Why read the Bible literally?

Which, despite quite a few attempts, you have been unable to do! The closest that you have got is along the lines of "I don't really know, I just know when something should be taken literally and when it shoud be taken figuratively". You cannot even explain why you believe what you believe.Why even bother posting to a thread that is asking a question that you don't have an answer to? Really? So, what is scientific about declaring the FACT that the Bible has been edited countless times?You don't even answer Bible based questions, you keep ignoring the fact that no one has God's Word because there are no original documents, there are extant biblical texts that prove that the texts we have now have been altered, what you have is the end result of countless editings, and the Bible now only contains what a particular editor thinks it should. The entire stance fails before it gets off the ground, it was discredited in the 17th cebtury, and it is still a fundamentally flawed stance. Let's get soemthing straight, I posted a reply to post someone and you, who was supposed to be ignoring me, replied to me, was there anything in that reply that mentioned being off-topic? No, you are only now trying to slither and wriggle and twist your way out of things again. This is typical of literalists, any little distant hope gets grabbed with both hands.Everyone knows, including you, what you meant by "nothing whatever", we all know that you were applying that to ALL discussions and not just the Bible Study forum. We all know that you have now seen a possible way to save face and you are grabbing that with both hands, you are fooling no one, except maybe yourself, but then again fooling yourself is the primary function of a literalist's life.To answer the topic question DOES require scientific evidence anyway, the originator was asking why read the Bible literally, I answered that question with what I believe to be true. The post certainly made a lot of sense to quite a few people as they acknowledged here and in private e-mails.Now, you are the one moaning about external evidence being brought into Bible Study, so why don't you tell us what there is IN the Bible that requires us to read it literally? Can you tell me where I find the rules for this forum and where it specifically says that evidence based arguments will lead to suspension?Brian.

You know, I was saved by the enormous sacrifice of Jesus the Christ. He suffered greatly even though He was innocent, He took all our all sins upon Himself and died for us so that when we acknowledge His victory over death we can have Eternal Life with our father in Heaven. God's gift to us is Eternal Life.The Bible, and C. S. Lewis, cannot save anyone.You are worshipping the wrong thing, maybe if you even thought about Jesus for five minutes a day then you might start to see things clearly. Making the Bible into a gimmick, and placing it at the centre of your faith, is a pointless process.Brian.

Could you please stay on topic?Brian.

I would add that none of the Church Fathers took the Bible literlly either.Brian.

No you didn't.I even gave you the example of Origen in another post and you included him in your list!Here it is again:Origen:Whenever we meet with such useless, nay impossible, incidents and precepts as these, we must discard a literal interpretation and consider of what moral interpretation they are capable of, with what higher and mysterious meaning they are fraught, what deeper truths they were intended symbolically and in allegory to shadow forth. The divine wisdom has of set purpose contrived these little traps and stumbling blocks in order to cry halt to our slavish historical understanding of the text, by inserting in its midst sundry things that are impossible and unsuitable. The Holy Spirit so waylays us in order that we may be driven by passages which, taken in the prima facie sense cannot be true or useful, to search for the ulterior truth, and seek in the Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by God a meaning worthy of him (Conybeare Frederick, C. and Bible (1910) History of New Testament Criticism, Watts & Co., London. 14-15).How can Origen belong on that list when he says "Whenever we meet with such useless, nay impossible, incidents and precepts as these, we must discard a literal interpretation and consider of what moral interpretation they are capable of...Do I need to post more quotes from Origen or will this be enough?Brian.

I read the list at rel-tol, and I honestly do not see where it says that all of the people on the list advocated a literal reading of the entire Bible. It just doesnt say that. Incidently, they spell Origen's name incorrectly.The heading is 'Past Church Beliefs about the Origin of the Earth'. It doesn't claim that the people on the list claim that the Bible should be taken literally.Even if it did, how do you square that with the Origen quote that I gave you?Here is another from the same book:Who will be found idiot enough to believe that God planted trees in Paradise like any husbandman; that he set up in it visible and palpable tree-trunks, labelled the one ‘Tree of Life’ and the other ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ both bearing real fruit that might be masticated with corporeal teeth; that he went and walked about that garden; that Adam hid under a tree; that Cain fled from the face of God? (Conybeare: 10)How can anyone say that Origen took the Bible literally?Also, how anyone can believe that Augustine was a literalist displays an amazing lack of familiarity with his work.Like Jerome, Augustine believed that the Bible could not be read literally, and that to begin to fathom its mysteries required education. Therefore Augustine, who like Jerome and Ambrose had been strongly influenced by classical Greek and Roman philosophy, argued that the social elite among Christians should receive a classical education. But also like Jerome and Ambrose, he instated that classical ideas be subordinated to the teachings of the Church. here Brian.

" we must discard a literal interpretation ", it hardly supports a literal interpretation does it? I honestly think you have misunderstood what that webpage is all about.I cannot think of a church father who took the New testament literally, there may well be a few, but I haven't seen one yet.Brian.

The Old Testament openly promotes racism. Israel is God's chosen people, all other races are inferior.Brian.PS. I certainly would contribute to a thread on The Rights of the Child.

I think what the page is saying is that these people believed that creation literally took 6 days. But, it is doesn't follow that they believed that everything that is written about those 6 days should be taken literally.This time last year I thought that most of the Church fathers took the Bible literally, But Truthlover pointed out that I may be mistaken, so I did look into it as I was including a section in my dissertaion about the Bible as History. I checked out a lot of Church fathers and couldnt find one that explicitly claimed that everything in the Bible should be taken literally. As I said, there may be a few but I didn't find them, and the internal and external examiners didn't make any comment to contradict my findings.If you want I can have a look at some of the writings of the people on that list when I go into Uni on Saturday and let you know.Brian.

If you ever wonder why I cannot really be arsed with you, then making statements like this should be a clue.What is wrong with saying: "Brian, I think you could be mistaken here, have you considered that this really means....."As for it being a vile slander, I am afraid that you are mistaken:(Deuteronomy 7:6) "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. So, what did it mean then?I sometimes think that we owe the syrophoenician woman a great debt, if she hadn't shown Jesus how stuck up and unfair he was being we would all be doomed, except the Jews of course.Clever lady, she out thought God.Brian.

Hi Faith, I think we need ot be clear about this statement.Although the Church Fathers listed at Religious Tolerance did believe that creation literally took six days, there is no Church Father (at least that you have presented) who took Genesis chapters 1 and 2 literally. For example, we know for a fact that Origen didn't take all of Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and neither did Augustine.There is a difference that needs to be remembered.Brian.