FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-22-2007, 12:26 PM   #1
Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 13,541
Default Just how literaly was the Bible to be taken?

This has been touched on in a variety of ways at iidb, Many liberal and moderate Christians claim that some , much or most of the Bible was never meant to be taken literally and never was until comparatively modern times. This is said by them to be especially true in the case of such hot button issues as the origins of life on earth , the existence of Hell, condemnation of homosexuality etc. Critics of this position clam that these liberal and moderate Christians are merely interpreting ancient works in order to make them as acceptable to modern sensibilities and modern science and that historically Christians (and Jews) have believed in a literal reading of Genesis, condemnation of homosexuals etc.
Now what I want to know is what are the pro and con arguments for each side?:huh:
Potoooooooo is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 01:26 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Google "Febble" if you need to find me.
Posts: 6,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potoooooooo View Post
This has been touched on in a variety of ways at iidb, Many liberal and moderate Christians claim that some , much or most of the Bible was never meant to be taken literally and never was until comparatively modern times. This is said by them to be especially true in the case of such hot button issues as the origins of life on earth , the existence of Hell, condemnation of homosexuality etc. Critics of this position clam that these liberal and moderate Christians are merely interpreting ancient works in order to make them as acceptable to modern sensibilities and modern science and that historically Christians (and Jews) have believed in a literal reading of Genesis, condemnation of homosexuals etc.
Now what I want to know is what are the pro and con arguments for each side?:huh:

It seems to me the first problem in your question is lies in your use of the passive voice. According to whom? By the writers? By God? By those who assembled the canon?
Febble is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 04:50 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 13,541
Default

Good point, How about by the writers
Potoooooooo is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 05:10 PM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

All metaphor except when stated to be otherwise such as in John 6:55 where "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." What else could the word real mean in this context?
Chili is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 06:15 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 13,541
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
All metaphor except when stated to be otherwise such as in John 6:55 where "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." What else could the word real mean in this context?
Please elaborate!
Potoooooooo is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 07:38 PM   #6
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potoooooooo View Post
Please elaborate!

There is nothing to elaborate except to say that real food is the body of Christ and real drink is the blood of Christ. For this to become a reality the transformation must take place in our mind and not the substance wherefore transubstantiation is real and consubstantiation the lie of literalism.
Chili is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 08:39 PM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 13,541
Default

What about issues like hell and Genesis?
Potoooooooo is offline  
Old 04-22-2007, 09:28 PM   #8
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potoooooooo View Post
What about issues like hell and Genesis?

They are not related but if a pair of opposites cannot be conceived to exist without the other hell must be just as real as heaven and exists in equal proportion as such.

Genesis is presence that exists in each one of us with a life that we call our own until we have a life of our own and that is when Genesis becomes history. Go figure.
Chili is offline  
Old 04-23-2007, 04:34 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Google "Febble" if you need to find me.
Posts: 6,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potoooooooo View Post
Good point, How about by the writers
Well, in that case, it would depend which which writers.

I suppose I qualify as a "liberal Christian", and I regard the books of the bible as being of varied purpose and quality, and subject to the state of understanding of the natural world at the time, as well as to the prevaling social mores. But containing both evidence and wisdom.

I see absolutely no reason at all to take any of it literally on principle.
Febble is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:18 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.