Should Scripture Be Taken Literally?

[Grandliseur]

But a major authority has taken the stance that at least a portion of Genesis is mythology.

satan against God - what is new!

Science conflicts with at least some of the historicity in Genesis,

How? What is it disagreeing with? If evolution, go fly a kite!

Since you choose not to back your claim up with evidence

You mean the deluge? Or do you refer to Genesis chapter 1? (I do not understand the 6 Terra-forming days as 24 hour days. I take them to be days of God of at least 7000 years minimum), or do you refer to the creation of Adam and Eve. All of the above, I take as literal events.

 

[Kemosloby]

I'm curious to know at what point they believe the story of the bible becomes non-fiction. Like do they believe Abraham was a real man?

 

[Grandliseur]

kept the numerous oral traditions word for word?

Which parts do you claim were oral? I think all of these things came in two ways, by ways of writing from the past preserved by Noah, or by divine inspiration.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks for the thoughtfully wrapped insult. Next time, please accompany this with a nicely wrapped box of chocolates.

I am indeed fairly predictable since I believe the Bible totally; ...

No, you believe that the "Bible" is literally Holy Writ.

 

[SalixIncendium]

satan against God - what is new!

So you are positing that the entire Catholic Church is Satan? Wow.

Have you considered the possibility that some of their revelations or information may have come from the Secret Vatican Archives?

How? What is it disagreeing with? If evolution, go fly a kite!

Multiple scientific theories have rendered at least some of the historicity in the Bible as questionable at best. Evolution is only one of those theories.

You mean the deluge? Or do you refer to Genesis chapter 1? (I do not understand the 6 Terra-forming days as 24 hour days. I take them to be days of God of at least 7000 years minimum), or do you refer to the creation of Adam and Eve. All of the above, I take as literal events.

Wait. Did you just make your own interpretation?

So women came from a rib? Genesis 2:18-24

 

[Augustus]

Given this information, would it not be wise to admit that at least some of what the Bible posits is myth?

Almost all of the Bible is myth in the classical sense of the term. In this sense it basically means narrative which can be true or not true. Also the meaning behind such myths tends to be more important than whether or not it narrates objectively factual events.

A truth may be conveyed through a 'fictional' narrative after all.

Utilising modern conceptions of detached, objective truth might not be the most useful method of interpretation of classical texts given the environment from which they arose.

 

[Polymath257]

As you can see, I put in bold and red that which is why we have the problem among some. This is a clear unbeliever and believer conflict. Once this is accepted, the "Bible is inspired by God' goes down the drain and satan has won without a fight.

I see. Once we accept evidence as opposed to faith, we have to reject your religion. OK.

A belief in God also means that we know for a fact that God has caused his inspired word to be conserved for us through time and with the Christian writings made 'perfect' for all good works, for teaching, for setting things straight, and for teaching us the Gospel of Christ that can lead a person to salvation.

No, it certainly does NOT automatically mean that is a fact. The belief that there are 'inspired words' that have been 'conserved' is an additional assumption and does not directly follow from the mere existence of a deity.

The above kind of scholar be damned, and I hope they shall be as even Paul said:

I Corinthians 16:22:
If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.​

Those who nullify the ransom and what it entails, Adam & Eve, the fall into sin, etc. also reject the ransom and what it means; these shall be cursed by God himself.

'My mind is made up! Don't confuse me with facts or evidence!'

 

[sayak83]

I'm curious to know at what point they believe the story of the bible becomes non-fiction. Like do they believe Abraham was a real man?

Some do, some don't. There is no such requirement even among many Jewish religious groups. They are often considered myths and stories that were known in that era and which God used to tell the Jewish people important things about His Nature and His desired relationships with them in the emerging civilization of Israel.

 

[sayak83]

Almost all of the Bible is myth in the classical sense of the term. In this sense it basically means narrative which can be true or not true. Also the meaning behind such myths tends to be more important than whether or not it narrates objectively factual events.

A truth may be conveyed through a 'fictional' narrative after all.

Utilising modern conceptions of detached, objective truth might not be the most useful method of interpretation of classical texts given the environment from which they arose.

Precisely.

 

[Kemosloby]

Some do, some don't. There is no such requirement even among many Jewish religious groups. They are often considered myths and stories that were known in that era and which God used to tell the Jewish people important things about His Nature and His desired relationships with them in the emerging civilization of Israel.

But they believed there was an invisible man telling them the stories?

 

[sayak83]

Almost all of the Bible is myth in the classical sense of the term. In this sense it basically means narrative which can be true or not true. Also the meaning behind such myths tends to be more important than whether or not it narrates objectively factual events.

A truth may be conveyed through a 'fictional' narrative after all.

Utilising modern conceptions of detached, objective truth might not be the most useful method of interpretation of classical texts given the environment from which they arose.

Only in math there is such a thing as detached objective truth. Everything else is an useful but fictional models that nevertheless convey important truths about the experienced reality. Some are better than others of course.

 

[sayak83]

But they believed there was an invisible man telling them the stories?

No. The spirit of God moved within the prophets and priests to whom the stories were revealed.

 

[Polymath257]

Only in math there is such a thing as detached objective truth. Everything else is an useful but fictional models that nevertheless convey important truths about the experienced reality. Some are better than others of course.

I'd challenge that it even exists in math.

 

[Kemosloby]

No. The spirit of God moved within the prophets and priests to whom the stories were revealed.

Yes they believed an all powerful God was telling them stories through men who would sometimes be stoned to death for telling the stories?

 

[PureX]

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?"

The church lost control of that decision when Gutenberg invented the printing press. And various religious charlatans and hucksters have been taking advantage of the peasant's superstitious nature ever since. (Not that the Catholic Church wasn't.)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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?"

I believe that the Bible accurately describes the Biblical world and should be taken literally. What people do with areas of the Biblical world that do not coincide with the natural world seems whimsical to me. All it means to me is that they do not coincide.

 

[idav]

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?"

Even with various interpretation the question is about whether to take the core of it figugratelvly or literally. Another aspect are those that follow strict to code where strict belief in certain dogma keeps people from eternal damnation. Only we have the authority to decide who we are going to trust, some prefer Paul some Joseph Smith some people prefer Muhammed. I often wonder why we call the catholic priests father, because that is handing over the authority. Catholics are giving the authority to the Pope etc but many folks within the religion will only believe that so far. One ends up having to decide who is closest to saying what the spirit says.

 

[metis]

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?"

The Bible was written by men from clearly a subjective viewpoint, and the question of "divine inspiration" is just that-- a question. Therefore, to view the scriptures as being historically and scientifically accurate really doesn't make much sense, but getting the morals and values out of these texts does make sense, especially since that can have a major influence in our lives today.

The RCC and any other church or religious institution does have both the right and responsibility to teach what they think is right, and pretty much all religious institutions do just that, but it's up to the congregant to make up their own minds ultimately.

 

[sayak83]

Yes they believed an all powerful God was telling them stories through men who would sometimes be stoned to death for telling the stories?

Yes. Politically incorrect stories have that effect on people.

 

[Kemosloby]

Yes. Politically incorrect stories have that effect on people.

Their God was telling them politically incorrect fictional stories so they killed the story tellers?