How far can one go in not taking the Bible literally?

[Kirran]

Do you claim that morality comes from your god(s)?

I think morality is a human conceptualisation of basic principles which are part of the nature of the universe, which exists as a manifestation of God.

 

[icehorse]

I think morality is a human conceptualisation of basic principles which are part of the nature of the universe, which exists as a manifestation of God.

I'd say that putting aside the origins of the universe, we can agree for all practical purposes. My conclusion here is that you bring your sense of universal principles into questions of morality. Is that correct?

 

[Skwim]

Those stories about Yahweh killing unrighteous people are basically warnings. Maybe the people actually did exist and died, and their death was seen as a punishment from the deity. It's like folk tales, which also tend to serve as moral narratives prescribing correct behavior in the tribe.

But they didn't die at the hands of god because your concept of god simply doesn't allow for such things. Gotcha.

However, I don't take it literally because I really have no reason to and that's not how I read myth.

Myth being the sine qua non of Biblical scripture, which necessarily also includes "the greatest story ever told." You don't take it literally because you really have no reason to and that's not how you read myth. Gotta say, I've never before met a professed Catholic who believes that Jesus didn't actually die for our sins and rise from the dead.
You're a first S. F..

I read myths, including the Bible, for meaning and inspiration, as I believe that's how they should be read. I also interpret the Bible around Jesus Christ, Who I believe is the full revelation of God, and reveals God as a God of love.

As myth. Understood. The Bible doesn't contain any actual facts because it's all myth.

You might have said this at the outset of our discussion in the other thread and saved us both a lot of needless exchange.

.

 

[idav]

In another thread the issue of reading the Bible literally came up.

In response to my assumption that everyone would agree that according to the Bible god had killed people, Saint Frankenstein said "It's cute how you assume I think God actually killed anyone. You assume wrong."

Okay, but this prompted me to provide several examples, remarking "Sorry. I simply assumed that you believe what the Bible says. Things like

Numbers 11:1
And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.

1 Samuel 25:38
And it came to pass about ten days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died.

2 Chronicles 13:20
Neither did Jeroboam recover strength again in the days of Abijah: and the LORD struck him, and he died.

Joshua 10:10
And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.

Joshua 10:11
And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.​

In response, Saint Frankenstein said "You assume I take the OT as literal history or that there's no other ways to interpret verses. Maybe you should stop assuming things." I said I would, but out of curiosity asked: "if you would indulge me for a moment and tell me what

"Eventually Yahweh struck him and he died,"* ​

actually means.

* Source: Bible - Catholic Online


After this we had several more exchanges, but none addressed my request. However, Saint Frankenstein did finally say "I'll reply to [my request] it if you make it [in another thread]." Thus the origin of this thread. And ya gotta give the guy credit for his probity.

So here we are. Hopefully in the next post or so he will tell us what the verse actually means.

But aside from this I invite everyone chime in on the issue of difficult scriptures; Are there passages simply so troublesome that they demand not be taken literally, but beg to be reinterpreted no matter what?

It's easy to take all of it with a grain of salt, Jesus, according to his interpretations found the Old Testament as symbolic. How else does someone turn a wrathful vengeful god into a god of love.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim,
I have found two Bibles that I would encourage all to acquire, both can be found by clicking on; OliveTree.com. One is The Amplified Bible, and the other is a really unique Bible, called Net Bible. This Bible was made completely on the internet, over a period of over 20 years, with anyone who had a reason to disagree with what it said, are encouraged to write to them about your belief. In this way the whole Net Bible was made, along with 35, I believe, scholars, who are experts in different subjects.
You can get this Bible by just clicking on; NetBible.org, but it cost $19 dollars. On Olive Tree it is $4.95. Well worth the price!!
Just like all Bibles it is not perfect, but very good. There are two different copies, one has over 60,000 translator notes, and study notes, called full notes version.
This Bible will help you to understand what many verses that are hard to understand, are saying
Omething I learned reading the Preface to the Net Bible is; a completely Literal Bible is the very worst Bible made, because a Bible translated from either Hebrew or Greek is totally impossible to understand. Agape!!!

Thanks for the info.

.

 

[Kirran]

I'd say that putting aside the origins of the universe, we can agree for all practical purposes. My conclusion here is that you bring your sense of universal principles into questions of morality. Is that correct?

I guess so. God is the nature of all things, and God is Love, to act in a manner which expresses love and truth as best one can can be an act of worship in itself.

 

[icehorse]

I guess so. God is the nature of all things, and God is Love, to act in a manner which expresses love and truth as best one can can be an act of worship in itself.

While those aren't the most common definitions, I like them, and I think they're quite positive.

 

[Kirran]

While those aren't the most common definitions, I like them, and I think they're quite positive.

Neither of us are the most common people, so our definitions are likely also to be uncommon

 

[Brickjectivity]

In another thread the issue of reading the Bible literally came up.

In response to my assumption that everyone would agree that according to the Bible god had killed people, Saint Frankenstein said "It's cute how you assume I think God actually killed anyone. You assume wrong."

Okay, but this prompted me to provide several examples, remarking "Sorry. I simply assumed that you believe what the Bible says. Things like

Numbers 11:1
And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.

1 Samuel 25:38
And it came to pass about ten days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died.

2 Chronicles 13:20
Neither did Jeroboam recover strength again in the days of Abijah: and the LORD struck him, and he died.

Joshua 10:10
And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.

Joshua 10:11
And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.​

In response, Saint Frankenstein said "You assume I take the OT as literal history or that there's no other ways to interpret verses. Maybe you should stop assuming things." I said I would, but out of curiosity asked: "if you would indulge me for a moment and tell me what

"Eventually Yahweh struck him and he died,"* ​

actually means.

* Source: Bible - Catholic Online


After this we had several more exchanges, but none addressed my request. However, Saint Frankenstein did finally say "I'll reply to [my request] it if you make it [in another thread]." Thus the origin of this thread. And ya gotta give the guy credit for his probity.

So here we are. Hopefully in the next post or so he will tell us what the verse actually means.

But aside from this I invite everyone chime in on the issue of difficult scriptures; Are there passages simply so troublesome that they demand not be taken literally, but beg to be reinterpreted no matter what?

I am not taking it figuratively, because it is already figurative. I don't have to take it figuratively. That's what it is already. You choose to believe the Bible is meant to be read literally, perhaps because that is what you find convenient for your purposes. You are taking it literally and changing its genre, and then you complain it is bloodthirsty or doesn't make sense to you.

My recurring question is this: By what means to those who admire scripture know how to cherry-pick it?

First they convert to Judaism and drastically change their lifestyles. Then they spend time reading its original language and studying what the law is. Everything is about the law and figuring out how to keep it. Then they enter into the world of the Bible, leaving us all outside. You could say they enter a dream, but to them we are the dream on the outside. Then they become the audience that it was written to.

 

[icehorse]

First they convert to Judaism and drastically change their lifestyles. Then they spend time reading its original language and studying what the law is. Everything is about the law and figuring out how to keep it. Then they enter into the world of the Bible, leaving us all outside. You could say they enter a dream, but to them we are the dream on the outside. Then they become the audience that it was written to.

And you know full well that few theists take that course of action.

(I say, assuming you were having some fun.)

 

[Skwim]

It's easy to take all of it with a grain of salt, Jesus, according to his interpretations found the Old Testament as symbolic. How else does someone turn a wrathful vengeful god into a god of love.

Exactly. Expediency is the bane of reason. (just made that one up )

.

 

[Skwim]

I am not taking it figuratively, because it is already figurative. I don't have to take it figuratively. That's what it is already. You choose to believe the Bible is meant to be read literally, perhaps because that is what you find convenient for your purposes.

Not at all. I'm simply surprised that an avowed Catholic doesn't believe any of the Bible to be literally true, including the greatest story ever told.

You are taking it literally and changing its genre, and then you complain it is bloodthirsty or doesn't make sense to you.

Please reread what I've said, even if you have to click on the link to the thread that initiated this one.

.

 

[idav]

Exactly. Expediency is the bane of reason. (just made that one up )

.

Lol, I suppose one can see it that way. Hippies can be pretty dangerous with their "love all" attitude, those monsters!

 

[Aštra’el]

But aside from this I invite everyone chime in on the issue of difficult scriptures; Are there passages simply so troublesome that they demand not be taken literally, but beg to be reinterpreted no matter what?

My recurring question is this: By what means to those who admire scripture know how to cherry-pick it?

I view the Bible as an epic hybrid of historical accounts, metaphorical and allegorical literature, original and adopted spiritual-religious motifs, ancient wisdom and lessons about (individual and collective) human Nature, hidden esoteric insights and symbolism, and glimpses into some culture and Weltanschauung of ancient Man.

I have found motivation and inspiration in the Bible and the culture it has created, in the beautiful and creative aspects as well as its terrifying and destructive aspects. Which elements are based on historical accounts is irrelevant, what matters is the here and now and how the Bible (among other holy books) helps me in my odyssey of life.

Do you claim that morality comes from your god(s)?

Morality is subjective. I tend to embrace a more amoral perspective in my Weltanschauung and spiritual-religious practices.

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

This is a beautiful insight into human Nature.

 

[icehorse]

Morality is subjective.

Would you say you are a pure moral relativist?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not at all. I'm simply surprised that an avowed Catholic doesn't believe any of the Bible to be literally true, including the greatest story ever told.

Don't be surprised next time.

Please reread what I've said, even if you have to click on the link to the thread that initiated this one.

I did click the link but it took me to the beginning of the thread. I also did a little search for the term 'literal' on the first page and didn't see it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I think the Bible is true in what it claims, but there is such a thing as literary genre and true in the sense of the literature It may be literally true in parts, proverbially true in parts, poetic in parts, could use hyperbole or other devices in parts. I take it historically true in the historical parts

Wooden literal? not always.

Take for example in the book of Acts Paul goes back to Jerusalem and is told by a prophets if he does 'the Jews will hand him over to the Romans' well some Jews trying to have a plot against Paul cause the Romans to take Paul and imprison Paul, trials appeals and appeal to Caesar. God superintended a situation where Paul would speak to kings and rulers and the gentiles. Not 'handed over to the Romans' in a wooden literal sense but in a figurative sense.... and so.... consider the sense of the literature... wooden is not always the way to go

I would take lady wisdom and lady folly in proverbs as allegory and proverbs either true in ensemble or in some maxim rule of thumb sense individually.
I would take the book of Jonah as historical (but poetic, with a real sea creature etc... that really swallowed Jonah ) I would take the fire, ground opening, and snakes killing people are historically true.... and .... yes, plagues, long day, sea parting, walls falling.... yes... historically true
I would take the laws as sometimes case law to be considered how it might be approved in similar but not quite the same cases or what it might say about God or justice

The main things remain the plain things and the plain things remain the main things, in the sense of perspicuity of the scriptures where a child hearing the story will likely hear the main things

If you're going to pick and choose which parts are 'literally true, proverbially true, poetic, or use hyperbole or other devices" then you're cherry-picking. You're saying "THIS part I have to follow to the letter, but THAT part was just 'being poetic' so I can ignore it in a literal sense.'

And since it's up to each individual to decide which parts are which, the book becomes pretty much meaningless.

 

[Skwim]

If you're going to pick and choose which parts are 'literally true, proverbially true, poetic, or use hyperbole or other devices" then you're cherry-picking. You're saying "THIS part I have to follow to the letter, but THAT part was just 'being poetic' so I can ignore it in a literal sense.'

And since it's up to each individual to decide which parts are which, the book becomes pretty much meaningless.

Yup!

.

 

[Brickjectivity]

And you know full well that few theists take that course of action.

(I say, assuming you were having some fun.)

I do not mean to be offensive, Icehorse.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Myth being the sine qua non of Biblical scripture, which necessarily also includes "the greatest story ever told." You don't take it literally because you really have no reason to and that's not how you read myth. Gotta say, I've never before met a professed Catholic who believes that Jesus didn't actually die for our sins and rise from the dead.
You're a first S. F..

Dear Skwim, I have met at least one other Catholic with this perspective on RF. I find it very encouraging to see Christians breaking away from traditional understandings to develop new insights and understandings about their faith.