Truth

[Trackdayguy]

A question:

"Does truth need to be literal to be true"

If not, then why is so much fuss made about trying to convince people that the Bible is true.

 

[Shadow Link]

A question:

"Does truth need to be literal to be true"

If not, then why is so much fuss made about trying to convince people that the Bible is true.

Well, no, if the data is designed to be an inference unto truth.

 

[savagewind]

A question:

"Does truth need to be literal to be true"

If not, then why is so much fuss made about trying to convince people that the Bible is true.

True can mean according to reality. I believe the Bible is that.
Or
True can mean accurate or exact. The Bible isn't those, imo.

I don't think anyone who has read the Bible believes it is all literal.

 

[osgart]

True can mean according to reality. I believe the Bible is that.
Or
True can mean accurate or exact. The Bible isn't those, imo.

I don't think anyone who has read the Bible believes it is all literal.

Independent baptists take the whole thing literally. Literal history, and literal prophecy

 

[savagewind]

Independent baptists take the whole thing literally. Literal history, and literal prophecy

Even the monsters are real? Unbelievable!

 

[Dawnofhope]

A question:

"Does truth need to be literal to be true"

If not, then why is so much fuss made about trying to convince people that the Bible is true.

No bible scholar would accept that it is all to be taken literally. Most would recognise it is full of allegory, symbolism, and metaphor.

Many evangelical Christians interpret it far too literally IMHO. We are all entitled to our beliefs though.

 

[Estro Felino]

I always ask people: "what's the difference between the Bible and the Odyssey? I can't see any".

So one is as true as the other

 

[osgart]

Even the monsters are real? Unbelievable!

They even make documentary videos about those monsters being real. I myself was shocked at just how literal they believe.

 

[David1967]

Independent baptists take the whole thing literally. Literal history, and literal prophecy

You are right. But they only believe that the King James bible fits the criteria. BTW. I'm not an independent Baptist.

 

[exchemist]

A question:

"Does truth need to be literal to be true"

If not, then why is so much fuss made about trying to convince people that the Bible is true.

I notice you put the question in inverted commas. Are you quoting from somewhere?

Anyway, I suggest that anybody who has studied literature or drama would answer "No". Truths can be conveyed by many literary and dramatic devices, employed to engage the reader more deeply than a mere factual recitation. They also have the further advantage that a general sense can be conveyed without getting hung up, legalistically, on the exact meaning of particular words.

Humanity has used storytelling to convey messages about human purpose and the human condition since the dawn of civilisation.

 

[PureX]

A question:

"Does truth need to be literal to be true"

If not, then why is so much fuss made about trying to convince people that the Bible is true.

When people lack faith, they depend on authority. The illusion that the Bible is absolute, inerrant, and written by God gives it the authority they need to supplement their lack of faith in the principals that the Bible, and that most other religions espouse. The principals of love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity: wisdom and compassion.

 

[exchemist]

When people lack faith, they depend on authority. .

Is this so? It does not seem self-evident to me. I should have thought sources of authority would be mistrusted by people with little faith.

What I should have thought might be the case is that people with little understanding rely on authority. All of us do this, in areas in which we do not feel we have great expertise.

 

[PureX]

Is this so? It does not seem self-evident to me. I should have thought sources of authority would be mistrusted by people with little faith.

What I should have thought might be the case is that people with little understanding rely on authority. All of us do this, in areas in which we do not feel we have great expertise.

Where our knowledge comes up short, faith takes over. Faith, or willful subjugation to the authority of others. We choose. The "bibliolaters" in question choose blind allegiance to their Bible-idol. It becomes their absolute authority, and tells them what to think and do. Everyone else trusts in the value of the basic principals that the Bible teaches, as do most other religions. Or they become hedonists and trust only in what they think will further their own pleasure and security in life.

 

[Trackdayguy]

I notice you put the question in inverted commas. Are you quoting from somewhere?

Anyway, I suggest that anybody who has studied literature or drama would answer "No". Truths can be conveyed by many literary and dramatic devices, employed to engage the reader more deeply than a mere factual recitation. They also have the further advantage that a general sense can be conveyed without getting hung up, legalistically, on the exact meaning of particular words.

Humanity has used storytelling to convey messages about human purpose and the human condition since the dawn of civilisation.

I 100% agree. I feel its sad that the christian church has become more concerned with the meaning of words and if things are literal truth than they are seeking to find the truth hidden in in the texts that speaks to them.

Seems to me that they appear to have lost their way. I am convinced that Bishop John Spong is correct, "Biblical Literalism is a Gentile Hersey"

 

[Thief]

A question:

"Does truth need to be literal to be true"

If not, then why is so much fuss made about trying to convince people that the Bible is true.

as if the bible is historical?
as if the script is accurate report?

 

[exchemist]

I 100% agree. I feel its sad that the christian church has become more concerned with the meaning of words and if things are literal truth than they are seeking to find the truth hidden in in the texts that speaks to them.

Seems to me that they appear to have lost their way. I am convinced that Bishop John Spong is correct, "Biblical Literalism is a Gentile Hersey"

But the Christian church hasn't lost its way. A few very vocal extreme Protestant sects, mainly in the USA, have lost their way. That is quite different.

The long-established denominations of Christianity have not abandoned the experience and tradition of their forefathers. I'll repeat below part of a post I made on another thread, quoting from Diarmaid MacCullogh's book "History of Christianity" about Origen, one of the early fathers of the church.:

QUOTE
" ...when he read the bible, he shared Greek or Hellenistic Jewish scepticism that some parts of it bore much significant literal meaning. Looking at the Genesis account of creation, "who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life, of such a sort that anyone its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?" Origen might be saddened to find that seventeen hundred years later, millions of Christians are that silly. He would try to tell them that such things were true because all parts of the scriptures were divinely inspired truth, but they should not be read as historical events, like the rise and fall of Persian dynasties. He insisted that this rule should even be applied within the text of the gospels.

In viewing the biblical text in this way, Origen followed Clement [his predecessor in the Christian school in Alexandria, in 190AD ] in relishing the use of an allegorical method of understanding the meaning of literary texts, which by then had a long history in Greek scholarship. This is how the Greeks had read Homer and how learned Alexandrian Jews like Philo had read the Tanakh.
UNQUOTE

And this was in about 200AD!

 

[Shadow Link]

 

[PureX]