Mission for Truth writes:
Is the Bible supposed to be taken as literal truth or is it a book of applicable moral suggestions? The Bible was written by fallible men and it is the "inspired" word of God which makes it subject to error through the translation from "above", to the mind of man, to paper... So, how does one deal with that? ...Such as I understand, certain credibilities become hazy when viewed with a figurative mental pretense. But, that is my question, DO we take it as figurative? Or not? And if so, does it cause problems?
I believe that the Bible is Inerrent in its message,yet not necessarily Literal.
jar writes:
The Bible can be trusted as a Map or Guide toward How to Live and Why things are as they are. But that is all that it is, it is a map.
I look at it as more than that. The book is about the mapmaker. The one who blazed the trails. The one who has not only found the destination, but is Himself that destination.
Hangdawg13 writes:
The Bible was written by men guided by the Holy Spirit so that every jot and tittle is the way God intended it to be.
Loudmouth writes:
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that God wanted Genesis to be literal.
Since it is "god-breathed" it is absolute truth. Sure, metaphors and symbolism are used along with many other literary devices. And of course one must have a complete knowledge of the original languages to get an absolutely precise interpretation.
Loudmouth writes:
Absolute truth and literally true can be two different things.
Such is the extremes. Hangdawg and I are believers, so we DO represent that extreme. I prefer to call it an absolute. Again, Inerrent yet NOT literal.
nipok writes:
I submit that the holy texts are figurative works because had God tried to relay the true nature of the world and universe with scientific explanations, the holy texts would not be comprehended by the masses. Even now the masses cannot fully appreciate the true complexity of the universe and the full scope of scientific progress and knowledge we have accumulated.
Scintific progress has impressed me in many ways, yet I do not see the overall behavior of humans getting any better. The blood in rthe Middle East has flowed steadily from wounds caused by many different weapons throughout history. a stick, rock, or missle will still produce a wound, and the intent behind throwing a rock or pushing a button cannot be contrasted.
custard writes:
Most likely it's a combination of truth and fiction; like most books.
Fiction?
Some would say "Parables".
Amlodhi writes:
Has this thread strayed from the intent of the OP already? I hope Mission for Truth will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the question being asked is: If the bible is taken figuratively instead of literally, how does this effect modern Christian doctrine? For instance: If the Adam and Eve story is figurative, then (regardless of any argument that it "still contains God's truth"), the doctrine of original sin is immediately called into question. Obvious parables and certain other stories in the bible can certainly be taken in a figurative sense. However, if the tenets of Christian doctrine are to be taken seriously and literally, huge portions of the biblical text must be taken to be literal as well.
Inerrent truth does not need to be literal. Jesus told parables that were Inerrently true. They need not have been literal. Adam and Eve were not mean't to be figurative, IMHO.
jar writes:
There is nothing that I know of in Christian Dogma that requires ANY of the Bible to be taken literally other than the existance of GOD and the life and mission of Jesus.
So jar, what of the words and lessons of Jesus? Are these literal? If not, than do you believe them to be Inerrent? Truth is truth, and if the text is to be taken at a relative value, all that we have are no answers and lots of opinions! I guess that is how an extreme believer sees it, anyway!
Paisano writes:
Depends on what precisely is meant by "original sin". In Catholic theology, original sin refers to a loss of sanctifying grace that humans experienced at some point, nothing more than that.
Good point. Catholics DO tend to be more open minded. I always worried about whether they were as apt to stick to absolutes vs relativism. I guess that the infallible Pope thing is debateable, but tie that in with an infallible Bible in terms of Inerrency. We either have
1)Infallible Bible and/or Infallible Church.
2)Fallible Bible, fallible church.
Which leads to the question of how an absolute standard can be defined, much less observed.
almevda writes:
If there wasnt a literal fall, in a literal place, by a literal man. Then what fall are we talking about? Jesus shouldnt even have a reason to save mankind. Sin is the reason why we see death, bloodshed, disease and a cursed world. Before this, God made a perfect world. Gods plan is to save mankind from the judgement on sin through Christ. Now Jar you tell me if this isnt an important aspect of the faith?
jar writes:
Nope. It most certainly is not very important at all.
Yikes! You are straying from MY beliefs, yet ...
Amlodhi writes:
I think this is pointing in the right direction now.
shows me that a rift is occurring. Any more opinions or observations?
Loudmouth writes:
Jesus said that "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Nowhere does this require a literal place, event, or human. The fact is that we all sin and therefore need saving.
So, Loudmouth, are you suggesting that the ability of Jesus to save us is both literal and Inerrent? If so, NOW we are going in the right direction. Jar? Any opinion?
jar writes:
That is part of the divinity of Jesus. The virgin birth (not unusual from a mythological point of view) helps establish that Jesus was more than simply a prophet. For Christians, that IS one of the core beliefs. We believe that Jesus was the Son of God.
Wow! I thought that the Christians had lost jar! They still have him. Do they have me?? Maybe I need sleep!
Ifen writes:
Do you believe in the virgin birth? Do you believe some one could be considered a christian who didn't believe in it?
Personally, Ifen, I say No. You say that you stopped being a christian, yet I will not go so far as to decide your fate. You are simply thinking. Nobody decides their life beliefs in high school...be they Christians or not. God gave us a brain!
The question remains: Did He give us a Book as a necessary manuel for our faith? Could anyone actually believe in Jesus and be saved without the book? Obviously the early believers did. They had no book, yet they did have relationship with Jesus and His closest followers.
What about now. If every Bible on the planet were removed, would it be possible to have new Christian converts in the traditional sense? If so, the Inerrency is a Spirit shared among Believers. If not, religion is an academic and relative concept. I believe the former.
™ Version 4.2