them that slept" (1 Corinthians 15:20). Although this is apparently the only specific reference to the resurrection of these pre Christian-era believers, no other interpretation seems plausible. Evidently their new bodies were seen by people on the earth during the brief period between Christ's resurrection and His initial ascent to heaven (John 20:17).


if not, this site is pretty thorough:-http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvmat27.htm

Jayhawker Soule said:

Matthew 27:51-54

• And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
• And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
• And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
• Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

It is refreshing that we need not take such things literally.

Click to expand...

My personal interpretation;

• Tearing of the veil symbolised the unveiling of God for the common man, no longer was God for priestly access alone. Similar to the one Michel posted.
• Returning to life from death is a common symbol of enlightenment. This could represent the idea that, through Jesus, many people will reach enlightenment.
• The spreading of such enlightenment to others.
• The epiphany of enlightenment, the soldiers symbolise the average man witnessing the truth unveiled before him, which can be a traumatic event - Gospel of Thomas, second saying.

To the Gnostics, the death of Jesus symbolised the event of enlightenment itself - dying to the material world followed by resurrection into the truth.

I'm not saying that this was the intent of the author of Matthew, just illustrating that any verse can be read allegorically.

I'm not going to argue on the details because I think the clip did a pretty good job with some of the more questionable ones.

But I want to bring up another good point regarding the Bible and I think the clip also mentions this briefly.

No matter how you slice it, you still get a piece of the same cake. I don't think anyone denies the fact that the Bible was written, divinely inspired or not. And how do we know the Bible was written by divinely influenced writers? Well … they say so.

Anyone would agree that the historical existence of a human being named Jesus and other characters of the Bible are true. However, the details and all of the magical aspects of the events are up for debate, because after all, The Bible was still written by people, without a doubt their own sets of agendas.



Other than on just "faith and belief," why should someone base their lives on the teachings and contents of the Bible any more than they should the next best selling fiction book on the top sellers list?

Jayhawker Soule said:

How do you come to know the intent of the authors?

Click to expand...

i just wanted you people to know i've just been asking a similar question here :

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37756&page=3

so i've redirected that discussion here. i hope that works for everybody.

michel said:

But there are some who take the bible literally, are there not ?

Click to expand...

Certainly there are.
However Their beliefs do not change mine, or my view of the Bible.

Terrywoodenpic said:

Certainly there are.
However Their beliefs do not change mine, or my view of the Bible.

Click to expand...

What does it take to reconsider and re-evaluate a belief? Evidence, maybe? discrepancies? Or is a belief unchangable once set? And if so, doesn't that equate to a narrow and closed minded viewpoint?

And also, what is your viewpoint on the Holy Bible?

Halcyon said:

I'm not saying that this was the intent of the author of Matthew, just illustrating that any verse can be read allegorically.

Click to expand...

Eisegesis is a less than wonderful thing.

Neo-Logic said:

Anyone would agree that the historical existence of a human being named Jesus and other characters of the Bible are true.

Click to expand...

By what curious application of neologic [sic] did you arrive at such a strange and demonstrably inaccurate claim? I would argue, for example, that it's every bit as reasonable to infer that 'Moses' derives from fuzzy and distorted lore surrounding Amose/Kamose and the expulsion of the Hyksos.