The bible nothing but literal

A

atheroy

Registered Senior Member
i've posted a thread similar to this one i am posting now but this has some further evolved ideas from when i first posted about it.

i see all you theist guys and some non-theist guys posting verse and passage from the bible and hear differing opinions on what this passage or that passage is thought to mean- either personally gained or from an outside influence. however, to quote the bible figuratively is all but immpossible as if it were written by an infinitely knowledgable god with infinite wisdom on top of that, our minds have no way of ever being able to comprehend the figurative sense of the bible as from our own understanding, we are hopelessly equiped to do so. therefore i put forward the idea that the only way people can know they are successfully quoting the bible on something is if they are being literal. that is the only way we can take the bible as our very finite brains cannot possibly take into context the bible. so, literal is all we got in context to the bible (my opinion anyway).
 
I would definitely agree. We either need to take it as saying exactly what it says, or we can ignore it completely. As I see it, those are the choices.
 
Some passages are obviously symbolical such as portions of revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and the creation story in Genesis.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
Some passages are obviously symbolical such as portions of revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and the creation story in Genesis.
Click to expand...

Why "obviously"?
Don't you think that is a very subjective judgement?
I can say that "obviously" it is ALL symolic.

If that is true, who is the judge, other than the author?
 
Well if I wanted people to believe in the bible I would be desperately trying to tell them it is not supposed to be taken litterally. It quickly turns into a joke if it is read by someone expecting litteral reality.
For starters, no matter how big an arc was 2 of every animal could not possibly fit on it, nevermind the fact that no one, even with todays technology, could possibly gather 2 of every animal. And then to believe that you would have to accept that every single human on earth today descended from noah's family, africans would be extinct if this were true and so would asians and all new world branches of asians.
This is one little story that no one, no matter how dilluded, could possibly argue happened in real life exactly as it says in the bible. And there are oh so many others.
But the bible can be seen as rather brilliant in some ways if it is read as symbolic. The new testament is a load no matter what but the old is sort of profound. Only, of course, if read symbolically.
 
I said the new testament is a load but I meant that it was based on false assumptions. I believe most of it actually happened, unlike the old testament, but there are flagrant embellishments and it serves to say nothing of any importance other than some guy liked people and taught people to also like people.
It romanticised some nice guys life to the point of ridiculous fantasy.
I think its obvious that most of the old testament was originally intended to be symbolic, like fables and so on. I don't know why its obvious, it just is, it reads like that was the intention of the author, the new testament is different and you can see how the old testament was misinterpretted by the society of those days by the way the writers of the new testament spoke of god. Actually you can see how genesis got misinterpretted as you progress through the book, becoming a little less understood as time goes on.
I think the bible offers an interesting angle in which to view the history of the human mind vs the history of humans but little more.
I find it unbelievably amusing that people take it so litterally considering its obvious that the stories it was based upon were clearly never meant to be taken litterally.
Read genesis again and then read a later book, pay no attention to the "message" or whatever just the difference in writing styles, I find it obvious, but apparently a hell of alot of people on this rock disagree.
 
I agree that the bible should be taken as literal (even the story of Noah)

however, somethings ARE more symbolic (like Jesus's parables, He told a story using symbolism, so the content of that story is symbolic, not the fact that Jesus told the story)

as for Revelations, that is a vision that John (?) was given, and visions are often involve symbolism, so some of the stuff in Revelations is used symbolically, but the vision itself literally happened

did that make sense to anyone else?
 
Tyrell :
I would definitely agree. We either need to take it as saying exactly what it says, or we can ignore it completely. As I see it, those are the choices.

And how exactly are you going to varyfy that what it sais is what you understand by it ? How do you define literaly ? Sure it says "rock" , but how do you know that piece of stone is what "rock" means ? Why wouldnt it mean "banana" ?

Surely this way there isnt ever gonna be 1 objective interpertation , but that doesnt mean we have to go for one that seems objective because somebody decided its some particular way .

I have 3 very good point to question literal to be literal :
1)mis-translation
2)semantics
3)lack of intelligence incomparable to other intelligence in that time/place .

New Life
did that make sense to anyone else?

Not to me , but I do understand where your visions come from and where they're going . However it is this kind of stupidity that would refute point #3 , since I consider it highly intelligent you at the same time are capable to operate a computer & understand language and at the same time believe in the literal interpertation of non-sensical stories from a book that you probably consider coherent as well , while there are dozens of versions all thrown together by the likes and dislikes of dozens of peoples with specific interests . Did you know for instance thats its numerologically possible to prove that Shakespear translated the King's James version ?

Anyways , you mention some symbolical value , I wonder how you decide what is literal and what isnt . Is the border simply because you cant believe it ?
 
We either need to take it as saying exactly what it says, or we can ignore it completely.
Click to expand...


Kings 2:10___So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.

He slept with his father? Dude, that's just sick.
 
Not thats just STUPID .

2:10 Then David passed away1 and was buried in the city of David.2 2:11 David reigned over Israel forty years; he reigned in Hebron seven years, and in Jerusalem thirty-three years.

I mean come one now , at least a bit semantical understanding here please .....if peoples cant translate and others cant interpertate we got guaranteed bullpoo , like you prove here .

Again , what is literal ? Obviously here is ment layd down to rest in peace , not screwed up his ass damnit .

Actually its you who's not interperting literary , since sleeping with does not literary imply what you understand , but just to be asleep with . So its the otherway around in your case even .

I think no Biblical interpertation should have symbolical limits as long as it serves the purpose of logical understanding , even if the writer didnt even intend so . Its the result that counts .
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jihad_AlifLamLamHah

Anyways , you mention some symbolical value , I wonder how you decide what is literal and what isnt . Is the border simply because you cant believe it ?
Click to expand...

well, i take it literally unless someone specifically says 'this is the story Jesus told' or 'this is the vision he recieved' thats where i and many people i know make the distinction.
 
I think no Biblical interpertation should have symbolical limits as long as it serves the purpose of logical understanding , even if the writer didnt even intend so . Its the result that counts .
Click to expand...
no it's not, it's the message that counts. if people can read into the bible anything they want, you just get further and further from it's true purpose. besides, the writer was supposed to be god therefore we can't know the bibles figurative meanings because god has infinite wisdom, whereas we have finite wisdom. my point was, taken in that context, no-one on earth can understand or qoute the bible figuratively, rather only literally because we can't know for sure if what is being qouted is figuratively correct- so we can only take it's literal meaning. get it?
 
if the bible is literal, then why are their two different versions of creation in the book of genisis (creation is in a different order in each), in KJ's translation? Which happened, the first or the second version? did they both happen? how could that be, if the order of events is different? When did snakes stop speaking? Why could God not find Adam after he ate from the tree of knowledge? I thought he could see everything?


Jesus tells a story of the prodigal son. One who leaves, learns, and returns. a grand party is thrown for this son who has tested and returned, a fatted calf is killed. Why would anyone reading the Bible think that you can't question God? Doesn't Jesus suggest that you should, given this story? What other explanation does this parable have?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by atheroy
no it's not, it's the message that counts. if people can read into the bible anything they want, you just get further and further from it's true purpose. besides, the writer was supposed to be god therefore we can't know the bibles figurative meanings because god has infinite wisdom, whereas we have finite wisdom. my point was, taken in that context, no-one on earth can understand or qoute the bible figuratively, rather only literally because we can't know for sure if what is being qouted is figuratively correct- so we can only take it's literal meaning. get it?
Click to expand...

however, while Jesus was (according to the Catholic church) God, he was still human. so are his parables within our realm of comprehention? If not, why would he bother telling them to people, if they wuldn't really be able to understand?
 
if the bible is literal, then why are their two different versions of creation in the book of genisis (creation is in a different order in each), in KJ's translation?
Click to expand...
because the bible is wrote and re-wrote to suite the times as a social control to suck money out of people, and in all probabilities is a work of fiction that people take WAY to seriously, especially when the bible manages to discredit itself yet people still believe in it and glaze over the hazy bits where their religion becomes baseless.

however, while Jesus was (according to the Catholic church) God, he was still human. so are his parables within our realm of comprehention? If not, why would he bother telling them to people, if they wuldn't really be able to understand?
Click to expand...
i'm not sure but the bible wasn't written by jesus it was written by god through some guys. besides, isn't your common sense not even slightly skeptical of a god that is perfect yet basks in his glory, requires people to love him and yet he is still classed as perfect? that seems like someone who's arrogance is big- and someone with arrogance is not perfect. so what does that make god?
 
Originally posted by atheroy
that is the only way we can take the bible as our very finite brains cannot possibly take into context the bible.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that God suposidly wrote the Bible for the purpose of us knowing of him and what he wants from us, but then he spacificaly wrote it such that we couldn't understand what he's trying to tell us?
 
Mystech
no, we can understand the literal side of the bible because we KNOW literal. what we can't know is the figurative side because we cannot comprehend the situation in which the bible was written, or the mind behind it's orchestration. so we know what god wants us to know because it's all there laid out for us, i just don't understand how people can so blithely interpret the bible and claim they know that their interpretation is right as by their own definition, god is not something we can understand.
 
Theists?

Originally posted by atheroy
i've posted a thread similar to this one i am posting now but this has some further evolved ideas from when i first posted about it.

i see all you theist guys and some non-theist guys posting verse and passage from the bible and hear differing opinions on what this passage or that passage is thought to mean- either personally gained or from an outside influence. however, to quote the bible figuratively is all but immpossible as if it were written by an infinitely knowledgable god with infinite wisdom on top of that, our minds have no way of ever being able to comprehend the figurative sense of the bible as from our own understanding, we are hopelessly equiped to do so. therefore i put forward the idea that the only way people can know they are successfully quoting the bible on something is if they are being literal. that is the only way we can take the bible as our very finite brains cannot possibly take into context the bible. so, literal is all we got in context to the bible (my opinion anyway).
Click to expand...

But what about us Theaists?
 
historical context

My two cents. When evaluating the bible, it has to be looked at in its historical context. What was the message when it was written? The most oft-quoted passage of Leviticus which denounces homosexual intercourse is right in the middle of a list of things which were believed to spread disease. The message when it was written was "don't get sick and die." It's only pragmatic to keep followers of a religion alive.

Secondly, even allowing for divine inspiration bestowed upon the authors, they are still the authors. The book of Revelations is a translation of what the author pulled from their vision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top