Board index ‹ Bible

[Rocks It Toxic]

By that I mean do you take the bible as historical account?

I personally believe that the bible stories are myths ( consisting of narratives or stories that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales ). The bible talks about metaphysical reality through mystical stories and as such tell you how you should conduct.

I believe that there is no historical Jesus as depicted in the gospel. Instead the gospel most likely draw inspiration of a jew teacher named Jesus and got crucified but the gospel does not talk about him.

[jimwalton]

The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding.

It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author. In that case we'll take the Bible seriously, but "literally" doesn't take us anywhere.

> do you take the bible as historical account?

Yes, I do. Archaeology has never made a discovery that proved any part of the Bible to be wrong. Over and over it corroborates the historicity of the Bible.

> I personally believe that the bible stories are myths ( consisting of narratives or stories that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales ). The bible talks about metaphysical reality through mystical stories and as such tell you how you should conduct.

The Bible is not meant to be a book about morality or how to function in society. It's God's revelation of Himself and how we can be in relationship with Him. It's not primarily about how we should act, but instead about God revealing Himself so we can know Him. The mechanism of His self-revelation is the covenant—a contract. It tells us who God is and what He will do for His part, and it tells us what is expected of us if we want to be in relationship with Him. We learn the benefits of compliance and the warnings of rebellion. It is a misunderstanding of the Bible to think it's about how we should conduct ourselves in society.

> I believe that there is no historical Jesus as depicted in the gospel. Instead the gospel most likely draw inspiration of a jew teacher named Jesus and got crucified but the gospel does not talk about him.

You're entitled to your own beliefs, but we have four books with historical credibility that tell us otherwise and zero books that support your opinion. So you can either follow the evidence where it leads, or you can ignore it and generate your own fantasy theories. I, for one, follow the evidence.

[John of Arc]

> The Bible is a rich ... legal language, etc.>

Absolutely no argument on that.

However, not everyone agrees on which part is what literary genre. Where one sees poetry, another sees history. Where one sees eschatological symbolism, another sees actual events that will happen exactly as written. Have you not come across such arguments?

> If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry.

If the author says Methuselah lived to be 969 years old is that literal or not? Is the resurrection literal? How about the beast with seven heads and ten horns? Not all Christians agree, I'm just trying to get a sense of the demographics who see read the whole bible with a literal understanding.

[jimwalton]

> However, not everyone agrees on which part is what literary genre.

No argument on that. If one looks hard enough, one can find someone who will agree to any point someone will make.

> Have you not come across such arguments?

All the time. But they are often (not always) advanced by people who haven't done the study.

> If the author says Methuselah lived to be 969 years old is that literal or not?

I take it as literal because of the Sumerian king list. According to that list (totally extrabiblical), Alulim lived to be 800, Alalgar 1000, Enmengalanna 800, Enmenduranna 600, etc. So what do we do with an extra-biblical contemporaneous list that claims similar lifespans? It leads me to believe that people lived longer. We don't know what environmental aspects, dietary differences, or physical attributes could have enabled such lifespans. While they sound outrageously impossible to us, we possibly shouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusion. Experimenters in the Netherlands in 2017 developed a molecule that purged senescent cells that build up in our system, slowing down the aging process. Can we guarantee there was no such physiological element at play then? We cannot. Since the Sumerian king list parallels the Genesis account, we have to keep the case open that it's a literal accounting of years.

> Is the resurrection literal?

Of course. There were many eyewitnesses to the literality of that event.

> How about the beast with seven heads and ten horns

No, that's apocalyptic literature, meant to be symbolic.

> Not all Christians agree

Christians can't even agree on how to tie shoes. That doesn't mean the debates or interpretations are necessarily legitimate.