|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:28 pm
I hate to seem overeager by creating too many topics.
Simple topic is simple. Do you interpret the Bible word-for-word? Or are you a skeptic? Or any combination of the two?
Personally, I determine whether or not I think something is literal by it's context - for me, the book of Numbers is totally factual, as is the Exodus. If something is described as a miracle or prophecy, that's a clue that you should believe it too. I believe every word that came out of Jesus' mouth, naturally.
When exact numbers are given, I believe them. But I don't believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, of course.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:44 pm
When I read the Tanakh (that's the "Old Testament" for you) I read it like I read any other fantasy novel. So... no. I don't take it literally.
Most of the stories in it are meant to teach some lesson or other, in the same way the Grim's fairy-tales teach lessons. They're not meant to be taken as fact, or as "gospel truth", but rather examples of the s**t that results from the things you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:48 pm
Renkon Root
When I read the Tanakh (that's the "Old Testament" for you) I read it like I read any other fantasy novel. So... no. I don't take it literally.
Most of the stories in it are meant to teach some lesson or other, in the same way the Grim's fairy-tales teach lessons. They're not meant to be taken as fact, or as "gospel truth", but rather examples of the s**t that results from the things you do.
Welllll, are you an atheist? Not trying to exclude you if you are, but this thread really isn't for people who don't believe in the source material. wink But you don't consider it a reputable source of ancient history? The OT in particular?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:53 pm
Stop Dont Believin Renkon Root
When I read the Tanakh (that's the "Old Testament" for you) I read it like I read any other fantasy novel. So... no. I don't take it literally.
Most of the stories in it are meant to teach some lesson or other, in the same way the Grim's fairy-tales teach lessons. They're not meant to be taken as fact, or as "gospel truth", but rather examples of the s**t that results from the things you do.
Welllll, are you an atheist? Not trying to exclude you if you are, but this thread really isn't for people who don't believe in the source material. wink But you don't consider it a reputable source of ancient history? The OT in particular?
Yes, I am atheist, but I'm also a Jew.
Most Jews don't even take it literally (and that's most Jews that believe in God, BTW). They believe that it was written by God, and that its is the word of God, but not "historical fact" or "absolute truth". It is the word of God in the same way the Lord of the Rings is the word of Tolkien. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:01 pm
Renkon Root Stop Dont Believin Renkon Root
When I read the Tanakh (that's the "Old Testament" for you) I read it like I read any other fantasy novel. So... no. I don't take it literally.
Most of the stories in it are meant to teach some lesson or other, in the same way the Grim's fairy-tales teach lessons. They're not meant to be taken as fact, or as "gospel truth", but rather examples of the s**t that results from the things you do.
Welllll, are you an atheist? Not trying to exclude you if you are, but this thread really isn't for people who don't believe in the source material. wink But you don't consider it a reputable source of ancient history? The OT in particular?
Yes, I am atheist, but I'm also a Jew.
Most Jews don't even take it literally (and that's most Jews that believe in God, BTW). They believe that it was written by God, and that its is the word of God, but not "historical fact" or "absolute truth". It is the word of God in the same way the Lord of the Rings is the word of Tolkien. Does that make sense?
I get what you're saying, yes. God wanted to write his own epic saga, yes? But the bible does contain historical facts, does it not? Do you not believe that your ancestors were enslaved in Egypt, and crossed into Cannan as a nation? Or is it the things like - Shadrach, Meschach and Abednigo in the furnace that you don't believe in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:15 pm
Stop Dont Believin Renkon Root Stop Dont Believin Renkon Root
When I read the Tanakh (that's the "Old Testament" for you) I read it like I read any other fantasy novel. So... no. I don't take it literally.
Most of the stories in it are meant to teach some lesson or other, in the same way the Grim's fairy-tales teach lessons. They're not meant to be taken as fact, or as "gospel truth", but rather examples of the s**t that results from the things you do.
Welllll, are you an atheist? Not trying to exclude you if you are, but this thread really isn't for people who don't believe in the source material. wink But you don't consider it a reputable source of ancient history? The OT in particular?
Yes, I am atheist, but I'm also a Jew.
Most Jews don't even take it literally (and that's most Jews that believe in God, BTW). They believe that it was written by God, and that its is the word of God, but not "historical fact" or "absolute truth". It is the word of God in the same way the Lord of the Rings is the word of Tolkien. Does that make sense?
I get what you're saying, yes. God wanted to write his own epic saga, yes? But the bible does contain historical facts, does it not? Do you not believe that your ancestors were enslaved in Egypt, and crossed into Cannan as a nation? Or is it the things like - Shadrach, Meschach and Abednigo in the furnace that you don't believe in?
Yes, there is some historical fact written into the bible. However, the accuracy of said historicalness is questionable.
For example, the story of Exodus. That's one that even people who haven't read the thing know.
There is archeological evidence to support that most (not all, but most) of the 10 plagues did in fact occur in some way or another. They were greatly exaggerated, of course, but they happened. However, there is very little evidence to support that the Jews were enslaved there.
So, while there are facts there, they're kinda buried in with BS that sound more important because its the main focus of the story.
Another thing you gotta keep in mind was that there were four main authors of the Old Testament (there were of course more than that, but the majority was written by four specific guys) and they did not compare notes. (That's also why there are two creation stories at the beginning of Genesis.)
Let see... there was something else I wanted to say...
Oh yeah!
The main portion of the Tanahk are the stories. However, they are not the part we're supposed to "follow" so to speak. As previously stated, they are nothing more than morality plays meant to teach lessons. The parts we're supposed to listen to are Psalms, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The three scrolls that lay down rules and laws.
(Of course we're also supposed to follow the Commandments, but that goes without saying.)
Long post is long, sorry about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:29 pm
Renkon Root Stop Dont Believin Renkon Root Stop Dont Believin Renkon Root
When I read the Tanakh (that's the "Old Testament" for you) I read it like I read any other fantasy novel. So... no. I don't take it literally.
Most of the stories in it are meant to teach some lesson or other, in the same way the Grim's fairy-tales teach lessons. They're not meant to be taken as fact, or as "gospel truth", but rather examples of the s**t that results from the things you do.
Welllll, are you an atheist? Not trying to exclude you if you are, but this thread really isn't for people who don't believe in the source material. wink But you don't consider it a reputable source of ancient history? The OT in particular?
Yes, I am atheist, but I'm also a Jew.
Most Jews don't even take it literally (and that's most Jews that believe in God, BTW). They believe that it was written by God, and that its is the word of God, but not "historical fact" or "absolute truth". It is the word of God in the same way the Lord of the Rings is the word of Tolkien. Does that make sense?
I get what you're saying, yes. God wanted to write his own epic saga, yes? But the bible does contain historical facts, does it not? Do you not believe that your ancestors were enslaved in Egypt, and crossed into Cannan as a nation? Or is it the things like - Shadrach, Meschach and Abednigo in the furnace that you don't believe in?
Yes, there is some historical fact written into the bible. However, the accuracy of said historicalness is questionable.
For example, the story of Exodus. That's one that even people who haven't read the thing know.
There is archeological evidence to support that most (not all, but most) of the 10 plagues did in fact occur in some way or another. They were greatly exaggerated, of course, but they happened. However, there is very little evidence to support that the Jews were enslaved there.
So, while there are facts there, they're kinda buried in with BS that sound more important because its the main focus of the story.
Another thing you gotta keep in mind was that there were four main authors of the Old Testament (there were of course more than that, but the majority was written by four specific guys) and they did not compare notes. (That's also why there are two creation stories at the beginning of Genesis.)
Let see... there was something else I wanted to say...
Oh yeah!
The main portion of the Tanahk are the stories. However, they are not the part we're supposed to "follow" so to speak. As previously stated, they are nothing more than morality plays meant to teach lessons. The parts we're supposed to listen to are Psalms, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The three scrolls that lay down rules and laws.
(Of course we're also supposed to follow the Commandments, but that goes without saying.)
Long post is long, sorry about that.
Yeah, there are inaccuracies. I'm sure the isrealites DID do some hard time in egypt, but not all of them like the Tanuk says. (It contradicts itself on that, I suppose) But it's still pretty much the best source around, innit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:33 pm
Stop Dont Believin But it's still pretty much the best source around, innit?
Source for what? I must ask. I can tell you, it's not a good source for better homes and gardens. xp
But, seriously now, that depends on what you need (or want) it to be a source for/of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:37 pm
Renkon Root Stop Dont Believin But it's still pretty much the best source around, innit?
Source for what? I must ask. I can tell you, it's not a good source for better homes and gardens. xp
But, seriously now, that depends on what you need (or want) it to be a source for/of.
Hey. Them Isrealites were pros at interior decor. What with their pieces of leather and important rocks. I'm just curious about all this, because my Tanuk teacher is a very strict literalist. He's read everything there is to read on the internet and he brings up some good points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:40 pm
Stop Dont Believin I'm just curious about all this, because my Tanuk teacher is a very strict literalist. He's read everything there is to read on the internet and he brings up some good points.
I assume your Tanakh teacher is also some denomination of Christian.
I hope I don't sound offensive when I say this, but... Gentiles tend to take thing to literally and a little to seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:42 pm
Renkon Root Stop Dont Believin I'm just curious about all this, because my Tanuk teacher is a very strict literalist. He's read everything there is to read on the internet and he brings up some good points.
I assume your Tanakh teacher is also some denomination of Christian.
I hope I don't sound offensive when I say this, but... Gentiles tend to take thing to literally and a little to seriously.
Nope, not at all. He's definitely that kind of person - he had us write a paper on whether or not Jesus is in the OT. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:07 pm
I'm a biblical literalist in that I believe much of the Bible was literal at the time it was written. Obviously the meaning of many things have changed for us now, so we can't take certain things literally, and must understand them in the context they were written in.
Then, of course, there are things like the creation story which were never meant to be taken literally in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:26 pm
freelance lover I'm a biblical literalist in that I believe much of the Bible was literal at the time it was written. Obviously the meaning of many things have changed for us now, so we can't take certain things literally, and must understand them in the context they were written in.
Then, of course, there are things like the creation story which were never meant to be taken literally in the first place. What do you mean? It's been taken seriously for thousands of years, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:45 pm
I wish I can participate in this discussion, it's really interesting but I haven't read the Christian bible...not completely anyways. I've read bits and pieces of the new testament out of curiosity and interest but that's really it. I'm not a literalist though, not even with my own satanic bible. I've always felt that I don't need a bible to tell me how to live my life or be happy. If I read religious text, it's usually just for interest or education but I've always felt science can back anything up. Even the plagues that hit a long time ago, they can all be explained scientifically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 1:54 pm
Protecting Darkness I wish I can participate in this discussion, it's really interesting but I haven't read the Christian bible...not completely anyways. I've read bits and pieces of the new testament out of curiosity and interest but that's really it. I'm not a literalist though, not even with my own satanic bible. I've always felt that I don't need a bible to tell me how to live my life or be happy. If I read religious text, it's usually just for interest or education but I've always felt science can back anything up. Even the plagues that hit a long time ago, they can all be explained scientifically. True, even devoted Biblical literalists will admit that, aside from the creation, none of the OT God's miracles were things that never happened in nature. Exceptions might be some of Moses' miracles, such as the parting of the red sea and turning the Nile to blood, but this is where faith comes in, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
