Should Scripture Be Taken Literally?

[sandy whitelinger]

She is viewed as just one link in a possible never-ending chain, and she may not even be a direct link to us.

Either way she's nonBiblical.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, I think Lucy was believed to be the mother of all men so...

No Lucy was never considered the mother of all humans.

 

[shunyadragon]

Either way she's nonBiblical.

Fortunately this is so.

 

[Enoch07]

What authority determines what Scripture is intended to be taken literally and what Scripture is meant to be taken as mythology that is open to interpretation?

The problem with that imho, is that there is not supposed to be an earthly authority to determine that. Which is one of the reasons I reject the Vatican as an authority.

 

[pearl]

Which verses?

Jesus' teaching in John 3:5 that we must be born of water and of the Spirit" means that real ("natural") water must be used for a valid baptism. When Jesus, after instituting the Eucharist, commanded His disciples to "Do this in memory of me" (Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24), priestly ordination.

"Again, the power conferred on the apostles to bind and loose sins (see John 20:23) authorized them and the priestly office to forgive sins in God's name. These authoritative interpretations emphasize the biblical origins of sacramental life. (The three other defined texts are John 20:22; Romans 5:12 and James 5:14)."

 

[sealchan]

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?"

You do.

Your experience of life in all its variety and difficulty gives you the burden and the opportunity to choose your truth.

On my part, I would say that when you hear a story you should immerse yourself in it, take it literally at that time. Like walking into church you put off the mundane and you put on the fragility of what is sacred. When you leave to hope to keep something of that sacred experience into your mundanity for the benefit of your sense of meaning and purpose.

Truths have a life of their own that we experience in the subjectivity of our psyches, our minds. They are born fresh and full of spirit. They inspire or frighten us. We wrestle with them like monsters or promote them like prophets. Over time they loose their spirit somewhat as we realize that they have some rough edges, some unpleasant side-effects. Gradually we realize that they fit more or less into a whole array of effective truths that we must cultivate like a museum collection. Returning to these truths from time to time for renewal and re-contextualization.

I've had a small handful of experiences which I choose to interpret as having been communicated with by God. These experiences have a certain character which correlates with the characteristics of Abram/Abraham's experience of God can be described as having. These same characteristics also apply to those who have had dreams involving God or Jesus.

Science has done a more than adequate job of dispelling most of the literal interpretations of the Garden of Eden. That story has literary bones which are shared with many other stories from other cultures. This helps to identify this Jewish story as a personal (inspired though we might claim it) and cultural expression of a truth which inevitably defies concrete description.

Calling something a myth should not be considered in any way a derogatory statement. It is to say that some idea, some story or some image has in it a meaning pregnant with the human experience of mystery and meaning.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jesus' teaching in John 3:5 that we must be born of water and of the Spirit" means that real ("natural") water must be used for a valid baptism. When Jesus, after instituting the Eucharist, commanded His disciples to "Do this in memory of me" (Luke 22:19; I Corinthians 11:24), priestly ordination.

"Again, the power conferred on the apostles to bind and loose sins (see John 20:23) authorized them and the priestly office to forgive sins in God's name. These authoritative interpretations emphasize the biblical origins of sacramental life. (The three other defined texts are John 20:22; Romans 5:12 and James 5:14)."

Thank you. Just curious as to which ones you'd list.

 

[pearl]

One would have to assume that the man God created in Chapter 1 is the same man discussed in Chapter 2. There is nothing in the Bible that states that these are indeed the same man.

Each account represents a different source, creation tradition, Gen1, the Priestly, Gen 2, the Yahwistic.

 

[Grandliseur]

Wait. Did you just make your own interpretation?

Not really. The point is fairly simple. There are statements about various dogma in the Bible that if taken at face value become contradictory. There is the problem of hell fire, or torment in hell, that happens if people take some verses of Revelation literally shall happen while so many scriptures tell us that death is the return to non existence. It is therefore necessary to have a Harmonious Interpretation of the Holy Writ.

In regard to the Terra-forming days of Genesis chapter 1, it may be demonstrated by scripture that these are at a minimum of 7000 years in length. While the maximum is unknown certain factors constrain this naturally. Personally, while I have little evidence for this, I believe the ballpark is 42000 years per Terra-forming day, or Day of God.

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

I find this objection unusual.

Here God creates Adam from scratch, probably using something similar to a zygote and accelerated growth to cause his body to become adult before activating it, and this you don't object to.

However, for God to use genetic material from Adam you object to though this caused them to really be one flesh. Not only that, but the rib is the bone in a human that regrows, so that it would not damage Adam, but let him know by its absence for a time that the two were really one flesh as God intended.

God's ability to manipulate this DNA material and create a woman with his DNA is also logical, since if God had created woman first, he would have had no Y-chromosomes. only the X-chromosomes for making a woman. In the sequence mentioned, Adam's cells contained the X-chromosomes needed for making the woman.

 

[whirlingmerc]

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?"

If by literally you mean true in the sense of the literature? then yes.
If you mean are the claims true? then yes
If you mean always in a wooden literal sense? no, not always.

 

[Grandliseur]

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

Each person has the right to determine what they believe in.

I really have no interests in beginning this evolution against the Bible controversy.

Please explain the Guadeloupe woman, her location in this very old strata. How does that fit into the evolutionary story? What does that do to the models of dating? (The Mystery Of The ‘Guadeloupe Woman | Strange Unexplained Mysteries),

Also, try to explain how in the deep North of the globe, in most areas it seems, we find remains of animals deep frozen whose meat still is edible at times and whose stomach contents is fresh. How could the entire globe deep freeze all animals in such an instant?

Please include in your explanation the huge number of boneyard fossils that exist around the globe some with incredible number of dead animals just all jumbled together.
Quoting:

The Karoo deposit in South Africa - 800 Billion Fossils
These deposits are so immense that even after decades of fossil collecting, bones are still sticking out of the ground. The Karoo formation is a water deposited sediment bed up to 20,000 ft thick. Massive fossil graveyards of dinosaurs exist all over the world. The Morrison beds in North America, (covering thousands of sq. miles), the dinosaur beds in Montana, Alberta, the Dakotas, Colorado, Utah, Africa, Europe and China, etc., etc., contain literally millions of dinosaur fossils piled together in heaps and mixed with other creatures. Ten thousand Hadrasaurs were found on Egg Mountain alone, including all age groups and eggs jumbled together in a mass death. Would this happen under normal, uniform conditions? The answer is No. Think about it, they are all in water deposited sediments! The Buffalo question- Millions of buffalo were slaughtered on the North American plains during the last century, so multiplied thousands of fossil buffalo should be common but are any great buffalo fossil graveyards to be found? No. Their remains were disposed of by the normal ravages of the weather, scavengers, and decomposition. So why are there great fossil graveyards of dinosaurs and thousands of other species where the bones of these beasts lie entombed in heaps, together with fossilized mammals, fish, insects, plants etc., testifying that they all perished together in a great mass death?​

This evolution against Bible goes nowhere. You have your faith and I have mine. The discussions are a waste of time.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not really. The point is fairly simple. There are statements about various dogma in the Bible that if taken at face value become contradictory. There is the problem of hell fire, or torment in hell, that happens if people take some verses of Revelation literally shall happen while so many scriptures tell us that death is the return to non existence. It is therefore necessary to have a Harmonious Interpretation of the Holy Writ.

So one has to take the contradictory portions of the Bible and "interpret" the meanings until they are no longer contradictory?

In regard to the Terra-forming days of Genesis chapter 1, it may be demonstrated by scripture that these are at a minimum of 7000 years in length. While the maximum is unknown certain factors constrain this naturally. Personally, while I have little evidence for this, I believe the ballpark is 42000 years per Terra-forming day, or Day of God.

I suppose a little evidence is better than none. Please share this.

I find this objection unusual.

Here God creates Adam from scratch, probably using something similar to a zygote and accelerated growth to cause his body to become adult before activating it, and this you don't object to.

However, for God to use genetic material from Adam you object to though this caused them to really be one flesh. Not only that, but the rib is the bone in a human that regrows, so that it would not damage Adam, but let him know by its absence for a time that the two were really one flesh as God intended.

God's ability to manipulate this DNA material and create a woman with his DNA is also logical, since if God had created woman first, he would have had no Y-chromosomes. only the X-chromosomes for making a woman. In the sequence mentioned, Adam's cells contained the X-chromosomes needed for making the woman.

Is this one of those "interpret" it til it becomes "harmonious" scenarios?

Why it strange to you that I find Adam forming from "scratch" more credible than a woman being formed from a man's rib in light of what science has discovered?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If by literally you mean true in the sense of the literature? then yes.
If you mean are the claims true? then yes
If you mean always in a wooden literal sense? no, not always.

Interesting responses. Now if you wouldn't mind reading beyond the title of the thread and answer the questions in the OP...

 

[Polymath257]

Each person has the right to determine what they believe in.

I really have no interests in beginning this evolution against the Bible controversy.

And yet you did.

Please explain the Guadeloupe woman, her location in this very old strata. How does that fit into the evolutionary story? What does that do to the models of dating? (The Mystery Of The ‘Guadeloupe Woman | Strange Unexplained Mysteries),

The skeleton was not fossilized, was in beachstone (not limestone), which forms quickly, and the dating of the stratum was due to a lying creationist (redundant, yes, I know).

Also, try to explain how in the deep North of the globe, in most areas it seems, we find remains of animals deep frozen whose meat still is edible at times and whose stomach contents is fresh. How could the entire globe deep freeze all animals in such an instant?

Animals fall into frozen ravines fairly often.

Please include in your explanation the huge number of boneyard fossils that exist around the globe some with incredible number of dead animals just all jumbled together.
Quoting:

The Karoo deposit in South Africa - 800 Billion Fossils
These deposits are so immense that even after decades of fossil collecting, bones are still sticking out of the ground. The Karoo formation is a water deposited sediment bed up to 20,000 ft thick. Massive fossil graveyards of dinosaurs exist all over the world. The Morrison beds in North America, (covering thousands of sq. miles), the dinosaur beds in Montana, Alberta, the Dakotas, Colorado, Utah, Africa, Europe and China, etc., etc., contain literally millions of dinosaur fossils piled together in heaps and mixed with other creatures. Ten thousand Hadrasaurs were found on Egg Mountain alone, including all age groups and eggs jumbled together in a mass death. Would this happen under normal, uniform conditions? The answer is No. Think about it, they are all in water deposited sediments! The Buffalo question- Millions of buffalo were slaughtered on the North American plains during the last century, so multiplied thousands of fossil buffalo should be common but are any great buffalo fossil graveyards to be found? No. Their remains were disposed of by the normal ravages of the weather, scavengers, and decomposition. So why are there great fossil graveyards of dinosaurs and thousands of other species where the bones of these beasts lie entombed in heaps, together with fossilized mammals, fish, insects, plants etc., testifying that they all perished together in a great mass death?
​

Local floods are not global floods. Local floods are common and can create such boney ards. And the evidence in such collections show clearly how they were formed.​

This evolution against Bible goes nowhere. You have your faith and I have mine. The discussions are a waste of time.

Clearly. Since you ignore the actual evidence and don't bother to learn what real scientists actually say, there is no point to debate. The Biblical stories go nowhere. Your 'faith' is little more than self-delusion.

 

[Grandliseur]

And current Jews also.

I know some friends in Israel who surely were like this (dead now). But, that does not apply to all, I would think. Still, that is the way to treat Holy Scripture.

 

[Grandliseur]

So one has to take the contradictory portions of the Bible and "interpret" the meanings until they are no longer contradictory?

Funny! I mentioned a Harmonious Interpretation, if you remember. I also do not expect to condense 60 years of Bible study into a one minute explanation.
Look at this please:

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to point out unto his servants the things which must needs come to pass with speed,—and he shewed them by signs, sending through his messenger, unto his servant John; (Rotherham)​

How is the book of Revelation written? In signs and symbols.

Revelation 11: 7 And, as soon as they have completed their witnessing, the wild-beast that is to come up out of the abyss, will make war with them, and overcome them, and slay them. 8 And their dead bodies [lie] upon the broadway of the great city, the which is called, spiritually, Sodom and Egypt, where, their Lord also was crucified.​

Is this wild beast mentioned here an animal we find in the animal kingdom? or a sign, a symbol, a metaphor for something else?
If then something obviously is not to be taken literally, then it must be interpreted. In this case, the book of Revelation contains its own decipher code. Unfortunately, not all take such metaphor and interpret these as they should; instead, they take them literally. Why do you think we have so many denominations!

In other cases, even in Revelation, the wild beasts are to be taken literally:

Revelation 6:8 . . .. And authority was given them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with a long sword and with food shortage and with deadly plague and by the wild beasts of the earth.​

IMO, it is fairly simple to determine which is which.

I suppose a little evidence is better than none. Please share this.

Please read the file at this link:>Earth's age by the Bible<

Why it strange to you that I find Adam forming from "scratch" more credible than a woman being formed from a man's rib in light of what science has discovered?

I guess my logic machine and yours differ.
God wanted the two to feel they were related. What better way than doing it this way.

 

[Grandliseur]

Your 'faith' is little more than self-delusion.

Happily deluded. Hope your reality doesn't come crashing down on you someday.

Your explanation of a period when times were balmy warm is actually funny with the large number of deep frozen animals:

quoting last post:"
"Also, try to explain how in the deep North of the globe, in most areas it seems, we find remains of animals deep frozen whose meat still is edible at times and whose stomach contents is fresh. How could the entire globe deep freeze all animals in such an instant?"

"Animals fall into frozen ravines fairly often."
​

And as I have said many times, and you now also: there is . . .

there is no point to debate

 

[james bond]

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?"

Christians generally disagree with the Catholics in Scripture and how they worship God. The Bible is to be taken literally. While there is use of figure of speech, generally it is to be interpreted literally.

For example, Adam and Eve were fully grown adults with capacity for reproduction and not teens. They were perfect human beings who lived in the Garden of Eden for a short time and not seven years. Maybe around a year in my opinion. They were sexual creatures who hadn't procreated yet before the Fall.

Catholicism is popular, but they've made a lot stuff up to suit their taste of being guilt-ridden.

 

[Truth123]

This didn't really answer the question posed in the OP, though, did it?

What authority determines what Scripture is intended to be taken literally and what Scripture is meant to be taken as mythology that is open to interpretation?

The authority of intention, knowledge and human behavior

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Let's stay on topic. If you want to start an E vs C debate, please do so in another thread. This one is about interpretation of Scripture.

If said thread is on the Guadeloupe woman, I'll happily post in response.