The Bible

[cipherdecoy]

I've heard of some beliefs that the book of Genesis is false, and that the Bible should not be taken literally.

First of all, wouldn't a single falsehood in the Bible call into question its veracity as a whole? Secondly, why are interpretations so diverse when the Bible, being supposedly a book of God, should be clear in its message? If some things in the Bible take a theologian or someone as highly educated to discern, doesn't that remove its accessibility to the ordinary man?

Some may argue that the Bible was written by people and not God himself, but in any case, God was the one who instructed them to do so, and shouldn't He have made sure that it was going to be accessible to all people, or at least, timeless and free of ambiguity?

I want a Christian point of view on this topic, and please don't turn this into some kind of an evolution versus creationism debate.

Thanks.

[Redzeppelin]

I've heard of some beliefs that the book of Genesis is false, and that the Bible should not be taken literally.

Science and the Bible disagree - since science is comprehensible to the human mind, it seems more reasonable. Maybe, maybe not.

First of all, wouldn't a single falsehood in the Bible call into question its veracity as a whole? Secondly, why are interpretations so diverse when the Bible, being supposedly a book of God, should be clear in its message? If some things in the Bible take a theologian or someone as highly educated to discern, doesn't that remove its accessibility to the ordinary man?

First - you are correct that the Bible must be a unified whole; if we dismiss Creation, or the Crucifixion, or the miracles, then there is no reason to believe that the rest of it is valid.

Interpretations exist because the problem that inherently lies within language - the problem isn't with God. Think about it: language is an attempt to put an idea, a concept, into sounds that have a certain meaning. Just as there are moments in life we cannot find words for, there are things that can't possibly be expressed adequately in language; one of those things would be the character of God, how He thinks, and the complex nature of His existence. Just as writing can never truly render the magnificent experience of a beautiful sunset, it cannot do justice to God.

As well, words are subject to interpretation - that's just the nature of language, and the issue gets worse when we bring in the issue of translation, because some terms don't translate (and the art of translation involves a certain degree of subjectivity, no matter how objective you may try to be). Theologians can point out finer points and such, but the Bible speaks clearly if one is being assisted by the Holy Spirit. In other words, it is God that gives clarity to the purposeful reader of the Bible. Atheists who read it in order to discredit it do not even begin to understand it - because spiritual things are understood spiritually. Patience and prayer can enable anyone to understand the Bible.

Some may argue that the Bible was written by people and not God himself, but in any case, God was the one who instructed them to do so, and shouldn't He have made sure that it was going to be accessible to all people, or at least, timeless and free of ambiguity?

I want a Christian point of view on this topic, and please don't turn this into some kind of an evolution versus creationism debate.

Thanks.

It is impossible to communicate the mysteries of God in a way that resembles a textbook. No special knowledge is necessary to understand the Bible - some of the greatest witnesses have been very simple, modestly-educated people - but they were people guided by the Holy Spirit.

Thanks for asking -

[cipherdecoy]

What about those who aren't guided by the Holy Spirit in the same way as they were? And is the Bible to be taken literally? If not, how then are the metaphors going to be interpreted? Surely they are going to be subjected to various interpretations as well. I agree with what you said about language, but aren't metaphors too secondary for a book of such a purpose? For example, perhaps since language already cannot capture every aspect of what the Bible truly means to convey, why would one want to further obfuscate it with metaphors?

On the other hand, if the Bible is to be taken literally, then it would mean that a dragon will appear upon Armageddon, which sounds pretty implausible to me. The phrase "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is also a contradiction to the teaching's of Christ, who fosters forgiveness and mercy instead of revenge. Although I don't see how that can be perceived in any way other than in the literal sense.

Also, isn't the Bible sexist?

I Timothy 2:11-14
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

How then, can God be fair by being such? That is certainly too straightforward to be metaphorical to me, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

Then there is also the issue of violence and cruelty.

31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

If that is to be taken literally, it would mean that God wanted those who broke the Sabbath to be executed. If that was truly the case, why is it no longer the case now in the 21st century? Shouldn't the teachings of the Bible be timeless? Why shouldn't God mete out the same punishments when we're people all the same? Which brings me to another point - while language may be an excuse for diverse interpretations, the content should not. Although they were written by people who lived in different eras, many principles should be timeless. For example, murder is as wrong now as it was before, as opposed to doing something else like killing an animal as a sacrificial offering. Since the latter will later prove to be irrelevant, shouldn't it therefore be omitted to prevent confusion? (I don't think that practice has elicited much confusion, but I hope the example managed to put my point across)

I think I've deviated a little from my initial questions, but do answer them and thanks for your reply. Pardon any ignorance on my part - I'm no serious reader of religion.

[AARONDISNEY]

I've heard of some beliefs that the book of Genesis is false, and that the Bible should not be taken literally.

That is the point of view of some. Not my point of view though. There are parts of the Bible that are figurative, but it is obvious when that is the case. Such as Daniel's stone figure representing the future world ruling kingdoms, or in Revelation where Christ is pictured as a lamb having been slain with seven horns.

First of all, wouldn't a single falsehood in the Bible call into question its veracity as a whole?

Of course it would. But if you are reading from the original or a good translation (I believe the KJV to be a good translation) you'll not find any falsehoods. I believe that many newer translations have incorrectly found what they believe are copyist errors in the KJV and have taken that false assumption and tried to correct it in the newer version which does nothing less than actually create an error. But the pure word of God is error free.

(Note. I'm honestly not starting a KJV only rant here. I understand that many Christians disagree with me and I have no problem with others using other versions. For myself however, I stick with KJV.)

Secondly, why are interpretations so diverse when the Bible, being supposedly a book of God, should be clear in its message?

Exactly. You have to make a particular percentage of a book different in order to get your own copyright. The newer versions are quite different than the authorized version.

I am not saying they are complete rubbish. Some of them are very helpful. But I consider them helpful in the same way a commentary is helpful. They may clear up a difficult passage, but I don't put a lot of stock into them word for word.

If some things in the Bible take a theologian or someone as highly educated to discern, doesn't that remove its accessibility to the ordinary man?

The Bible itself says this about itself.


1 Cor 2:9-14
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(KJV)

In other words. When you trust Christ as your Savior, he clears up some things for you. The Bible is not always easy for a Christian or a non-CHristian to understand, but God's Spirit reveals its truths to you as you place yourself in His hands.

Some may argue that the Bible was written by people and not God himself,

Indeed God used men to write the Bible, and each word was inspired by the Spirit. It was tainted with the personality of each individual writing it as well.

I've used the illustration that it was like a stained glass window allowing light to come in. You see the light pass through and the different colors cast in, but it's the same source for each, the sunlight.

When God inspired these men to write this, he used their lives and personalities and yet governed the words that were written.

shouldn't He have made sure that it was going to be accessible to all people, or at least, timeless and free of ambiguity?

True that there have been times when certain men have tried to withhold the Bible from the 'common' folk. But it keeps coming back around. One Catholic Pope (I don't remember which one) tried to destroy every Bible in the world. Didn't work. I think I have about 12 of them floating around my house.

God's word is indestructible.

It is timeless as well. The precepts found in the Bible are just as relevant to me today as they were to all the people down through the years. The truths it teaches can be applied to any generation.
The primary truth that is taught is that we are sinners in need of a Savior and that one (Jesus) has been provided for us.

As far as ambiguity. There are parts that are difficult and there are parts that are more easily understood. My opinion is that he gives us that believe in Him enough of a taste of the great stuff that is easy to understand to inspire us to action in digging deep into the things we have trouble understanding. Which I find to be fun.

I want a Christian point of view on this topic, and please don't turn this into some kind of an evolution versus creationism debate.

You got one. Thanks for the question and the opportunity to answer it.

[Chester]

There are parts of the Bible that are figurative, but it is obvious when that is the case.

Not to be argumentative, because I like your style, sir. And I love dearly what Sir Walter Scott referred to simply as The Book. But what exactly is it that makes the figurative parts "obviously" figurative and - by implication presumably - the literal parts obviously literal? Why is the flood, for one example, obviously to be taken literally? Or the virgin birth? Or the Tower of Babel?

[jaywalker]

Is jesus cursing the Fig Tre for not giving fruit out of season Figurative ?

[AARONDISNEY]

Not to be argumentative, because I like your style, sir. And I love dearly what Sir Walter Scott referred to simply as The Book. But what exactly is it that makes the figurative parts "obviously" figurative and - by implication presumably - the literal parts obviously literal? Why is the flood, for one example, obviously to be taken literally? Or the virgin birth? Or the Tower of Babel?

Hi, Chester. Thanks for liking my style. I didn't think I had any style to speak of whatsoever. Let me return the compliment and say that the few posts I've read from you have been the utmost in respectfulness.

The figurative parts of the Bible are usually obviously figurative is probably what I should have said. It is generally when a prophet is speaking of a vision that he had that the subject if figurative, but not always.

As I was speaking of in Revelation, there is a lot of figurative language. I don't believe that we will see Jesus in heaven as a slain lamb. He is spoken of that way to demonstrate a point. That he was our sacrifice (being like a lamb) and that he was punished in our place (slain) and it is said that he had 7 horns. Seven being the number of completion in the Bible (e.g. on the 7th day God rested). And horns representing power...he was the lamb slain and yet in complete power.

The flood is to be taken literally. It was a literal story and though many scientists have tried to cover the flood up and say that the layers were formed over millions or billions of years. It seems likely to me that a worldwide flood where the fountains under the earth broke up (just like the Bible said) and the rains came down for 40 days and nights (from a canopy likely to be in the firmament spoken of in Genesis 1) caused a lot of movement and reshaping of the land.

If it was meant to be figurative - it is strange that it would be in the middle of the story of the history of the early days of earth. In other words, where would the mythology end and the real history begin. Doesn't seem to indicate such a thing.

Yet the flood does represent God's judgement and the Ark represents Noah's obedience and trust in God (since he followed God's command to build it) and God's preserving power to those that trust in Him.

The virgin birth is also actual. There is no reason to take it figuratively, other than that it is miraculous, but if God truly is all powerful, why would that be such an amazing thing to consider.

[AARONDISNEY]

Is jesus cursing the Fig Tre for not giving fruit out of season Figurative ?

I believe the answer is yes and no. No in that it really happened, and yes in that it was meant to represent something.

Israel was about to be snuffed out, they had not produced the fruit that God intended them to and so they (the nation not the people) came to an abrupt end for nearly 2000 years in 70 A.D.

[Chester]

Thanks for liking my style. I didn't think I had any style to speak of whatsoever

Sure you do. It’s one of sincerity and patience. Two things I appreciate.

I ask the question because as I’m sure you’re aware, flood motifs and virgin birth motifs (or at least miraculous-type birth motifs) and even resurrection motifs are not exclusive to the Bible. As well, similar creation stories abound. It was common in the earliest days of story-telling, from The Epic of Gilgamesh on forward, to relate “historical” stories with a lot of symbolism, to “mythologize” history. It was common practice. It might have been the only practice, in fact.

And so, when trying to determine whether the Bible is to be taken literally, or more as metaphor, and without a lot of strong evidence one way or another that these things really happened, one needs to take into account, it seems to me, the methodology of story-telling at the time. And then one needs to decide which is more reasonable to believe. Some of the stories you would define as literal work beautifully as metaphor. It doesn’t seem strange to me at all, for example, that the flood story is where it is. Taken as metaphor, it might simply represent the cycle of life, birth and death and rebirth. It’s quite beautiful.

Perhaps nowhere in the Bible is there a more beautiful story than the resurrection story, taken as metaphor. This might be the ultimate way to describe the idea of spiritual birth. The death of the body, the death of the “ego” self, and rebirth as the “true” self – connecting, finally, with the God within (what you would call the Holy Spirit). Now, did the resurrection really happen? Well I’m not prepared to say it did not. There are arguments for it (I have McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict on my shelf, for example) but there is no unequivocally clear answer. My point is, the story works regardless.

Now I know this is the kind of talk that is bound to chap the hide of a literalist. I know this. But something gets lost, it seems to me, when I see people (such as the people on this very forum) who are essentially asked to take the Bible literally, or to not take it at all. And then what you end up with (as if I have to tell you) is a bunch of people spending their time poking holes in it. Looking for contradictions, and thinking themselves oh so clever when they find one, as if they’re going to blow the lid off of 2000 years of tradition.

Maybe – just maybe – there’s another way these kids can be looking at the Bible, is all I would suggest.

[Jeb0092]

If you believed what the Bible said, you wouldn't believe what people say about the Bible.

God never said that the Bible is infallible, men said this. God never said he gave us the Bible as his word, men said this. The Bible cannot say anything about the Bible, because none of the Authors knew that what they wrote would be organized into a unified whole. The Bible is a box. God's truth has been trying to get out for 2000 years. Why keep it boxed in any longer.

[AARONDISNEY]

Hi, Chester.
Yes, I am familiar with similar stories to that of the Bible stories. I understand that many of the date earlier than the Bible dates. Yet that does not make the Bible stories the fakes or the copy-cats.

Think about it. If there really was a creation (which I believe there definitely was) and a flood (also I take this literally) there would be many many many stories of this flood and the creation passed from generation to generation and culture to culture and guess what?!? THERE IS!!

There is a story of a worldwide flood in cultures all over the world. Some of them are very very similar to the Bible's rendering, some are a bit different. But I believe the Bible to be the inspired God breathed information concerning all this.

Why would there be similar stories all over the world if it were only to be taken in an allegorical way?


JEB SAID

God never said that the Bible is infallible, men said this. God never said he gave us the Bible as his word, men said this. The Bible cannot say anything about the Bible, because none of the Authors knew that what they wrote would be organized into a unified whole. The Bible is a box. God's truth has been trying to get out for 2000 years. Why keep it boxed in any longer.

As to this quote - all I have to say is that you can only come to the conclusion you've drawn if you don't believe what the Scriptures themselves say. Of course the Bible claims itself as the Words of God.

In nearly every book of scripture another book of scripture in the Bible we have compiled is referred to as the Words of God, and when the words of God are mentioned it is to tell us their holiness and (of course) their infallibility. How can a perfect, holy God mess up and say something that is not right? If He's God and He wrote it there can be no contradictions and if you actually take the time to see the whole picture you'll never ever ever find a contradiction in the Bible.

Here's a few scriptures on what the Bible says of itself.......


2 Tim 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
(KJV)

John 10:34-35
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,
(KJV)

Rom 3:1-2
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
(KJV)

Heb 4:12
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
(KJV)

2 Pet 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(KJV)

[AARONDISNEY]

Perhaps nowhere in the Bible is there a more beautiful story than the resurrection story, taken as metaphor. This might be the ultimate way to describe the idea of spiritual birth. The death of the body, the death of the “ego” self, and rebirth as the “true” self – connecting, finally, with the God within (what you would call the Holy Spirit). Now, did the resurrection really happen? Well I’m not prepared to say it did not. There are arguments for it (I have McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict on my shelf, for example) but there is no unequivocally clear answer. My point is, the story works regardless.

You aren't 'chapping my hide' for sure, Chester. We're just having a friendly conversation. Yet you have to understand that the resurrection story cannot be just an allegory. It is the truth. If it isn't - I don't want to be a Christian. If the resurrection isn't true. I'm believing a man that's been dead and decayed for 2000 years to be God almighty.

Paul said this....

1 Cor 15:16-19
16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
(KJV)

Yes, Jesus taught some wonderful essential truths, but without his resurrection, I have no assurance that this isn't all there is and in the end I become worm food.

[cipherdecoy]

The phrase "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" seems to be a contradiction to the teaching's of Christ, who fosters forgiveness and mercy instead of revenge.

Could you expound on that?

You may wish to respond to my second post, thanks.

[jgweed]

I have read carefully the passages quoted in post Nr.11; in none of them, as I interpret them, is there a clear statement about whether or not the Bible should be interpreted literally, whether all passages in it should be interpreted the same way, or precisely what is meant by "moved by the Holy Ghost."

In fact, one could understand the first quotation (Timothy) as almost implying that the Bible is true " for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" ---that is for matters of faith and dogma and not necessarily for matters of history or science. As I understand, many sincere Christian sects are very comfortable with this kind of interpretation, and look to the Bible primarily as a guide to faith. Many sects, not without reason it seems to me, moreover put a far greater emphasis in the New as opposed to the Old Testament, considering the latter as only important when viewed as a precursor to the Glad Tidings. Certainly there is much in the OT that seems to conflict with Christ's teachings; consider here the adage "an eye for an eye" with His admonition to "turn the other cheek" and love one's neighbor as oneself. Paul tells us that "faith, hope, and charity" are the foundation of Christ's teaching, not the rack of torture and revenge.
John

[blazeofglory]

I've heard of some beliefs that the book of Genesis is false, and that the Bible should not be taken literally.

First of all, wouldn't a single falsehood in the Bible call into question its veracity as a whole? Secondly, why are interpretations so diverse when the Bible, being supposedly a book of God, should be clear in its message? If some things in the Bible take a theologian or someone as highly educated to discern, doesn't that remove its accessibility to the ordinary man?

Some may argue that the Bible was written by people and not God himself, but in any case, God was the one who instructed them to do so, and shouldn't He have made sure that it was going to be accessible to all people, or at least, timeless and free of ambiguity?

I want a Christian point of view on this topic, and please don't turn this into some kind of an evolution versus creationism debate.

Thanks.

The Bible is really a good book, something we inherit with pride. However when it generates ideas that stir clashes once it gets to the hand of a mis-interpreter I feel sad.