Scholar: Bible shouldn't be taken literally

[ronburgundy]

The problem is that, taking the Bible literary is the only morally defensible basis for believing in and worshiping God. Believing those events are factual is stupid, but not immoral. And if you believe they are factual, then they provide a basis to honor and follow its genocidal hateful God, out of rational fear that he controls everything and you'll suffer for eternity, if you don't.

However, as an allegory, the character of God is still the most villainous evil character in the history of literature.
So, even if you think the stories are fiction, then any moral person would despise the God character and all other Characters, like Jesus, who declare everyone must accept and obey him. Only the most immoral scum would view this fictional character or that of Jesus as representing anything that should viewed as good, just, or that the Bible is something to take positive lessons from other than "Do the exact opposite of almost everything the Bible says".

 

[humbleman]

Can't talk anything about this topic until someone post what are the interpreted allegories according to Houghton. Show the "codes", the "key words" show something.

Talk now or shut up forever.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iterally-says-scholar-brought-light-earliest/

This guy babbles like saying, "hey! don't drink that beer because contains bad ingredients"

Ok, now tell me what are those bad ingredients.

 

[Underseer]

Ken Ham should just relax. It is merely an opinion amongst various opinions amongst many scholars.

The Bible contradicts itself so much that no one sane would insist on interpreting that document literally.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that, taking the Bible literary is the only morally defensible basis for believing in and worshiping God. Believing those events are factual is stupid, but not immoral. And if you believe they are factual, then they provide a basis to honor and follow its genocidal hateful God, out of rational fear that he controls everything and you'll suffer for eternity, if you don't.

However, as an allegory, the character of God is still the most villainous evil character in the history of literature.
So, even if you think the stories are fiction, then any moral person would despise the God character and all other Characters, like Jesus, who declare everyone must accept and obey him. Only the most immoral scum would view this fictional character or that of Jesus as representing anything that should viewed as good, just, or that the Bible is something to take positive lessons from other than "Do the exact opposite of almost everything the Bible says".

Are you suggesting that there isn't a right way to beat your slaves to death?

Because the Bible quite clearly says that there is a right way and a wrong way to beat your slaves to death, and a perfect book written by a perfect being would never be wrong about moral instruction.

 

[Juma]

Ken Ham should just relax. It is merely an opinion amongst various opinions amongst many scholars.

The Bible contradicts itself so much that no one sane would insist on interpreting that document literally.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that, taking the Bible literary is the only morally defensible basis for believing in and worshiping God. Believing those events are factual is stupid, but not immoral. And if you believe they are factual, then they provide a basis to honor and follow its genocidal hateful God, out of rational fear that he controls everything and you'll suffer for eternity, if you don't.

However, as an allegory, the character of God is still the most villainous evil character in the history of literature.
So, even if you think the stories are fiction, then any moral person would despise the God character and all other Characters, like Jesus, who declare everyone must accept and obey him. Only the most immoral scum would view this fictional character or that of Jesus as representing anything that should viewed as good, just, or that the Bible is something to take positive lessons from other than "Do the exact opposite of almost everything the Bible says".

Are you suggesting that there isn't a right way to beat your slaves to death?

Because the Bible quite clearly says that there is a right way and a wrong way to beat your slaves to death, and a perfect book written by a perfect being would never be wrong about moral instruction.

Obviously the bible when written an when compiled was ment to be taken literary.
That doesnt hinder that it contains allegories.
Or that it is mostly bollocks.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Bible contradicts itself so much that no one sane would insist on interpreting that document literally.

- - - Updated - - -



Are you suggesting that there isn't a right way to beat your slaves to death?

Because the Bible quite clearly says that there is a right way and a wrong way to beat your slaves to death, and a perfect book written by a perfect being would never be wrong about moral instruction.

Obviously the bible when written an when compiled was ment to be taken literary.
That doesnt hinder that it contains allegories.
Or that it is mostly bollocks.

It probably was meant to be taken literally. It was certainly enforced that way, like religious stupidity generally.

But I think it had more to do with fear, superstition and ignorance and believing that not doing something a certain way brought bad luck and conflict. Murder was once a form of competition and everyone did it. We still do. Religion makes it into an acceptable form of sacrifice, however.

 

[humbleman]

It probably was meant to be taken literally. It was certainly enforced that way, like religious stupidity generally.

But I think it had more to do with fear, superstition and ignorance and believing that not doing something a certain way brought bad luck and conflict. Murder was once a form of competition and everyone did it. We still do. Religion makes it into an acceptable form of sacrifice, however.

The bible contains the best historical records of the most ancient peoples. The bible describes their names (tribes or nations names) the location of many of them in the world, and centralizes the narration in the history of a group of people who decided to follow YHWH, the biblical god.

The bible also contains proverbs, which are teachings.

The bible also contains Psalms, which are songs.

The bible also contains the historical life of prophets, and their prophecies, which in Hebrew are found to be told in poetry.

From here, without any doubt, the historical part is 100% literal.

The proverbs, and Psalms are to be taken as teachings -moral principles, etc- and songs of all kind, praising, sorrow, etc.

The prophecies won't mean anything when they are taken literally but whatever is described inside prophecies is to be MOSTLY a symbolism waiting to its interpretation or deciphering.

Then, it is a great error to take the entire biblical narration with a sole general interpretation as literal or allegory.

No one mix a civil case with a criminal case, even when both are settled in a court.

Same as well, what is literal in the bible is 100% literal (with or without errors) and what is allegory must be taken like that.

Only a complete ignorant will conclude that the bible as a whole must be taken or literal or allegorical.

 

[Vork]

A fourth century commentary, by itself, proves little. You need a lot more evidence than that to argue that the gospels are a misunderstood literary style. Now if you could show that the earliest interpreters were near unanimous in rejecting the works as literal history, or you had evidence for the interpretation of similar works produced around that time, then you could have a good case.

Also, contradictions, or difficult to believe miracle stories, aren't a clear proof of genre either. Plenty of people today do take the Bible in a largely literal fashion and believe in it as religion, so is it really difficult to believe that the original audience would have done the same?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A fourth century commentary, by itself, proves little. You need a lot more evidence than that to argue that the gospels are a misunderstood literary style. Now if you could show that the earliest interpreters were near unanimous in rejecting the works as literal history, or you had evidence for the interpretation of similar works produced around that time, then you could have a good case.

Also, contradictions, or difficult to believe miracle stories, aren't a clear proof of genre either. Plenty of people today do take the Bible in a largely literal fashion and believe in it as religion, so is it really difficult to believe that the original audience would have done the same?

No, it isn't difficult to believe people took things like resurrections literally. The Greeks had their resurrected deities.

I think the scope is broader, however, in that the bible and tales like the gospels are non-intellectualism. We might call them proto-intellectualism.

The fact that we still do it today, religiously and not, means nothing much has changed. This stuff is still enjoyable. Religion is simply taking the entertaining fiction too seriously. Maybe that fact really is the triumph of non-intellectualism in our species.