The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

[Subduction Zone]

I think it's a mistake to view ancient religious texts through a modern lens.
Attempts to understand the intention of the original authors are likely to be more revealing.

As an atheist I have never argued that because the Bible is wrong if one interprets it literally at points does not refute Christianity. All that it does is to refute that particular interpretation of the Bible.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

There are many here who insist the Bible is God's "inerrant" word. They always use that loaded word, "Inerrant" like it's some kind of badge of honor. In truth, when studied, the Bible is ANYTHING but inerrant. In fact the errors contained within it are so numerous it'd be a simple task to collect them and compile a second Bible. One website catalogued 4,000 errors and that is not comprehensive. Zealots always haul out that old canard, "Context!" As if context could fix errors and egregious as these:

Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

Now how do you square that with this:

No one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him 1 John 5:18

But further, square it with this as well:

If anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 1 John 2:1

So which is it, Christians don't sin per 1 John 5:18 OR Christians DO sin and they can go to Jesus when they do per 1 John 2:1?

Another one:

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others Luke 24:9.

Now square that with this:

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. Mark 16:8

The gospel ends there so Mark doesn't say if the women changed their minds and we cannot make that assumption because if we do we are adding to the Bible.

One last one:

No man has seen or can see God 1 Timothy 6:16

But apparently someone has seen God:

The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend Exodus 33:11

But worse, later in Exodus

You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live! Exodus 33:20

And bear in mind this is just THREE errors out of a catalogued 4,000 errors!!!!! This is insanity.

"Inerrant" word of God indeed!!!!!!!

 

[Martin]

As an atheist I have never argued that because the Bible is wrong if one interprets it literally at points does not refute Christianity. All that it does is to refute that particular interpretation of the Bible.

My point was that interpretation needs to include an understanding of the authors intentions, and that requires an understanding of the historical and cultural context.

Assessing what the authors intended to convey is one thing, deciding whether we believe it is another. People too often conflate or reverse these two processes, effectively imposing their personal assumptions onto the text.

I also see a spectrum between literal and metaphorical meanings, it's not an either/or situation. There are nuances.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are many here who insist the Bible is God's "inerrant" word. They always use that loaded word, "Inerrant" like it's some kind of badge of honor. In truth, when studied, the Bible is ANYTHING but inerrant. In fact the errors contained within it are so numerous it'd be a simple task to collect them and compile a second Bible. One website catalogued 4,000 errors and that is not comprehensive. Zealots always haul out that old canard, "Context!" As if context could fix errors and egregious as these:

Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

Now how do you square that with this:

No one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him 1 John 5:18

But further, square it with this as well:

If anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 1 John 2:1

So which is it, Christians don't sin per 1 John 5:18 OR Christians DO sin and they can go to Jesus when they do per 1 John 2:1?

Another one:

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others Luke 24:9.

Now square that with this:

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. Mark 16:8

The gospel ends there so Mark doesn't say if the women changed their minds and we cannot make that assumption because if we do we are adding to the Bible.

One last one:

No man has seen or can see God 1 Timothy 6:16

But apparently someone has seen God:

The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend Exodus 33:11

But worse, later in Exodus

You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live! Exodus 33:20

And bear in mind this is just THREE errors out of a catalogued 4,000 errors!!!!! This is insanity.

"Inerrant" word of God indeed!!!!!!!

You will see apologists jumping through all sorts of hoops to "refute" those contradictions. Unfortunately all that they can do is to demonstrate that if one uses a very very very strained interpretation that they might not be contradictions, and that is only if you take the quotes out of context. Of all of the verses that you quoted perhaps the most dangerous one is:

No one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him 1 John 5:18


I have met too many Christians that believe this and that since they are "saved" they can no longer sin. They think that verse excuses any behavior that they have. Earlier I posted an interview with a DC insurrectionist. The man was sure that he did nothing wrong because he is a Christian. With his name and face out there in such a public fashion he probably is among those that have been arrested since the event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point was that interpretation needs to include an understanding of the authors intentions, and that requires an understanding of the historical and cultural context.
Assessing what the authors intended to convey is one thing, deciding whether we believe it is another. People too often conflate these two processes, thereby imposing their personal beliefs onto the text.
I also see a spectrum between literal and metaphorical meanings, it's not an either/or situation. There are nuances.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. A worldwide flood that killed everything clearly did not occur. Have there been floods? Yes. Were some good sized, to the locals yes. In fact there was flood that may have inspired the myth. It was large enough that a small boat in the middle of it and the land is of low relief around it to such a point that a person in the middle of it might have not been able to see the shore:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

The story still "works" as a story of faith even through extreme circumstances. As an actual event the story is too far away from reality.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

My point was that interpretation needs to include an understanding of the authors intentions, and that requires an understanding of the historical and cultural context.
Assessing what the authors intended to convey is one thing, deciding whether we believe it is another. People too often conflate these two processes.
I also see a spectrum between literal and metaphorical meanings, it's not an either/or situation. There are nuances.

This is my criticism of the Bible. There shouldn't be errors [there are--thousands of them] There shouldn't even be nuances because then we're getting into interpretation and a true word of God would be crystal clear--no room for interpretation. We'd expect a perfect God to be able to hand us a perfect book without any errors or nuances.

All this is proof Christianity does not come from God. It is a purely man-constructed religion like then 10,000 before it.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

You will see apologists jumping through all sorts of hoops to "refute" those contradictions. Unfortunately all that they can do is to demonstrate that if one uses a very very very strained interpretation that they might not be contradictions, and that is only if you take the quotes out of context. Of all of the verses that you quoted perhaps the most dangerous one is:

No one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him 1 John 5:18


I have met too many Christians that believe this and that since they are "saved" they can no longer sin. They think that verse excuses any behavior that they have. Earlier I posted an interview with a DC insurrectionist. The man was sure that he did nothing wrong because he is a Christian. With his name and face out there in such a public fashion he probably is among those that have been arrested since the event.

I have no doubts the guy who said that believed what he said about as much as he believed he was the man in the moon. Then again, delusion is rife in the Christian community so maybe you have a point.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. A worldwide flood that killed everything clearly did not occur. Have there been floods? Yes. Were some good sized, to the locals yes. In fact there was flood that may have inspired the myth. It was large enough that a small boat in the middle of it and the land is of low relief around it to such a point that a person in the middle of it might have not been able to see the shore:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

The story still "works" as a story of faith even through extreme circumstances. As an actual event the story is too far away from reality.

And maybe "all the animals on earth went on the boat in pair" really just boiled down to a couple of hens and a cow. These myths, like fish stories, tend to grow wildly over time.

 

[Augustus]

Yes, that was a political move to try to get Church acceptance. It did not work. Copernicus's views were not accepted immediately. And Galileo was charged with heresy for teaching that the Earth went around the Sun. Heresy could have a death sentence attached. I know that you want to defend the Church but in this matter it cannot be defended:

Galileo is accused of heresy.

I'm an atheist, and care not a jot about 'defending the church', just looking at the issue rationally based on the evidence that exists.

If Biblical literalism was the be all and end all, why was Copernicus' work dedicated to the Pope and his patron a Bishop? It was hardly a 'political move' to engage in heretical trolling.

Copernicus' views were not uniformly accepted as they were unproven by the science of the day, not simply because of theology. The same is true of Galileo. Galileo's views was a minority view in the scientific community.

He could have continued to teach it as a theory, but chose to teach it as a fact and engage in theology while mocking the Pope.

By all means criticise the Church for their intolerance, but be aware of the facts of the case rather than the pop culture myths. This issue was not caused by the need to defend rank Biblical literalism as it was not theologically problematic to move away from a literal interpretation of any passage given the right circumstances.

 

[Kenny]

I tha

I was going to limit this to Abrahamic religions, but the problem almost certainly exists for other religions as well. At least when it comes to the Abrahamic religions reading the Old Testament, Torah, or whatever name it goes by in Muslim sects literally can only refute those particular beliefs. For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally. Other examples are welcome or an explanations of why the refute those books are welcome. Also questions about how the books are refuted is welcome too.

There is an out, at least for Christianity, and probably one for Judaism and for others religions as well. Many Christians misinterpret the following verse:

"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Please note, it does not say that the Bible is literally true. It does not even imply that it is . It merely states that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. If one treats the stories of Genesis, Exodus, and other parts of the Bible as being instructional and not factual they still "work". It is so odd that so many Christians do not understand this.

Okay, have at it. Bring up any stories myths etc. from your various holy books and tell us how they cannot be taken literally

I take this very literally

PHILLIPS
The preaching of the cross is, I know, nonsense to those who are involved in this dying world, but to us who are being saved from that death it is nothing less than the power of God.

 

[MonkeyFire]

How could it?

There would be no need for scientists if I knew all things, unless it can stay behind on earth ever after and help Adam save things, unless it can redefine itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There would be no need for scientists if I knew all things, unless it can stay behind on earth ever after and help Adam save things, unless it can redefine itself.

Can you try again in English please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm an atheist, and care not a jot about 'defending the church', just looking at the issue rationally based on the evidence that exists.

If Biblical literalism was the be all and end all, why was Copernicus' work dedicated to the Pope and his patron a Bishop? It was hardly a 'political move' to engage in heretical trolling.

Copernicus' views were not uniformly accepted as they were unproven by the science of the day, not simply because of theology. The same is true of Galileo. Galileo's views was a minority view in the scientific community.

He could have continued to teach it as a theory, but chose to teach it as a fact and engage in theology while mocking the Pope.

By all means criticise the Church for their intolerance, but be aware of the facts of the case rather than the pop culture myths. This issue was not caused by the need to defend rank Biblical literalism as it was not theologically problematic to move away from a literal interpretation of any passage given the right circumstances.

Then why deny the obvious. One does not get charged with heresy for a different interpretation of science. Yes, Galileo has a minority view at that time. And it is better to say among the academic community since science was still in its infancy at that time. What was being taught was not quite "science" yet. The fact that Galileo had a minority view is a red herring. That does not excuse the Church's charge of heresy. Copernicus knew that what he proposed was heresy to many. That was why he tried to dedicate his work to the Pope. As I said it did not work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And maybe "all the animals on earth went on the boat in pair" really just boiled down to a couple of hens and a cow. These myths, like fish stories, tend to grow wildly over time.

That can even be seen with the certain stories in the Bible. I would have to look up the sources, but very old scripture of the David and Goliath story have Goliath at about 7'6". A possible height . Later versions have him taller at 9'9", a height that would have made him to be almost certainly an invalid. The square cube law is very real.

 

[JerryMyers]

I tha

I take this very literally

PHILLIPS
The preaching of the cross is, I know, nonsense to those who are involved in this dying world, but to us who are being saved from that death it is nothing less than the power of God.

What on earth is ‘saved from that death’ even mean if you are taking 'this very literally'' ??

 

[stvdv]

IMO:

Below is an example that totally makes sense, no inconsistency at all IF you are able to switch your POV (duality to non-duality)

Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

I read this as a normal man who is NOT Self Realized

Now how do you square that with this:

No one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him 1 John 5:18

I read this as a man who is Self Realized

But further, square it with this as well:

If anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 1 John 2:1

Again, I read this as a normal man who is not Self Realized

So, these 3 do make sense. No problem at all. These 3 just teach the difference between Self Realized or NOT Self Realized

To BE or NOT to BE
@stvdvRF

 

[stvdv]

IMO:

Below is an example that totally makes sense, no inconsistency at all IF you are able to switch your POV (duality to non-duality)

No man has seen or can see God 1 Timothy 6:16

Man here means = NOT Self Realized

But apparently someone has seen God:

The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend Exodus 33:11

Moses here means Self Realized

But worse, later in Exodus

You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live! Exodus 33:20

Man here means = NOT Self Realized

So, these 3 do make sense. No problem at all. These 3 just teach the difference between Self Realized or NOT Self Realized

To BE or NOT to BE
@stvdvRF

 

[Subduction Zone]

IMO:

Below is an example that totally makes sense, no inconsistency at all IF you are able to switch your POV (duality to non-duality)


Man here means = NOT Self Realized


Moses here means Self Realized



Man here means = NOT Self Realized

So, these 3 do make sense. No problem at all. These 3 just teach the difference between Self Realized or NOT Self Realized

To BE or NOT to BE
@stvdvRF

Perhaps you could tell us what you mean by the term of "self realized".

 

[Kenny]

What on earth is ‘saved from that death’ even mean if you are taking 'this very literally'' ??

It is how you define death.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Tanakh curates the foundational texts of an emerging people. It disgusts me to see Torah study reduced to shallow, self-serving fabrications by those with zero respect for its authors.