Metaphorically or literally?

[Corkscrew]

If that were so then all Christians would agree on which ones are what. There wouldn't be so many denominations. Every denomination purports that they have the right answers on how to interpret the bible. That can't possibly be so. If the bible is that confusing that its own adherents can't agree on what it really means, then how can anyone truly claim they have it "right"?

I couldn’t have said it better.

 

[Corkscrew]

It seems to me that people don’t really know which part of the Bible to take as fact or fiction. They just report that they believe the Bible. Well since that seems to be the case, I believe in the Bible too. I believe the part that says when the book was copyrighted.

 

[outhouse]

It seems to me that people don’t really know which part of the Bible to take as fact or fiction. They just report that they believe the Bible. Well since that seems to be the case, I believe in the Bible too. I believe the part that says when the book was copyrighted.

YOU have a severe failure of even a basic knowledge of scripture to begin to make any statement with any credibility and your post above is a prime example.

There was little fiction if any in all of the bible. because it was written in allegory, metaphor, poem, song, history, facts and legends does not mean it was fiction.

 

[Corkscrew]

YOU have a severe failure of even a basic knowledge of scripture to begin to make any statement with any credibility and your post above is a prime example.

There was little fiction if any in all of the bible. because it was written in allegory, metaphor, poem, song, history, facts and legends does not mean it was fiction.

It seems like fiction to me.

 

[Pegg]

If that were so then all Christians would agree on which ones are what. There wouldn't be so many denominations. Every denomination purports that they have the right answers on how to interpret the bible. That can't possibly be so. If the bible is that confusing that its own adherents can't agree on what it really means, then how can anyone truly claim they have it "right"?

thats because many people have doctrines which are not based on the scriptures, then when they see a scripture that does not support their doctrine, they have to explain why that scripture is out of harmony with their doctrine.

the bible is actually very simple and can interpret itself...unfortunately people are not so simple.

 

[outhouse]

It seems like fiction to me.

Bud its only because you dont understand the cultures that wrote and collected the different books.

Ive said the same thing in the past BUT upom gaining further knowledge in the ancient hebrews social aspects and cultural details one picks up on how the ancients thought.


They used to have self proclaimed deities on street corners lol and people of power would be called deities. they lived and surrounded themsleves in mythology. Were talking about a time when darkness was percieved as evil and frightening and they believed people could rise from the dead and a deity was used for everything they couldnt explain.

With no real education they had no reason to believe any different, many of the legends were not even questioned.

repeating legends handed down through oral transmission is not fiction.



Now with all that said im sure some parts were ment as fiction later adopted a literal translation but in general the bible is not fiction

 

[Pegg]

really?
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
mt 19:21

literal
metaphorical
parable
or symbolic?

go...

to his disciples, yes it was literal. Why can I say it was literal? Because Jesus himself did not keep possessions... he spent his time in the work of God and he WAS perfect. On top of that, he was calling on people to join him in his ministry.

and many people responded to Jesus invitation... many did sell their belongings and became disciples.

 

[Draka]

thats because many people have doctrines which are not based on the scriptures, then when they see a scripture that does not support their doctrine, they have to explain why that scripture is out of harmony with their doctrine.

the bible is actually very simple and can interpret itself...unfortunately people are not so simple.

The bible is not simple. If it was, even simpletons would get it "right". Or perhaps only simpletons get it "right", who knows? However, if one accepts that the bible is a work of mythology, which it is, then whether or not people agree on the meaning of different passages isn't as important as that they get a meaning out of a passage which is applicable and helpful in their life.

 

[Pegg]

The bible is not simple. If it was, even simpletons would get it "right". Or perhaps only simpletons get it "right", who knows?

i like simple... "less is more" as they say

However, if one accepts that the bible is a work of mythology, which it is, then whether or not people agree on the meaning of different passages isn't as important as that they get a meaning out of a passage which is applicable and helpful in their life.

thats all well and good IF the bible is a book of mythology

but its not a book of mythology, its not presented as mythology and the writers did not write it to be taken as mythology. When Moses wrote about angles (sons of God) taking on human form and mating with women, he was speaking literally and the jews believed it was based on reality...so they did not view it as myth...they viewed the accounts in the bible as factual and real events.

that particular account is not something that would be applicable to our lives if it was only a myth. What could we possibly learn from it if if did not really happen? Never have sex with a mythical character??? Does that make any sense at all? I dont think so.

Im sorry, but until people accept the bible as a book of real history and fact, they cannot possibly begin to understand it because you've already got the wrong idea about it before you even open its pages.

 

[idav]

really?
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
mt 19:21

literal
metaphorical
parable
or symbolic?

go...

All the above. Jesus had five answers for every one he gave.

What I mean is you can take a statement like that and live by it in many contexts.

 

[Twig pentagram]

Take it however you want to. Just don't try to shove it down my throat.

 

[Draka]

i like simple... "less is more" as they say

thats all well and good IF the bible is a book of mythology

but its not a book of mythology, its not presented as mythology and the writers did not write it to be taken as mythology. When Moses wrote about angles (sons of God) taking on human form and mating with women, he was speaking literally and the jews believed it was based on reality...so they did not view it as myth...they viewed the accounts in the bible as factual and real events.

that particular account is not something that would be applicable to our lives if it was only a myth. What could we possibly learn from it if if did not really happen? Never have sex with a mythical character??? Does that make any sense at all? I dont think so.

Im sorry, but until people accept the bible as a book of real history and fact, they cannot possibly begin to understand it because you've already got the wrong idea about it before you even open its pages.

What's funny is that you talk about Moses writing anything. See, Moses is an much a character in the book as any other. That's like saying that Huck Finn actually existed because the book was written from the point of view of that character.

The bible is not a historical document. It does not purport to be a history book. It has far too much wrong in it to be considered factual in any way. Just because a few backdrops to the stories contained within may have been based on real places and a few real people does not mean the stories actually happened. One would think you'd know that much. There is no valid proof outside of the bible that actually supports the bible as a historically accurate book. In fact, there is much to prove it is not.

Look, from the very beginning of the book it is proven not to be an actual factual account of things, so trying to pass it off as being such is ridiculous. You have to resort to the argument that some of it is this and some of it is that and you have to interpret it to figure out which is which. Which we have already established is pretty messed up because no one can seem to agree on which parts are which. With that fact in mind, perhaps the wisest thing to do would be to take a step back and analyze it for what it is...an unsubstantiated book which contains stories of things which simply cannot be in reality. Leaving the logical conclusion being that it is indeed a work of mythology. Guess what? There's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with it being mythology. One can still learn and take away a lot from mythology, often far more than taking such things literally.

 

[waitasec]

to his disciples, yes it was literal. Why can I say it was literal? Because Jesus himself did not keep possessions... he spent his time in the work of God and he WAS perfect. On top of that, he was calling on people to join him in his ministry.

and many people responded to Jesus invitation... many did sell their belongings and became disciples.

ok if we use that logic then...
treating others as you would like to be treated was only meant for those that heard his voice
i get it.

 

[blackout]

Just like any other book,
you can 'read' the bible any way you like.

 

[Pegg]

What's funny is that you talk about Moses writing anything. See, Moses is an much a character in the book as any other. That's like saying that Huck Finn actually existed because the book was written from the point of view of that character.

The bible is not a historical document. It does not purport to be a history book. It has far too much wrong in it to be considered factual in any way. Just because a few backdrops to the stories contained within may have been based on real places and a few real people does not mean the stories actually happened. One would think you'd know that much. There is no valid proof outside of the bible that actually supports the bible as a historically accurate book. In fact, there is much to prove it is not.

i can appreciate that you feel that way about the bible, i never realised it was book of history until i studied it myself, so i know where you are coming from on that. But i would just encourage you to keep an open mind about it because there have been many historical events that support the bible accounts.

With that fact in mind, perhaps the wisest thing to do would be to take a step back and analyze it for what it is...an unsubstantiated book which contains stories of things which simply cannot be in reality.

have you studied it yourself and come to that conclusion, or is this based on opinion?

 

[Draka]

i can appreciate that you feel that way about the bible, i never realised it was book of history until i studied it myself, so i know where you are coming from on that. But i would just encourage you to keep an open mind about it because there have been many historical events that support the bible accounts.



have you studied it yourself and come to that conclusion, or is this based on opinion?

I have studied enough of it and many other mythologies to know it is mythology. It is not a book of history. Like I said, it has been proven wrong from the very beginning. You simply require for it to be more than it is because your own personal beliefs hinge on it being so. Your beliefs and lifestyle require it to be something it is not and therefore, you cannot imagine, nor let yourself even doubt, it may not be what you need it to be. It's kind of sad in a way, because chances are, you could get so much more out of it, and many other mythologies, if only you'd accept them for what they are and the bigger picture they paint.

 

[Pegg]

I have studied enough of it and many other mythologies to know it is mythology. It is not a book of history. Like I said, it has been proven wrong from the very beginning. You simply require for it to be more than it is because your own personal beliefs hinge on it being so. Your beliefs and lifestyle require it to be something it is not and therefore, you cannot imagine, nor let yourself even doubt, it may not be what you need it to be. It's kind of sad in a way, because chances are, you could get so much more out of it, and many other mythologies, if only you'd accept them for what they are and the bigger picture they paint.

well thats strange because i thought the opening words of the bible have been proved true by science to be fact....that is that the universe had a beginning

but i'll agree to disagree on this one. I've seen enough of the historical evidence to convince me that it is a book of history.

 

[outhouse]

What's funny is that you talk about Moses writing anything. See, Moses is an much a character in the book as any other. That's like saying that Huck Finn actually existed because the book was written from the point of view of that character.

Most scholars AND historians think he never existed. Definatly not as written.

The bible is not a historical document.

Yes and No,,,,, so much valid history can be pulled from it with those who study it. There are parts that are historical and have valid historicity. Other parts, yes! legends passed down through oral tradition that took on its own version of history that is not valid in any sense.

Much of the first five books are legends and stories written as allegory heavy on mythology and these were just early collections in the hands of private collectors edited for story and content to reflect the geographic areas they originated within the culture. These text grew and were heavily edited, fragmented and compiled over hundreds and hundreds of years.

After that many of the stories in the bible ring much more true.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Are the stories in the Bible to be taken:
a) Literally
b) Metaphorically
c) Both
d) No one knows

Seems to depend on what type of cherries somebody is picking.

 

[Draka]

Most scholars AND historians think he never existed. Definatly not as written.
Yes and No,,,,, so much valid history can be pulled from it with those who study it. There are parts that are historical and have valid historicity. Other parts, yes! legends passed down through oral tradition that took on its own version of history that is not valid in any sense.

Much of the first five books are legends and stories written as allegory heavy on mythology and these were just early collections in the hands of private collectors edited for story and content to reflect the geographic areas they originated within the culture. These text grew and were heavily edited, fragmented and compiled over hundreds and hundreds of years.

After that many of the stories in the bible ring much more true.

I said that real places and such can be used as backdrop to such stories. Just because the setting or surrounding events to a mythical story has roots in reality doesn't mean the central story is accurate. We use literary tactics such as this all the time. It is done to make something feel more "real", to make it something we can identify with easier. It's a good story telling tactic and it is seen everywhere.