Should the Bible be taken as 100% true?

[ShakeZula]

I get the feeling, from the questions you've asked, that you did not read my other posts in this thread beyond that one.

I did, but I must have missed the part where god gives you carte blanche to choose which parts you can ignore and which parts you can implement. Where does god say that his holy commandments are are open to interpretation in a law court? Maybe that will clear it up. Because those bits about the slavery were part of the Commandments god gives to Moses after the people left Egypt. They came directly from god, not from a judicial scribe a few centuries later.

Apologetics. Gotta love it.

-S-

 

[LittleNipper]

Ok guys I'm new to this site, in fact this is my first post.

I guess you could call me an agnostic, if I undestand what the means correctly?

One of my questions is this. If the Bible is 100% true literally then every word of it (old and new testament) should be followed to the letter, correct? If you beleive the creation story literally then shouldn't you also consider and abide by all of it and not be able to pick and choose verses or books that you agree with, correct?

If you agree with the above statements how do you feel about theses verses from the old testament:
Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and 22:13-21, Leviticus 20:13

Do you take these literally, why? Do they really make sense to you? Also if you don't take them literally why would you take any of the old testament literally?
Alan

The Bible is 100% true and is both literal and figurative. Does everyone die? Yes. Will everyone go on to live eternally with GOD? No. Will everyone believe what I have just stated? NO! So, why exactly might one imagine that everyone will accept the far easier parts of the Bible as literal..?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You should take the bible as literal and true as you need it to be.

 

[Jeremiah]

Is the government 100% correct?
Are your parents 100% correct?
Is your employer 100% correct?
Is anything in this existence 100% correct?
Seriously?
Am I really spelling this out like this?
Resume thy literalist tail chasing.
When you fit the square peg in the circular hole, let me know.
lol

"Is anything in this existence 100% correct?"

So gods make mistakes?

 

[AxisMundi]

1. The Bible does not call the Earth flat
2. The Bible does not say the Earth is the center of the universe
3. The Bible does not give an age for the Earth
4. The water came from rain and from beneath the ground, so yes.**

**It should be noted that the water may not have covered the entire Earth, but may have only covered the known world.

1. Isaiah 40:22, refers to the earth as a circle. A circle is a 2 dimensional figure, it is flat. O <- A circle (depending on which font you use, but you get the point). Other passages speak of people traveling to the tops of mountains to see "all of creation". One cannot do this standing on a globe.

2. Joshua 10:12-13, Psalsm 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30 should get your brain working on which passages claim the earth stands still and the universe revolves around us.

3. Said age is arrived at by counting generations listed in the bible from Adam and Eve forward. When this is done, the age of the Earth from the supposed creation is app. 6,000 years old.

4. Sorry, no, there isn't enough water on, or in, the planet to compeltely inundate the surface. There is no "Waterworld" movie type scenario possible. Even should both polar caps melt completely, we would only loose a few hundred miles of coastline land.

And please, not the foolish apologetic "known world" crap.

The highest land elevation in Syria, for example, is some 2,814 meters above sea level. Richmond, VA sits at some 170 FEET above sea level.

There is also the compelete and utter lack of any archeological evidence for any widespread flood.

Also, using the same timeline as above, ie counting generations in the bible, we see that said flood would've occured at app. 2200 BCE. Considering that we have writtings from cultures "in the known world" much older than this, feel free to explain why there are no 370 day gaps in those records, or why no one mentions anything about even having a period of damp let alone being flooded out.

And please, don't get me started on the laughability of the whole Noah and Ark myth either.

 

[AxisMundi]

The Bible is 100% true, but not 100% literal. Very few books every written are 100% literal. The Bible contains literal language, songs, parables, figurative language, and metaphoric language.

And, amazingly, the things considered parables and metaphors just happen to be those things totally disproven by science.

Of course the list of metaphors and parables keeps growing.

 

[dust1n]

Ok guys I'm new to this site, in fact this is my first post.

I guess you could call me an agnostic, if I undestand what the means correctly?

One of my questions is this. If the Bible is 100% true literally then every word of it (old and new testament) should be followed to the letter, correct? If you beleive the creation story literally then shouldn't you also consider and abide by all of it and not be able to pick and choose verses or books that you agree with, correct?

If you agree with the above statements how do you feel about theses verses from the old testament:
Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and 22:13-21, Leviticus 20:13

Do you take these literally, why? Do they really make sense to you? Also if you don't take them literally why would you take any of the old testament literally?
Alan

It should be 0% true until one reads it and studies the full context, in which that one person can determine 'how' true it is for them self.

 

[dust1n]

And, amazingly, the things considered parables and metaphors just happen to be those things totally disproven by science.

Of course the list of metaphors and parables keeps growing.

Ever notice how something is literal until proven wrong; then it becomes metaphoric?

 

[Storm]

Ever notice how something is literal until proven wrong; then it becomes metaphoric?

That raises the question of how such stories were originally intended. Personally, I think the idea that a myth featuring a talking snake was meant literally by the authors would be funny, were it not so sad.

 

[fallingblood]

The Bible is 100% true and is both literal and figurative. Does everyone die? Yes. Will everyone go on to live eternally with GOD? No. Will everyone believe what I have just stated? NO! So, why exactly might one imagine that everyone will accept the far easier parts of the Bible as literal..?

You would have to burden of proof to bear then. I could concede to 100% true (using the term as to not imply factual) if taken non-literally (even then, there may be some debate, especially since there is quite a few stipulations).

However, to claim that it is 100% literal takes a lot of proof on your part. Look at Revelations for example. It states that a beast, with seven heads, will arise out of the sea. Is that meant to be taken literally? No, there is no credible scholar, theologian, or minister who would teach that as a literal story as it was not a literal story to begin with. It is symbolic.

 

[dust1n]

That raises the question of how such stories were originally intended. Personally, I think the idea that a myth featuring a talking snake was meant literally by the authors would be funny, were it not so sad.

Well, you can't blame them too much. Education back then 'was' mythology. They were just unfortunate enough to exist before 'logic' and 'scientific method'. We have the internet which opens us up to a world with infinite knowledge. Their limit on knowledge was staggering.

 

[AxisMundi]

Ever notice how something is literal until proven wrong; then it becomes metaphoric?

Quite.

I am reminded of how Encyclopedia Britanica handled Noah's Ark up until the 1960's.

 

[Mr Cheese]

As a subscriber to the Jewish religion, I know better.

lol,,,,,

for once Jayhawker, your curmudgeon like attitude is oh so correct on this issue...

 

[Storm]

Well, you can't blame them too much. Education back then 'was' mythology. They were just unfortunate enough to exist before 'logic' and 'scientific method'. We have the internet which opens us up to a world with infinite knowledge. Their limit on knowledge was staggering.

You missed my point completely. They didn't know about evolution or the Big Bang, sure, but they knew damned well that snakes don't talk.

It's not, imo that they were ignorant enough to believe such stories were factual history. It's that we're (generally speaking) ignorant enough to THINK they did.

 

[fallingblood]

And, amazingly, the things considered parables and metaphors just happen to be those things totally disproven by science.

Of course the list of metaphors and parables keeps growing.

I'm split on that. The problem I believe is that readers of the Bible are not taught enough to form knowledgeable opinions on what should be taken literally and what shouldn't be. The cause of this problem, from what I see, is that many individuals are brought up learning that the Bible is perfect, without flaw. They are not given additional information to actually be knowledgeable enough to discern what the Bible was intended to state. Basically, the problem is ignorance.

Now, in certain case, I can see how the Bible is completely wrong, or at least very outdated (for instance, many of the law can not be judged by today's standards, as it was a very different time. However, they should not be taken literally for today's audience. They are simply outdated).

At the same time though, I believe a lot of what was meant to be metaphors, or not taken literally have been misconstrued. Since Christians claim it all to be literal, then it is only logical for the critics to show how the Bible is wrong over and over again. So the problem does originate simply from ignorance.

Leaving all of that aside, if one were to look at the Bible in a more logical fashion, it can be discern what is meant to be literal and what is not.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You missed my point completely. They didn't know about evolution or the Big Bang, sure, but they knew damned well that snakes don't talk.

It's not, imo that they were ignorant enough to believe such stories were factual history. It's that we're (generally speaking) ignorant enough to THINK they did.

To be fair, you can't blame us, considering the number of people now who claim to believe the stories are factual.

 

[Storm]

To be fair, you can't blame us, considering the number of people now who claim to believe the stories are factual.

I was including them in "we."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I was including them in "we."

Either way. If there are people now who believe in talking snakes, there's no reason to think that there weren't people back then who believed in talking snakes.

 

[Storm]

Either way. If there are people now who believe in talking snakes, there's no reason to think that there weren't people back then who believed in talking snakes.

People now believe it because of the weight of tradition. Back then, it would have been a much harder sell.

Basically, I have too much respect for the ancients to believe they were nothing but dirty liars and unquestioning fools.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

People now believe it because of the weight of tradition. Back then, it would have been a much harder sell.

Basically, I have too much respect for the ancients to believe they were nothing but dirty liars and unquestioning fools.

I tend to think that people are pretty much the same as they always were. I expect there were always a fair number of dirty liars and unquestioning fools.