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

[ThePainefulTruth]

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?

When it come to the supernatural, from the sources we have on it here on Earth, we either have to assume it's fabricated and/or hearsay, or it's an analogy/fiction.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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

I kind of hinted that I didn't want to discuss the subject with you. You have a bad habit of assuming too many things and putting words in people's mouths, like you did with your post here I'm quoting from. Discussing such things with you is a waste of time and I have more fulfilling activities to take part in.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.
.

Here you are assuming things again. I never said that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

Pretty much this.

 

[David T]

I myself don't take anything in the bible literal, what I do take from the bible I take it being a metaphor, it works for me.

Does nature kill people? Its interesting it took a jewish dude who absolutely did not take the bible reductively literal, to give birth to Christianity so that people could read the bible reductively literal. His name was joseph.so Christianity does not even exist without someone challenging the lunacy of reductionism as it manifests in religion. Reductionism is dandy for reading a Chilton car manual. Don't pretend you understand something written over 2,000 years ago looking at it from modernity. It renders the text into personal fantasy which clearly makes such people NORMAL.

 

[Windwalker]

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 very simple actually. What it means is that the people who wrote that way back then literally conceived of God in mythical terms, like Zeus and Apollo and whatnot. Many today still think in mythological terms like this. But those who do not and still call themselves Christians understand these things in that context. They are historical artifacts that speak of people's evolving ideas of God.

 

[psychoslice]

Does nature kill people? Its interesting it took a jewish dude who absolutely did not take the bible reductively literal, to give birth to Christianity so that people could read the bible reductively literal. His name was joseph.so Christianity does not even exist without someone challenging the lunacy of reductionism as it manifests in religion. Reductionism is dandy for reading a Chilton car manual. Don't pretend you understand something written over 2,000 years ago looking at it from modernity. It renders the text into personal fantasy which clearly makes such people NORMAL.

Normal, well they certainly think they are.

 

[Skwim]

Here you are assuming things again. I never said that.

"I read myths, including the Bible, for . . . ." Note:. not: "myths in the Bible," but myths including the Bible . i.e. the bible is a myth.

In any case, this discussion has become too boring to continue. Have a good day.

.

.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"I read myths, including the Bible, for . . . ." Note:. not: "myths in the Bible," but myths including the Bible . i.e. the bible is a myth.

In any case, this discussion has become too boring to continue. Have a good day..

I didn't say that. Either you've mixed me up with someone else or you're putting words in my mouth again. Which is it?

 

[Skwim]

I didn't say that. Either you've mixed me up with someone else or you're putting words in my mouth again. Which is it?

Only as an FYI

Post 28
"Ancient peoples typically thought that their deity/deities were on their side in battles or punishing law breakers. 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. However, I don't take it literally because I really have no reason to and that's not how I read myth. 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. The Bible, to me, is the story of humanity attempting to understand and grow closer to God. The views of humans evolve as we learn more and more about God and as He reveals more of Himself to us. This seems to be a major theme in the Bible.

.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Just as an FYI

Post 28
"Ancient peoples typically thought that their deity/deities were on their side in battles or punishing law breakers. 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. However, I don't take it literally because I really have no reason to and that's not how I read myth. 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. The Bible, to me, is the story of humanity attempting to understand and grow closer to God. The views of humans evolve as we learn more and more about God and as He reveals more of Himself to us. This seems to be a major theme in the Bible.

.

Okay. I was in a hurry and I'm tired as hell.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

...or ancient insights or ancient understandings. There is risk with the possibility of reward.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Franky, from the record, Jesus believed in adam, the manna, the bronze snake in the wilderness, Jonah, lots wife turning to salt, ... the whole law, prophets and writings. Seems you don't see eye to eye.

No, he REFERENCED them. There's a difference. If I reference a movie, it doesn't mean I believe the movie is literally true.

How would you take Moses account of people bitten with fiery snakes and making the bronze snake where they could look to it and be saved and Jesus claim to be himself like the bronze snake that would be lifted up that all who look to him would be saved?

You mean the bronze snake that was eventually destroyed as an idol? That bronze snake?

 

[psychoslice]

2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Yes the letter killeth, don't get caught up in it, see beyond the words, use your spiritual discernment.

 

[oldbadger]

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?

Question:-
Do you believe what is written in books such as Samuel, Chronicles, Joshua of the Old Testament?

 

[oldbadger]

Seriously? IMO the question is "How far can one go in taking Saint Frankenstein as a rational being?
....................

Hmmm.... suppose somebody wrote something like that about...... you?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Then they would have to consider the question, and make up their mind, would they not? Or I suppose they could ignore the question. Or they could reiterate the question toward another individual.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hmmm.... suppose somebody wrote something like that about...... you?

I have that person on ignore, but I checked that post and reported it.

 

[whirlingmerc]

No, he REFERENCED them. There's a difference. If I reference a movie, it doesn't mean I believe the movie is literally true.


You mean the bronze snake that was eventually destroyed as an idol? That bronze snake?

Yes. But it was destroyed because it was used for the wrong purpose, it was an originally good thing that became a distraction.

I meant the whole story from beginning to end with snakes biting and getting healed if you looked to it

 

[Skwim]

Question:-
Do you believe what is written in books such as Samuel, Chronicles, Joshua of the Old Testament?

Not familiar with everything in any particular book of the Bible, but I'd probably take those parts that are logically consistent with reality as possibly true.


.