I've heard a lot lately that most Christians in these modern times only believe that the stories in the bible are only parables to teach us how to live our lives. I don't believe that. I believe that with all of the details included in most of these stories, the bible really was intended to be taken literally. The details thrown in are to make you think everything actually happened as it was written.

There are so many details to every story. The measurements and construction of Noah's ark, The begetting of generations, the exact materials and measurements of temples...these are just a few small examples. If these stories were not intended literally, why are these here?
again..The details thrown in are to make you think everything actually happened as it was written.

I think the reason most Christians say that these stories are only parables is because of the violence and hatred in the old testament. I understand that Christians put most of their focus in the new testament because it tells of their savior. But to completely disown the old testament is ignorant. Is Jesus not the son of god? the two testaments go hand in hand. It explains history of the land before Jesus walked the earth. It also explains the tyranny of their newly found Messiah's father. would you put your faith in Hitler's son if he said he was sent by his dad to save you? ...even though this is a dramatized question, it works as a good analogy.

While we are talking about the interpretation of the old testament, wouldn't it make more sense to be Jewish? I mean, it is the original belief that God himself set forward and Jewish people are considered His chosen people. If the creator of the universe tells you one thing, why would you believe a man that tells you differently? There is a reason Jesus was crucified. he was a blasphemer according to God's original laws. He was killed for claiming to be the messiah. Those Jewish people who believed him are catholic and Catholicism broke into separate branches of protestants. I really cant see how those Jewish people who believed him could not see what was going on. Then again, the bible even contradicts itself when it comes to the messiah. So how could you know this was actually the chosen savior?

anyway, I think that whoever wrote the bible wanted to make it pretty clear that it was intended to be taken literally. And the people who DO take it literally are the ones who you have to look out for. Extremists in any group are a bad thing.

The Bible says that not one interpretation is private, but I think you certainly should draw the line somewhere when it comes to a book that you are putting you're absolute faith in.

Views: 109

Comment by Jon Heim on October 2, 2010 at 1:44am
Thanks for the input, I didn't know about the Sadducees and the Pharisees.
Comment by V John Merc on October 2, 2010 at 2:11am
Diana, Thanks, I'll keep a note on that information. Based on your argument, you have a great deal of knowledge in Judaism, the Old Testament, and Jewish History. By the way, what is that Holiday? (The ousting of the Sadducee?)

// I believe that with all of the details included in most of these stories, the bible really was intended to be taken literally. //

Anyway, in regards to the post; Just like how Diana laid out an example of literal application of the Jewish/Christian Holy book, there will be a significant divide among the believers because the Bible itself does not say anything of a command to believers that they must practice every interpretation literally. The bible is not an instruction book, it's a collection of stories, dreams, poetry, and pseudo-historical writings with mostly vague meanings. -Unlike the Qur'an, which was meant to be taken literally, and is a set of orders given by allah to pbuh.

So to say, if there are groups of believers of the Jewish (Tanakh/Old Testament) or Christian (Old & New testament) Bible, that say "we must take these literally" -most of the time, they'll be told they're wrong;

adjacent to this, if there are muslim sects who say that, "we shouldn't take the Qur'an Literally", they in turn will be told they're wrong.
.
.
I think the only absolute "Order" in the (Christian side) of the bible is not to take away or Add anything in context to the bible, which are these:

Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. -Revelations of John, 22:07

and

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. -Revelations of John, 22:19

// I think the reason most Christians say that these stories are only parables is because of the violence and hatred in the old testament. I understand that Christians put most of their focus in the new testament because it tells of their savior. But to completely disown the old testament is ignorant. //

>>There's only one (that I know of) a Christian sect that never uses the Old testament. It's Marcionism. Otherwise, all other christians, including pseudo-christians (Catholics), uses the old testament; their view: The New Testament is nothing without the old testament. It makes sense, their messiah derives from it anyway. (Mark 10: 18-19)

// Those Jewish people who believed him are catholic //

>> No, those Jewish people who believed Jesus were called Christians. Those who believed in the Roman Emperor Constantine's newly imposed religion called Catholicism, are called Catholics.

// anyway, I think that whoever wrote the bible wanted to make it pretty clear that it was intended to be taken literally. And the people who DO take it literally are the ones who you have to look out for. Extremists in any group are a bad thing. //
>> Okay, I was going to ask if you're an atheist of a believer. But that confirms you're not. It's a good choice though to ask atheists about religions and gods.

Indeed, those who take it literally are extremists. That's why muslims who correctly follow the path of their religion are extremists... but to be fair, Bible's violence is aggressive Genocide (Herem), and the Qur'an, it's mostly defensive violence.
Comment by V John Merc on October 2, 2010 at 2:59am
(Correction on me)
// Okay, I was going to ask if you're an atheist of a believer //

I mean, "Okay, I was going to ask if you're an atheist OR a believer"
Comment by Jon Heim on October 2, 2010 at 5:09am
Fred - 2 Peter 1:20 "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
Comment by Jon Heim on October 2, 2010 at 5:30am
"There's only one (that I know of) a Christian sect that never uses the Old testament."

I was sort of thinking of a more general sense. Not necessarily in a group, and not necessarily "never".

"Those who believed in the Roman Emperor Constantine's newly imposed religion called Catholicism"

I'll be the first to admit I don't know a damn thing about Catholicism lol.
Comment by Jon Heim on October 2, 2010 at 5:39am
actually....is it fact that constantine's religion was the first brand of Catholicism? Could there be others before him? I thought he was only responsible for making it the law of the time.

if he wasn't the first, would the original Christians be considered catholic then?
Comment by Jon Heim on October 2, 2010 at 5:42am
pastors today... its hard to say where their interpretations are coming from. possibly influenced by their education, family and own understandings. or....just what is popular among the community.
Comment by Jon Heim on October 2, 2010 at 6:45am
It goes to show that no one can tell you that you are interpreting the bible incorrectly.
Comment by Kenneth Montville D.D. on October 2, 2010 at 9:54am
When discussing whether or not the bible was intended to be taken literally or not depends on which books you are talking about. With the OT the general consensus is YES. They are the creation stories/Jewish history meant to show where the people came from and was intended to be more literal than anything else. However the NT is much more nuanced.

The Epistles are literal. They are sermons written by evangelists, mostly Paul, and meant to mean what they say. The Gospels are not however. They are Greco-Roman biographies, meant to show not what actually happened but to show the nature of the person Jesus. Just as Plutarch didn't mean for his biography of Alexander to be historically perfect neither did the authors of the Gospels.
Comment by Jon Heim on October 2, 2010 at 12:16pm
fred - i figure it would be like using there own book to prove a point.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service