Questions about the Bible

Screamin'Weasel

Screamin'Weasel

New Member
Dear readers:

First, please allow me to introduce myself. I am a 35 year old Christian from New York state. I have not been "born again" nor have I ever been anything BUT a Christian. I have been reading your forums for several months now and just registered because I decided I'd like posting privileges. Now onto my questions.

I am confused on whether the Bible is to be taken strictly literally. I myself have always believed it is not. I do, however, believe that every passage has a point, literal or otherwise. First, allow me to give some examples of why I feel that way:

The very first book of the Bible contains TWO stories of creation in the first two chapters. In my opinion, this is simply meant to say, "God created the Heavens, Earth and all other things. Period." I think the stories are just that: stories. They prove the point I just made but are not necessarilly to be taken 100% literally. Jesus spoke often in parables and allagory, why not the documentors of the earliest books of the Bible?

How about Cain and Able's wives? Sisters? Daughters of the only other people in the world, Adam and Eve?

Noah...500 years old at the time of his first child's birth? 600 at the time of the Flood?

These are just a few examples.

A few other issues I have with the Bible itself: King James Version has a few less books than the Catholic version (for example only): the books of Tobias and Judith falling between Nehemiah and Esther, the book of Baruch falling between Lamentations and Ezechiel and the Old Testamented rounded out with Machabees I and II. The Catholic Biblical Canon was voted on at the Council of Trent on April 8, 1546 and that vote did nothing but accept with authority the existing Biblical Canon produced almost 100 years prior at the Council of Florence in 1451. King James Version is first dated 1611. So why the removal? Even Martin Luther's German translation (dated AFTER his 95 Theses of October 31, 1517) included these books.

Is it unreasonable to believe in the ideals of the Bible without believing every word is true? Can I truly believe in the message but not the form it is told in?

Thank you in advance to any responses.

Screamin'Weasel
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -Benjamin Franklin
 
The answer, I'm afraid, is depends. Christian's have, famously, quibbled over what books should constitute the contents of the bible since almost the dawn of the religion.

Basically some sects or individuals within sects, believe the bible is utterly literal and inerrant truth. Some sects, or individuals within sects, believe it is metaphor and parable.

Personally, I believe that the bible is a collection of illustrative stories.
 
I am glad to see a new face around here, especially when it is clear that your post is so well thought-out and delivered.

I think most Christians on these boards, myself included, will disagree with your belief that the Bible is a figurative document. However, certainly the entirety of the Bible is not literal, either, as it does contain poetry and the like. It is usually pretty clear to me in my readings, what is intended to be figurative or literal. I do believe that Noah lived that many years, and that Methuselah lived to be 969, and that Cain and Abel married their sisters (as unpalatable as that seems to us today).

However, even though the majority of the Bible's content is historical, I do not believe that the focus of the Bible is history. Rather, the focus is the Gospel: the news that God will redeem us from the condition of original sin if we receive Christ.

My father, a Universalist Unitarian, often says that he likes the Bible for its "moral content." Certainly the Bible does contain the correct standards for living, but if that's all you get from the Bible, you're missing out on the real point. Those moral standards are there in order to demonstrate the fact that it's impossible to live like God wants us to. This is the importance of the Gospel: we must receive Christ to be saved from those moral standards, because we will inevitably fail at keeping them.

There will be many differing opinions on what parts of the Bible are literally true, and which parts are only true in a broad, figurative sense, but it really doesn't matter if you take the Genesis account as literal, or if you believe that it's a metaphor for evolution, if you don't get the Gospel. Once you've received Christ, everything else is just minor details that don't really matter.
 
First off, Welcome aboard. You have some very good questions to be sure. Hopefully we will all be able to address them. Im sure that not all the answers wil mesh together, but that is the way things work. The word of God is very diverse and full of many different things. Not one person has the answer, but only pieces of the answer. When you put them all together you will get a better picture. Im fond of an allgory I have heard in the past.

It goes something like this, im sure this is not exact, but you'll get the picture...no pun intended. :)

What does an elephant look like to 3 blind men?
The first blind man examined the elephants trunk and deteremined that the elephant was very much like a snake.
The second blind man examined the belly of the elephant and determined that it was very much like a cow.
The third blind man examined the elephants legs and deteremined that it was very much like a great strong tree.

When you put all the pieces together you get a pretty good picture of what an elephant would look like to a blind man. Now how those blind men knew what the other animals looked like, I havent a clue! Hopefully we will be able to answer you with scripture to some of your more pressing questions, and not just off the cuff statements. Anyways, welcome again and enjoy your stay. Also look around the rest of the forums there is a lot to be had!
 
have been reading your forums for several months
Click to expand...
welcome to the forums, thats quite a while.

First off I am interested in what leads you to believe more that the Bible is figurative than literal? Is it solely these questions posted or is there more?
 
I think the answers are quite accurate. And to add my own spice. The bible is also a revelation of God to man. As you develop, grow and mature in your relationship with Christ, so does your understanding of the bible. We are all at different stages of our walk with Christ and thus we all will take a variety of versus to mean things differently. Some things you may accept as a literal truth today, and as you grow, you begin to see the broader meanings of a verse. Somethings may be allegoracal or metaphorical to you today may have a very significant, defined and narrow meaning for you tomorrow. This is part of the Living word. You could ask 100 christians for the meaning of a particular verse and actualy get 100 different answers.

When it comes to Adam and Eve, did he only create the two of them? Could it not be that Adam was created uniquely from the rest of man, male and female, with specific purpose and a defined intent? Eve was not created the same way as the rest of creation. The rest of creation was created from nothingness, Eve was taken from Adam. I personally think there is signaficance in the difference in the creation of Adam and Eve versus the first chapter account of creation. When Cain was sent of, it is written that he got married (to who?) and built cities (for who?) and why did the author feel compelled to write down the family tree of Cain?

Why is it so hard to believe Noah lived as long as he did, or Adam, or Methusala? It wasn't too long ago that the average life expectancy of a human was 35. Why was it only 35? Obviously the conditions of life at that time dictated a much earlier death (no cures for rampant diseases, enviromental conditions putting children to hard labour at 8, or 6). Look at us today, living to 70, 80, 90 over 100. Do you think those who died at 35 would believe that we live to 100? And yet today, very few people die because it was time to die, we die more often the not because our body succumbed to some disease or affliction. Now imagine if you lived when no disease or affliction exsisted, that we didn't have to worry about Goblitcell something or other, Luekemia, or Heart Cancer or diabities or Asthma or Lou Gherigs disease. Think a life span of 120 would be out of the question, how about 200, how about 400? If you factor everything that exists today that is bad for us and remove it from the equation, how long would our bodies last? I say they were designed in the beginning to last an eternity, so if you remove everything that kills us today, I see the only reason for death is that it is a consequence for sinning.
 
Sorry - but the upper age limit is governed by how often our cells can replicate. We have a built in biological clock that would prevent us from lasting 400 years without serious engineering.
 
Dear community,

First I wish to thank you for the welcome and also to thank you for the extremely unexpected replies. I was very surprised and pleased to see the well-thought and reasoned answers. No, I don't necessarily agree with them all, but I didn't get the "Yes, every word is true" point-blank, cover-all vanilla answers I thought might be headed my way (more on that in the next paragraph). I also wondered if my questions may have been considered "flame fanning" or disruptive, when they were truly concerns/questions I needed to ask.

I promised more and here it is: I once asked these questions to a gathering of people whom had just prayed for (what I considered to be) an inconcievable reason (again, that will have to wait for a further thread to prevent going off topic). I was...assaulted is too strong a word...met with a slew of Bible verses, obscure ones if it were my call, on why these prayers were ok. When questioning the group on the literalness of the Bible's every word, I was told the following:
  • Yes.
  • Absolutely.
  • Positively.
  • Read your Bible more.
  • If you think otherwise I am sorry for you and the eternal Hell your soul will reside in.
No reasoning. No thought. Just straight forward, black and white common answers. I can say, regrettably, I do not recall the verses hurled at me nor can I seem to find them which brought up the question about the Biblical Canon.

On to your responses:

"Personally, I believe that the bible is a collection of illustrative stories." -Eon

All of it? Wow...that is the first time I heard that.

"I think most Christians on these boards, myself included, will disagree with your belief that the Bible is a figurative document. However, certainly the entirety of the Bible is not literal, either, as it does contain poetry and the like. It is usually pretty clear to me in my readings, what is intended to be figurative or literal." -Kraniac

Your answer was amazing in its entirety but I felt this line summed it up best. The only point I wish to make is that I do not think the Bible completely a figurative document but do believe quite alot of the Old Testament stories have been convoluted due to the long oral tradition before ever being written down. I think, perhaps, that Noah was truly an older man when his son was born, a real miracle in that day and time, but I do not believe he was 500 years old. Also, I do not believe the story of creation is a metaphore for evolution. It certainly allows evolutional theory to be more accepted by Christians, but what I do believe is that God created the Heavens, Earth and all things. Period.

"The word of God is very diverse and full of many different things. Not one person has the answer, but only pieces of the answer. When you put them all together you will get a better picture." -Arkanjel

I will agree with that whole-heartedly, which is why I finally decided to get posting privileges and ask here. Having read these forums for some time (and being a gamer), I thought the community here a pretty good place to start. I have heard your allagory before and thought it very good to illustrate your point. I once heard a great analagy I like to use concerning the difference between Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4 that said: ask 100 people leaving a concert (or debate or oratorio) to tell you what was said and you'll get 100 different answers, but a pretty accurate picture.

"First off I am interested in what leads you to believe more that the Bible is figurative than literal? Is it solely these questions posted or is there more?" -Master~Plan

Well, I do not (as mentioned above) believe that it is "more" figurative than literal as a whole, but certain parts do make me wonder...especially the Old Testament. The examples I mentioned are some, but it is the whole feel of much of the Old Testament. I truly believe the New Testament to be a totally different story when it comes to literal versus figurative. But to keep this thread on track, I will stick with only the examples I mentioned for now.

"The bible is also a revelation of God to man." -Gods Peon

First I apologize for picking such a small part of a great response. Your second and third paragraphs are stuff for great conversation, but it would go on a lot longer than this thread can. Perhaps one day we can discuss them, though? But, as for the comment I did quote, a revelation does not have to be literal. Jesus used stories to reveal things often, so I ask again, why could not the authors of the Old Testament have done the same?

All in all, I could not have hoped for better replies. Yes, I am still confused and still wonder about the Canon choices, but I got some great food for thought so far. Thank you all for the responses I did get and I hope to read more.

Lastly, I'd like to thank Genesis1315 for allowing this post despite my concerns of it possibly being considered disruptive. I asked my questions with sincerity and am heartily glad to see they were accepted with the same.

Thanks again.
 
Welcome to the forums:)

As others have posted, much of the bible is to be taken literally. I personally take all of the examples you gave as literal because of the context they are written in.

As for the extra books in the bible, the King James printing did not take them out. The Catholic church added them in 1546. The King James was getting back to the original books decided on by the early church. The catholic church had not even accepted them until 1546. Not sure what they were thinking. There are a lot of good sites on the net explaining why these books are not in the Bible's used by noncatholics.

Screamin'Weasel said:
I have not been "born again" nor have I ever been anything BUT a Christian.
Click to expand...

How do you reconcile your statement to:

"I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."~John 3:3

What do you think being 'born again' means?
 
You will find my position rather common amongst those who are not Christians. ;)

I have read enough ancient tribal histories in my time to recognise one when I see it. I've also read a couple of religious revivals (The Wiccans, Druidism, Asatruism) and these have much in common with the New Testament revival.
 
Screamin'Weasel said:
"Personally, I believe that the bible is a collection of illustrative stories." -Eon

All of it? Wow...that is the first time I heard that.
Click to expand...

You need to get out more :)

Ditto to Eon's description...the Bible is myth, a collection and amalgamation of myths at that.
 
Screamin said:
I do not think the Bible completely a figurative document but do believe quite alot of the Old Testament stories have been convoluted due to the long oral tradition before ever being written down. I think, perhaps, that Noah was truly an older man when his son was born, a real miracle in that day and time, but I do not believe he was 500 years old.
Click to expand...
Thats interesting you choose what you believe. So do you take the view that ancient Isreal was particularly gullible? I find it interesting how we assume people as a whole change over time. Your going to have to expand on the oral tradition aspect of your argument. The Jews were the only culture that were particular about having written heritage, history, and law preserved. If you look at any other culture such as Greek, or Muslim, or even Oriental then yes, oral tradition is prevalent. Jewish culture is an exception.

Why do you believe ancient people to be more inclined to believe outlandish stories than modern?
 
This seems like a good time to remind everyone that this is a Christian forum and has a ToS that supports a Christian world view. Keeping that in mind, please be mindful of how one is addressing the Bible.

Gen
 
I would never insult the book in pejorative terms, because that would be designed to upset the other inmates, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything more than what it is.

The Old Testament is a tribal history.
The New Testament is a collection of letters and stories put together during the birth of the Cult of Christ.

Both were heavily revised and edited during the Christian revival in Europe and again during the rise of Protestantism. And AGAIN during their translation from old language to new.
 
Ok can't help myself I have just the answer wOOt the bible is your map and all thats in it is a story that relates to you and your path. Now as a follower of Christ I tend to concentrate on the New testiment as my law to follow and use the old testiment as godly growth subjects.I never look to disprove just for something that relates to personal/family growth. Hence find the love=find his family. What does Your MAp say? narrow is the path
 
Eon said:
I would never insult the book in pejorative terms, because that would be designed to upset the other inmates, but I'm not going to pretend it's anything more than what it is.

The Old Testament is a tribal history.
The New Testament is a collection of letters and stories put together during the birth of the Cult of Christ.

Both were heavily revised and edited during the Christian revival in Europe and again during the rise of Protestantism. And AGAIN during their translation from old language to new.
Click to expand...

That's a rather liberal use of "both" there chronostretch. The Dead Sea Scrolls (dated before Christ) are nearly identical to the Old Testament, and the only discrepancies are minor, unaffecting doctrinal issues.
 
The Old Testament is a tribal history.
The New Testament is a collection of letters and stories put together during the birth of the Cult of Christ.
Click to expand...
Or maybe the fabricated story is the one of how the Old Testament came into existence?

Archeology like mentioned earlier only validates the Bible
 
I suppose that depends on your definition of minor, the scrolls you decided are canon and the way you ignore the fact that large parts of the OT don't make any sense.
 
Master~Plan said:
Or maybe the fabricated story is the one of how the Old Testament came into existence?

Archeology like mentioned earlier only validates the Bible
Click to expand...

It's amazing the things that archeology has proven that Christians aren't willing to embrace.

Example: The Red Sea in the Exodus story was not the Red Sea we know today, but the Sea of Reeds, an extension of Lake Mensaleh.

The only thing that archeology has done is validate that the Bible used proveable references. Archeology has not proven the divinity of Jesus, the Exodus, the location of the Garden of Eden or anything to validate the dvinity of the Bible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top