Is the Bible intended to be taken literaly?

[dancingqueen]

I know of Christians that argue this point, some believe it is to be taken literally, and others say it is to be read understaning the differences in how society has changed, and that the Bible should be read more as a guideline?

[Soundbear]

Read the bible with this commonly accepted rule in mind.

No one verse can stand alone as doctrine.

[dancingqueen]

Commonly accepted rule?
What does that mean?

Sounds to me like it means read it with the same interpertation as everyone else has?

[Soundbear]

Should have been more specific. I refer to the doctrine of the Christian church.

Many happenings in the bible have been disputed over the years. Very few have any effect on one's eternal soul.

[GenX]

You're looking for nothing but trouble and confusion if you take the Bible, on a whole, literally.

[BlueSky]

Let's take a verse and try yo interpret it together.

For instance, Paul says that "the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"

How do we interpret that?

You have to determine:
Word definitions (for instance, what does "gift" mean.)

What about the word, "eternal"

Are there any figures of speech in this sentence? Is Paul using hyperbole in this statement? Yes, hyperbole is a bona fide figure of speech in the Bible. What about metaphors?


Go to it. Discuss.

[GenX]

That one is pretty clear.

[BlueSky]

You mean, to be interpreted literally?
I would say that the argument revolves around the literary genre of the particular text you are considering, there is no general rule of thumb, except that one would treat the text literally, unless the genre of the text indicates otehrwise. Genre dictates.

So the argument is over genre recognition.

[GenX]

Okay, now in English... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[KDawg]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bluesky</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mean, to be interpreted literally?
I would say that the argument revolves around the literary genre of the particular text you are considering, there is no general rule of thumb, except that one would treat the text literally, unless the genre of the text indicates otehrwise. Genre dictates.

So the argument is over genre recognition. </div></div>

If by genre, you mean context, then I agree.

[BlueSky]

No, not context, necessarily.

Genre means, the literary type. Are you reading myth? That's a genre.
Are you reading apocalyptic literature (Revelation, Daniel)? That's a genre. Wisdom literature (Ecclesiastes and Proverbs) is a genre. Prophecy is a genre Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc). Poetic is a genre. Psalms and Song of Solomon are poetic.

So genre relates to type of literature.
There are several types of literature in Scripture.

[GenX]

Agreed.

Well stated.

[Soundbear]

Thanks Bluesky.

[dancingqueen]

so, how do you determine the rest? as myth or literacy? where is the guide? I will have many more questions in the morn... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif yes, I like to drink alot...

[Soundbear]

Save the brain cells for here!!!

[BlueSky]

DQ, it looks like you are drinking almost every night. Slow down, man.. or it will become a problem if it isn't already.

[dancingqueen]

.

[dancingqueen]

.

[CharliBean]

so, i was just thinking randomly, and had a thought that kinda pertains to this thread...


what if when god says he created us in his image, he meant our core... our energy... our "soul", so to speak...

I mean, I cant imagine a being as great and powerful as the biblical god being confined to merely one likeness.. it says god is everywhere, in everything... so perhaps it is in fact a direct reference to energy?

just a thought.

[Soundbear]

Charlibean, I think that's close. God has no body in the human sense, but certainly "image" refers to the characteristics of emotions and reason.

[Anapeg]

Do we not once again digress? The question as proffered was whether or not one translates or accepts the Bible as is. My view is the Bible is open to interpretation as the situation warrants. The Bible is a guide, a road map if you will, to guide those who choose to believe to take themselves through life. What was, two thousand years ago relevant and applicable may now have come to be looked upon in a totally different vein. We as a species have changed as have our out looks and wants/needs. The need for the Bible to expand to encompass present day requirements is obvious while the ability to physically change is absolutely finite the ability to be applied and used with some alteration is all ways applicable.

[Soundbear]

Anapeg, I think you would need to specify what parts of the bible are "open to interpretation as the situation warrants."

Jesus said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."

Since He also said that all the law hangs on those two principles, I'm curious what doesn't apply today.

[Anapeg]

I must at once apologize for not being adept at quoting the Bible or accessing passage and verse without much time and agonizing. I believe though it is most easily put by simply referring to another thread posted and hotly contended here. I give you Dr. Morgentaler and the changes he thrust upon us. Did this not and does this not involve interpretation if not out right disregard of the Bible's teaching? As per the verse(?) you have chosen, I would have to heartily concur that this was meant to stand as is, unmodified. As I believe I have asserted on other occasions that while I may personally not attend Church or hold the Bible as a totally infallible document I do agree the teaching to be of great value. It seems to me though that what may have been applicable so long ago, today has possibly less pertinence as in, an eye for an eye...... Thou shalt not kill, do wars not circumvent and possibly even in some eyes supersede this? I am not or have I ever professed to be knowledgeable in the texts of the Bible and if we where to meet and openly discuss I could possibly hold my own. In this situation though I feel you have bested me sir and I will bow to your superior knowledge. I have neither the fleetness of mind or finger to match yourself as well as others and readily admit I am out of my league in this venue.

[Soundbear]

Just a note, "an eye for an eye" was NOT a justification for revenge, it was a restriction to man's normal tendancy to escalate when wrongs are done. It means that no more may be done in retribution than is just.

[Anapeg]

Have you not just answered your question to me? Is that not precisely the point that I alluded to? That which was considered "just" two thousand years ago wouldn't be tolerable today. If you took a life then your life was forfeit. In today's society not only can(in some instances) loose your life but you or your estate can also be held financially responsible. Most everything suffers from inflation of one sort or another, what was not acceptable is now common place. Change is unavoidable. this was the crux of my argument although I tend to falter when in unfamiliar territory.

[1337]

Sure it is. Ask the Amish (Sp). How long have they lived without power, or motor vehicles.

They still churn butter and make quilts.

(Please don't mix these up with Hodderites/Menonite who use group vehicles, and soem use power)

[Soundbear]

Off topic, but the Amish are funny. Sure they reject electricity in their homes. But how much of their technology actually was in use back when the movement started??

Saw a movie where an Amish blacksmith was assembling his buggies.

With Snap-On tools!!!

[Limitations]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know of Christians that argue this point, some believe it is to be taken literally, and others say it is to be read understaning the differences in how society has changed, and that the Bible should be read more as a guideline? </div></div>
For The General Readership By Ms. Marisa Belsito

My what a question that is so worth seriously wanting the right answer.

[BlueSky]

Wanting to save you some superfluous typing, I thought I would point out to you that, this being a public forum ALL posts are for the General readership; thus you do not have to begin all of your posts with "for the general readership"

Secondly, we know that all posts that are written by the person known as Limitations are being written by Ms Marisa Belsitto, thus assigning those words ALSO to the department of redundancy, so to speak, in kind of a way.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Limitations</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dancingqueen</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know of Christians that argue this point, some believe it is to be taken literally, and others say it is to be read understaning the differences in how society has changed, and that the Bible should be read more as a guideline? </div></div>
For The General Readership By Ms. Marisa Belsito

My what a question that is so worth seriously wanting the right answer. </div></div>

I thought so as well, unfortunately we have gone into the realm of discussing the amish... I don't get it /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

[Limitations]

By Ms. Marisa Belsito

There are so many religions and books.

You do not have to let your mind be controlled in case you are not aware and you can get strong enough to not be even if you are knowingly part of the games.

As you may also know you have the right to think from within your own mind, seek and sort out the TRUTH of the issue.

Also I have not been part of the apparent amish interchange.

I came moments ago and only quickly looked over your posting timed at 1:50 PM today.

[Soundbear]

The slightest thought of discussing the Amish in this thread should not even begin to speculate about the merest possibility of crossing your mind.

[Limitations]

By Ms. Marisa Belsito

I have pictures that were sent to me from an area in the US, in which there are members, of that organization.

When I started to meet different participants of the Mennonite one not far from this City, I had wondered if it was the same as the other religion.

There are practical aspects of both that I like to a certain degree not in the sense of wanting to be part of the religions.

That is not meant to entice hatred nor for any other improper purpose or motive.

[BlueSky]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The slightest thought of discussing the Amish in this thread should not even begin to speculate about the merest possibility of crossing your mind. </div></div>

Oh no. Barry is starting to sound like Ms Marisa.. Runnn!

[Soundbear]

Now that's REALLY low!!!

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I am inordinately proud of this example of linguistic ledgerdemain, too:

http://www.soonet.ca/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=641655&page=1#Post641655

[BlueSky]

incroyable, huh?

[Soundbear]

Mais oui, mon ami!!!

[Limitations]

I thought to ignore the nonsense from the two people who posted since my earliar communication.

However I have decided instead to encourage sensible communication.

How about restraining yourselves and try to be mature in any further postings.

There is no point wasting your time, energy and giftedness.

It is not good for anyone.

[Soundbear]

.

[dancingqueen]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just a note, "an eye for an eye" was NOT a justification for revenge, it was a restriction to man's normal tendancy to escalate when wrongs are done. It means that no more may be done in retribution than is just. </div></div>

I know that is in the Bible, but what is the chapter and verse please? I would like to read more into that.

replying to the verse you have just posted, would you agree that much of the Bible is open to individual interpertation? RWGR, I would particularly be interested in your thoughts on the general meaning of this verse.

[Limitations]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Morris</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's like being flogged with a wet noodle. </div></div>
I actually think that you expected to fool and confuse me.