The Bible - not 100% literal
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2012, 04:47 PM (This post was last modified: 03-01-2012 05:03 PM by kingschosen.)
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(31-12-2011 10:53 AM)morondog Wrote:  If he wrote it that way 'cos people back then couldn't understand science, why didn't he just teach people science? 'Cos chapter 1 of any science textbook is a whole lot more useful than chapter 1 of Genesis. And with millions of years of evolution, I rate my ancestors were at least as intelligent as me - given the basic principles they would have understood no prob. Not gonna fly as an argument, sorry Tongue

Intelligence and knowledge aren't the same thing - as intelligence is relative. As knowledge is increased the standard of intelligence changes. Because there was no science as we know it at that time, God needed to convey His message in a way that the people of the time could understand. Again, the point of it wasn't to be scientifically correct. It was so that God could convey His message to people in a way that they understood.

Another example:

You can be the most intelligent person in the world, but if you don't have the knowledge of the Russian language there is no way to effectively and efficiently communicate with a Russian speaking audience.
(31-12-2011 01:31 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  I see the analogy like this. You have a son. He's your one and only and you love him more than anything in the universe. You also know chocolate to be very bad. But he doesn't know it with his simple, newly formed mind, so you make sure you tell him. You say it to him over and over again, you write it in a book and make him carry it with him wherever he goes, you do whatever you can so that he KNOWS that chocolate is bad. Stay away from the evil chocolate.

Then one day you come home and your son is sitting in a pile of wrappers, face covered in chocolate and a look of complete ignorance and innocence. He eats more chocolate while you're staring at him. He says to you:

"Oh I thought that part about chocolate was a metaphor and not meant to be taken literally."

Actually, no. No it's not like that all. Like, no.

Using the chocolate analogy, the lesson of not eating chocolate is still there, and it's been defiled. Whether or not it's literal or metaphorical the lesson is still there; or if that lesson is that chocolate really is poisonous or that over eating can kill you or whatever, it's still there. The point is, the lesson is there, so whether or not it's literal or metaphorical is irrelevant.

But to further explain why that's a terrible example is because of the history, the audience, and the context of the text. I'm not just arbitrarily taking some parts as not literal; as they have a reason. Why? Because of how and why they were written.

I hesitate to say this because I know how some of your brains work, but hopefully you can understand my point I'm trying to make.

Aesop's Fables - Obviously, these aren't to be taken literally; however, there is a lesson and reason for them. The audience is children, so they're written in a way that children can understand. There are lessons in them conveyed in a way that is easy to decipher and easily understood.

Jesus did this frequently with parables. There is history, context, and audience issues that have to be considered in parts of the Bible that I don't take literally.


Quote:The root behind all these alterations and metaphor suggestions? Inconvenience. The teachings of the Bible don't match up with the morals an actual "good" person naturally grows, so they change and they alter and they redefine until they have something so vague that it doesn't mean anything anymore. "Stone witches to death?" I think what God meant was "treat those who deal with unnatural spirituality disdainfully, and exclude them from your social circles."

I can see that. But, I think it's more because of being inconsistent. Theologians see these inconsistencies and explore every possible avenue in the text's history. The non-religious just write it off as flaws in an outdated piece of mythology.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 05:17 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
Here ya go, KC - fractal compression. Wink

He who speak truth from Bible speaks out his ass, he who finds truth in Bible is a man of god who may or may not speak truth. That covers it from this end. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 05:25 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
do u think well burn for eternity for being heathen blasphemers KC?
or do u think its not literal that atheists will go to hell for the sole crime of not believing?

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 05:48 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(03-01-2012 05:25 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  do u think well burn for eternity for being heathen blasphemers KC?
or do u think its not literal that atheists will go to hell for the sole crime of not believing?

No, for the n'th time, that's not what he thinks. we'll go to hell because his god did not choose us. What we do or think or believe is irrelevant. God didn't pick you for his club, you turn into kebab.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Malleus's post
03-01-2012, 05:51 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(03-01-2012 05:48 PM)Malleus Wrote:  
(03-01-2012 05:25 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  do u think well burn for eternity for being heathen blasphemers KC?
or do u think its not literal that atheists will go to hell for the sole crime of not believing?

No, for the n'th time, that's not what he thinks. we'll go to hell because his god did not choose us. What we do or think or believe is irrelevant. God didn't pick you for his club, you turn into kebab.

well that heardly seems fair, just because he didnt choose me i get to roast for eternity

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 05:54 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
Exactly. I understood it way back and KC confirmed it. What I have trouble understanding is how he can be OK with this theology.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2012, 05:56 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(03-01-2012 05:51 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  
(03-01-2012 05:48 PM)Malleus Wrote:  
(03-01-2012 05:25 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  do u think well burn for eternity for being heathen blasphemers KC?
or do u think its not literal that atheists will go to hell for the sole crime of not believing?

No, for the n'th time, that's not what he thinks. we'll go to hell because his god did not choose us. What we do or think or believe is irrelevant. God didn't pick you for his club, you turn into kebab.

well that heardly seems fair, just because he didnt choose me i get to roast for eternity

Yes, isn't that a charming theology? I'd sure worship that god, yessiree.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
03-01-2012, 06:00 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(03-01-2012 05:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-01-2012 05:51 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  
(03-01-2012 05:48 PM)Malleus Wrote:  
(03-01-2012 05:25 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  do u think well burn for eternity for being heathen blasphemers KC?
or do u think its not literal that atheists will go to hell for the sole crime of not believing?

No, for the n'th time, that's not what he thinks. we'll go to hell because his god did not choose us. What we do or think or believe is irrelevant. God didn't pick you for his club, you turn into kebab.

well that heardly seems fair, just because he didnt choose me i get to roast for eternity



Yes, isn't that a charming theology? I'd sure worship that god, yessiree.

As Hitchens would say:
"its like a celestial North Korea but atleast you can die and leave north korea..."

"Yeah, good idea. Make them buy your invisible apple. Insist that they do. Market it properly and don't stop until they pay for it." -Malleus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Jackrabbit's post
03-01-2012, 06:36 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(03-01-2012 05:54 PM)Malleus Wrote:  Exactly. I understood it way back and KC confirmed it. What I have trouble understanding is how he can be OK with this theology.

Local identity. Wink

KC is a locality and a point-object truth composed of many identities biologically contained in the Identity KC who writes. Faith is the vehicle of identity, expressed from the universe, into KC as inspiration to write.

Have you no faith? Maybe not in those terms, but inspiration makes this a community.

KC is trending away from that kind of bullshit. Trusting in god to explain it in the hereafter. I'm not offended by his use of my kingdom, he'll figure it out. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
03-01-2012, 07:39 PM
RE: The Bible - not 100% literal
(31-12-2011 03:06 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  ****This is an explanation as to why I, a Christian, do not believe in a 100% literal Bible****

The Bible is not meant to be read 100% literally. Yep, I said it. There are many factors that have to be considered when reading and interpreting the Bible: context, audience, translation, history, symbolism, metaphors, numerology, poetic language, story language.

But, you have to either believe literally or not. You can't pick and choose.

Not so fast there, scooter. First, we need to talk about the concept of "inspired".

But, if the Bible is inspired by God then it should not have any fallacies.

Dang it, son, sit down!

With it being inspired it is also inerrant.

But, that means the Bible is errant then because there is inspired text that contradicts known science.

Listen here, not gonna tell you again... be quiet.

Let me explain:

1) Inspired - words from God via text conveyed as lessons, commandments, stories, literal history, or visions
2) Inerrant - the inspired text is without error in regards to the context of the inspired text

So, what does this mean? Well, it means that there are certain parts in the Bible that aren't conveyed as literal, tangible facts. God teaches us with inspired text; which means the types of teachings He uses varies.

Bullsh...

*BAM*

What? Oh, he'll be fine. It's just a flesh wound.

But, it's true. God uses different means of teaching. Did Jesus teach 100% literally? No, he taught in parables and metaphors, right? Why? Because it was a way to convey His message to His audience so that they could easily understand what He was saying. Was His teaching errant? Or not inspired? No, of course not, according to Christians. So then, if Jesus, who is God, teaches this way, then why is it so hard to accept that YHWH, who is God, taught any differently?

Uhhhhhhhhghhhhghhh.......

*BAMBAMBAM*

Okay, yeah, he's dead.

Look at the Genesis creation story, though. What is this? Without going into too much detail (this is a whole new topic), the creation story was cosmology; something that was easily understood at the time. This story was inspired. It was conveyed in a way the people of the time could understand. It was so that they could understand God's plan and God's covenant with humanity and how God set the universe in motion.

Does this make it inerrant or not inspired? No! It's a story; a parable of such that holds no scientific value because it is not science.

Look at Revelation. Is this to be taken literally? No. This is prophetic language, symbolism, and numerology. In the same vein as parables and stories, these cannot be taken literally because they aren't suppose to be taken literally; just like Jesus' parables weren't considered literal facts. They are there to teach; to help us understand.

This does not affect the divine inspiration or infallibility of the Bible. It just puts it into perspective.

Pshhhht. I sound more convincing trying to justify the 10 second rule. If it's the inspired word meant to be understood at the time then how come we don't get a podcast or something from god nowadays?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: