NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious as to how many people take what the Bible says literally (this is what happened, it is no other way, etc.) or metaphorically (like there is a deeper meaning to everything (or at least most) of what it says).

Personallly i take it metaphorically

NOTE:

YES = Literally
NO = Metaphorically
(sry i screwed up the poll choices lol :D )

I take most of it literally. Genisis I interpret somewhat metephorically but thats really it. Everything else literal.

Well, since I can't read Hebrew, and am quite certain that the human made translations can not be perfect, I have no choice but to take it metaphorically. The simple fact that alternative translations exist and are used in different flavours of Christianity strenghtens this assumption. If even religious experts can't agree on what the literal text of the Bible says.. how could I ?

"No" I don't take it literally.

I don't take it all.

I don't take it all.
.

The first 5 books if the Bible (the Pentateuch) are mostly metaphorical (although historians do tend to agree that there were men named Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc actually in places the Bible names). After that, however, The Old Testament can be taken largely as historical truth. As for the New Testament is basically yes of no, either you believe it or you don't.

The Bible is a book of lies, no one should take it seriously or metaphorically.

Metaphorically

Fictionally

Fictionally
:p

which bible we talking about?

I take it as both, in many ways. Though I also admit that humans are flawed and so flaws may and do exsist in the bible. Many times numbers are different book from book, or people are in different places. Though thats very common in human works. Compare newspapers and you'll see one saying it one way, another saying another, and they don't always conform with each other.

Though I also think that every book of the bible is divinely inspired, so the little facts that do exsist aren't major, nor do they interfere with the messages in the bible.

All those people that say the Bible is simple and what it says is all there is miss many points in the bible. If Jesus is G-d personified, then he would be the closest thing we have to how G-d acts. Jesus taught with parables, as does, I feel, G-d. Also, G-d has a seven-fold spirit. So for every concept of G-d there is an even greater unknown, and meaning. So I can't say there is only one message, nor can I put a number to the messages.

I feel the ghost or the spirit of a human leads them, and that through the divine do we find the true meanings in things. No person can claim all the facts, and thus we all have our own paths to walk, and its our own personal faiths that make us.

We won't know the truth until we are dead. If there is nothing out there, then we are no more, and if there is something out there, we find out. Death is only leaving the world of the known, and entering the world of the unknown.

I take it literally you Atheist bastards.

Just because you don't take it literally doesn't mean you're an atheist :p

I take it metaphorically, and I think that in general you have to. There are so many contradictions (just in what it says) as well as with regard to reasonable modern knowledge. I mean, personally, I just can't understand how people CAN take it literally. I don't want to cause any offence, but how in the name of anything can you take creationism literally? How can you take the age of the earth literally?

Anyways,

Slinao, just curious but are you Jewish by any chance? I've only ever known one guy who wouldn't say/write/type god as a word and he was a pretty devout Jew. Just wanna know if he was just being weird or if it is a common thing...

...
Slinao, just curious but are you Jewish by any chance? I've only ever known one guy who wouldn't say/write/type god as a word and he was a pretty devout Jew. Just wanna know if he was just being weird or if it is a common thing...

I do not practice the Jewish faith/lifestyle, though I do have a strong jewish bloodline from my mother's side.

I am personally a Christian, but with many ideas stemming from Jewish understandings, as well as Druidic understandings. I have gone to a local orthadox Jewish Church to gain greater insights, and I like the concept of saying G-d. Its a sign of respect, showing that you don't wish the name to be destroyed or used in vain.

To cause a man to sin, even if they don't know it, or you don't know it, is still a sin, so to keep others from sinning, you protect what you say to those that may not understand things as you do.

I'm curious as to how many people take what the Bible says literally (this is what happened, it is no other way, etc.) or metaphorically (like there is a deeper meaning to everything (or at least most) of what it says).

Personallly i take it metaphorically

NOTE:

YES = Literally
NO = Metaphorically
(sry i screwed up the poll choices lol :D )
Both. It contains both historical record, such as the progression of the kings, and metaphorical stories (myths).

Both. No option for Both?

Im pretty religious but I decide to make my own interpretation of the idea of God. So I don't take much notice of the Bible, I just pluck ideas that intrigue me and adapt them to what I believe.

I'll throw in my vote for both, depending on the passage.

Other than the historical parts, fictionally. >_> I'm agnostic; I want proof. PROOF, DAMNIT!

i take it as a book written by a drunk man, how can u believe in something based on dogmas? what will u do if i come tu ur home and say; hi im god! there are no proofs,but u have to believe it, its a dogma! thats the fckn same than believin' in GOD

It's not necessarily about proof though. To say one wants proof of our God and absolute knowledge is to say that we actually have the ability to grasp God. I think it is impossible. That is why I think the Bible uses metaphor as it describes the salvation history of the people of God. Is there history, sure there is. The story of Jezebel for instance is backed up by archaeological evidence. Acts lists the missions of the apostles and we have found documentation backing up their historical visits to their respective parts of the world. Still, to say that everything in the bible happened word for word historically is not correct. The Pentateuch a certain kind of literature, like the Psalms, Maccabees, the Gospels, the letters of Paul. These are all different types of literature, some are historical accounts, others prayers, others metaphoric discriptions of God's relationship with us. It is not a question of metaphor or literal interpretation... it is instead a question of how well we understand the literary style and purpose of the books of Sacred Scripture.

Now, back to why I think the bible uses metaphor. Metaphor allows us to partially express something unknown and unexpressible by the expression of something known and expressible. This is exactly what we need in order to talk about God sometimes. Eternal "life"? We use life as a metaphor... surely we will not be the same as we are now in heaven. We will be like Christ was when he appeared to the apostles in the Upper Room, but then, who knows what kind of existence it is that allows him to be there one moment, and then on the road to Emmaeus the next, and to just appear out of nowhere, etc. The idea of the power of God is given metaphorical signs: fingers of fire, a dove, and even the pictures of this large hand coming out of the clouds. We need the metaphors. But this does not diminish the message given forth in the metaphors. It is faith, and faith history. I can say that everything in the Bible is true to me, in faith, and in its proper way. Remember "Fides querens intellectum." That's what St. Augustine tells us. "Faith seeking understanding." To read the Bible how it was made to be read, you have faith first, and then seek understanding.

i'm going for both...

i think that when God said that you should gorge out your eyes when they cause you to sin, He doesn't mean it literally but more like to keep urself clear of whatever that could cause you to stumble.

as for the first five books of the bible, i'm going for literally.

I don't take it all.

That pretty much sums it up.

The Bible is for the most part a code of ethics, a way to live one's life, and large parts of it are metaphors to give examples to those who follow the code of ethics set forth in the bible.

The metaphors are far more obvious in the new testament, as Jesus was fond of talking in parables.

I take my bible very metaphorically.

Of course I don't take it literally. The Bible is made by us, not God, so it can't be 100% trustworthy and true. It is a book!

I believe literally, meaning in the way they were meant to be read.

Its metaphorically told, I'm a Catholic, and we're taught that.

And besides, it makes sense, once you know the symbolism and stuff.

I personally don't take the Bible to be either. In my view was written by men (and women) trying to make sense of the world they inhabited, and to produce rules by which the society they belonged to could function. The laws laid down in books such as deuteronomy and leviticus show a striking similarity to the law codes of Hammurabi, the Babylonian king, who also claimed divine inspiration in order to give power to his laws, but who advocted polytheistic beliefs.

if the bible is taken literally or metaphorically, then that implies belief in some degree of divine inspiration for the bible. he nature of ones beliefs(within christianity) are related to the decision as to whether the bible is literal or metaphorical.

As a non-christian agnostic, I believe the bible to be a mixture of control mechanisms and history written by those in power.

The Bible was inspired by God and since as far as I know it hasn't been proved incorrect then I take it literally. Not to insult anyone but quite honestly you cannot take half the Bible literally but only take the other half metaphorically.

Matthew 12:25 "And Jesus knew their thoughts and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".

Now Jesus was talking to the Pharisees about how he was not the devil because why would the devil cast out his own demons? But this can also be reffered to "dividing" the Bible. If you don't belive the Bible is true from Genisis to Revelation then how can your belief stand? Just my opinion.

Note: The verse was taken from a King James Translation which was revised and compared to other translations to maintain accuracy.

The Bible was inspired by God and since as far as I know it hasn't been proved incorrect then I take it literally. Not to insult anyone but quite honestly you cannot take half the Bible literally but only take the other half metaphorically.
Actually, you can. Most of the time it's pretty easy to tell what's literal and what's not.

For example. Jonah: not literal. The fall of Jericho: literal. Ezekiel: not literal. The destruction of the Temple: literal.

which bible we talking about?
I did not know there was more than 1

Actually, you can. Most of the time it's pretty easy to tell what's literal and what's not.

For example. Jonah: not literal. The fall of Jericho: literal. Ezekiel: not literal. The destruction of the Temple: literal.
How is Jonah not literal

How is Jonah not literal
It's a story, meant to illustrate a point. It's hard for me to explain, but when you read it as compared to the "historical" parts of the Bible, the difference in language is clear. Also, at one point the inhabitants of a city dress up all of their livestock in clothing, and all the animals pray for forgiveness. That's a pretty big givaway.

(Yes, there are all sorts of ridiculous things in the Bible, like pillars of fire and walking on water and such. But when it strays into the comically absurd like Jonah, it's not meant to be taken literally.)

Neither, it's all a load of crap.

The Bible was inspired by God and since as far as I know it hasn't been proved incorrect then I take it literally. Not to insult anyone but quite honestly you cannot take half the Bible literally but only take the other half metaphorically.

Matthew 12:25 "And Jesus knew their thoughts and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".

Now Jesus was talking to the Pharisees about how he was not the devil because why would the devil cast out his own demons? But this can also be reffered to "dividing" the Bible. If you don't belive the Bible is true from Genisis to Revelation then how can your belief stand? Just my opinion.

Note: The verse was taken from a King James Translation which was revised and compared to other translations to maintain accuracy.
If it also means dividing the Bible, then that is reading it non-literally, applying an interpretation to the literal meaning of the words.

EDIT: Non-literal interpretation does not imply falsehood or untruth. Metaphor is symbolic language, and the thing it can symbolize is truth.

It's a story, meant to illustrate a point. It's hard for me to explain, but when you read it as compared to the "historical" parts of the Bible, the difference in language is clear. Also, at one point the inhabitants of a city dress up all of their livestock in clothing, and all the animals pray for forgiveness. That's a pretty big givaway.

(Yes, there are all sorts of ridiculous things in the Bible, like pillars of fire and walking on water and such. But when it strays into the comically absurd like Jonah, it's not meant to be taken literally.)
Well the story of Jonah is literal, but the parts of the story like the animals dressed in clothing and asking for repentance is probably trying to emphasize the fact that they were touched by G-d so much that they ALL wanted forgiveness.

Just a thought and my opinion

Well the story of Jonah is literal, but the parts of the story like the animals dressed in clothing and asking for repentance is probably trying to emphasize the fact that they were touched by G-d so much that they ALL wanted forgiveness.

Just a thought and my opinion
Yeah, pretty much.

which bible we talking about?
I did not know there was more than 1

There is (supposedly) only one original, but there are many different translations. Which can vehemently disagree on what the original texts meant - and every one is naturally imperfect. And taking translation errors literally is never smart...

I don't take it all.

Word.

I put other, as I view the Bible as having metaphorical, literal, historical, legal,political, and literary,even geneological, sides to it. The Bible was a mini-library for the people of Israel. Sometimes due to misunderstanding this about the Bible, there are terrible errors made with terrible social consequences, and terrible spiritual consequences.
The law of three major religions has it's foundation at some point in this book so it is bad people in general understand it soo poorly.

How is Jonah not literal

A man gets swallowed by a whale. He survives for days with no food or air inside the whale, which miraculously fails to digest him. Then the whale is sick, and the man continues his attempt to convert the godless cities he was sent to godify.

Slinao, just curious but are you Jewish by any chance? I've only ever known one guy who wouldn't say/write/type god as a word and he was a pretty devout Jew. Just wanna know if he was just being weird or if it is a common thing...


Err... actually i'm not Orthodox.

I'm a... hmmm, well i'm developing into an orthodox, technically i'm a Traditionalist...or Secular. Whichever one does a majority of the stuff but not all.

anyways, Wise Rabbi Sages say, Do not take the bible literally, it will only screw you over.

I mean some parts are to be taken literally... and some aren't. Like the laws in Leviticus. Trust me 80% of them do not result in death...they have double meanings.

The other 20%...those are the normal ones...like Kill someone, and we kill you. Sounds fair. :)

There is (supposedly) only one original, but there are many different translations. Which can vehemently disagree on what the original texts meant - and every one is naturally imperfect. And taking translation errors literally is never smart...
Which is one of the main reasons that on those occasions when I have cause to refer to the Bible, I use The Amplified Bible, which gives all possible English translations of the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

Mixed. Some parts tend to be very clear, others are more symbolic. They all have meaning, however, as the history of the world and God's intentions for the future.

I'm curious as to how many people take what the Bible says literally (this is what happened, it is no other way, etc.) or metaphorically (like there is a deeper meaning to everything (or at least most) of what it says).

Personallly i take it metaphorically

NOTE:

YES = Literally
NO = Metaphorically
(sry i screwed up the poll choices lol :D )
Both: sometimes it one and the other times its the other. Why can't it be both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

I take it literally you Atheist bastards.
Cheers to this guy.

4/10 mythology
4/10 biased and self-inflated history
2/10 poetry and morality plays

I honestly don't quite understand how anyone could take it literally, considering that current scholars consider the majority of the Bible to be second-hand material written some centuries after Jesus [supposedly] lived. I was born and raised Catholic with a Catholic education until I was 11, when I asked my teacher exactly why Jesus told his disciples they were drinking his blood and eating his body - after all, it sounded a little cannibalistic. She told me that it was a metaphor, but couldn't tell me what for.
I'm now wavering quite contentedly somewhere between agnostic and atheist.

I take most of it literally. Genisis I interpret somewhat metephorically but thats really it. Everything else literal.
How you explain the fact that all 4 gospels are so different?

I take "Love thy neighbor" literally.

I take "Thou shalt not kill" literally.

I take "Blessed are the peacemakers" literally.

I take "And lo the 6 headed beast of rehaboem issued forth from the earth and did gnash its teeth at the serpent and the people were sore afraid" as some looney on drugs.

I honestly don't quite understand how anyone could take it literally, considering that current scholars consider the majority of the Bible to be second-hand material written some centuries after Jesus [supposedly] lived. I was born and raised Catholic with a Catholic education until I was 11, when I asked my teacher exactly why Jesus told his disciples they were drinking his blood and eating his body - after all, it sounded a little cannibalistic. She told me that it was a metaphor, but couldn't tell me what for.
I'm now wavering quite contentedly somewhere between agnostic and atheist.


umm... sorry but the bible was written within 50 years or so of Jesus' death. As for second-hand material... it was passed down as word of mouth, and since it was a pretty big thing, His death and all, anything that was a rumour was eliminated and never passed on to what we now know as the bible

as for the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, yes that is metaphorical. I'm not sure what the exact meaning is, but from what i've learnt, it was to symbolise Jesus living/in-dwelling in His disciples.

How you explain the fact that all 4 gospels are so different?

the 4 gospels are similar except that they focus on different aspects.

it's like... let's say we take 4 different people, who are all in different professionalisms... bring them to a place hit by the tsunami, and ask them to write down what they saw/felt/got to know through interviews.

the gospel written by Luke, who was a physician, was mostly based on the biology whereas for John, he was more like a "This is how it is" person... so his part of the gospel is written like that...

hopefully i've suceeded in answering ur question...

I take it literally you Atheist bastards.
Hey, my parents were married! :gundge:

Hey, my parents were married! :gundge:

To each other?

One of the corruptions of language we have faced in the modern age is a loss of understanding of myth. It has come to mean something not true as in "urban myth". Myth is actually a specific literary form in which a truth that is observe but the cause of which is beyond understanding is explained in language that is easily understood. Thus myth is in fact true not false. The sun does move across the sky, the seasons do change, these are the truths that classical myth gave symbolic explanation for. All talk about the divine is inherently mythological. The truly divine is beyond human language and so we use myth to approach its truths. This has always beens the mainstream. The current empahsis in some sects on literalism is actually and outgrowth of the englightenment. It is a rebellion against scientific determinism by substituting scriptural determinism its roots go more deeper than that. Even straight up history of the classical era can not be read as a simple presentation of fact. It was considered bad writing to simply present facts, the historian was obligated to alter the facts as necessary to reveal the underlying broader truths.

As a man far wiser than I said about 1800 years ago:

"All heresy comes from reading what is allegory as simple fact and what is simple fact as allegory."

Or as St. Gregory the Great said:

"While it is true all scripture is inspired by God, it is even more true that every reading of scripture is inspired by God and reveals a new truth and a new reality."

One of the corruptions of language we have faced in the modern age is a loss of understanding of myth. It has come to mean something not true as in "urban myth". Myth is actually a specific literary form in which a truth that is observe but the cause of which is beyond understanding is explained in language that is easily understood. Thus myth is in fact true not false. The sun does move across the sky, the seasons do change, these are the truths that classical myth gave symbolic explanation for. All talk about the divine is inherently mythological. The truly divine is beyond human language and so we use myth to approach its truths. This has always beens the mainstream. The current empahsis in some sects on literalism is actually and outgrowth of the englightenment. It is a rebellion against scientific determinism by substituting scriptural determinism its roots go more deeper than that. Even straight up history of the classical era can not be read as a simple presentation of fact. It was considered bad writing to simply present facts, the historian was obligated to alter the facts as necessary to reveal the underlying broader truths.

As a man far wiser than I said about 1800 years ago:

"All heresy comes from reading what is allegory as simple fact and what is simple fact as allegory."

Or as St. Gregory the Great said:

"While it is true all scripture is inspired by God, it is even more true that every reading of scripture is inspired by God and reveals a new truth and a new reality."
Well said.

Or as St. Gregory the Great said:

"While it is true all scripture is inspired by God, it is even more true that every reading of scripture is inspired by God and reveals a new truth and a new reality."
Did St Greg have any idea what a can of worms THAT one would be? :)

umm... sorry but the bible was written within 50 years or so of Jesus' death. As for second-hand material... it was passed down as word of mouth, and since it was a pretty big thing, His death and all, anything that was a rumour was eliminated and never passed on to what we now know as the bible
Okay.
1. Second-hand material is anything that is not DIRECTLY written by an eyewitness. Word of mouth therefore classifies as oral history (like Greek mythology) and is second-hand.
2. 50 years? Prove it. In fact, prove that the gospels were written by the disciples themselves and I'll accept 50 years. It's like saying that Theogony is an original work by Hesiod - it's more likely someone copied it down after hearing it later.
3. Please. Just because something is big doesn't mean that everybody remembers the details perfectly. All the gospels differ in some way, and how can you say all rumour was eliminated (see #4)? By some accounts of contemporary historians, Jesus was hunchbacked.
4. The main books of the Bible were selected by the Catholic Church as being the ones that most reinforced their view on Jesus's teachings.

Fictionally

Ya!

How you explain the fact that all 4 gospels are so different?

except where matthew and luke copy mark word for word (or whatever source was also used to write mark), of course.

The Gospels are like cameras at sports games. Each camera shows the event from a different angle, just like the individual Gospels shows Jesus' life from a different angle.

I'm curious as to how many people take what the Bible says literally (this is what happened, it is no other way, etc.) or metaphorically (like there is a deeper meaning to everything (or at least most) of what it says).

Personallly i take it metaphorically

NOTE:

YES = Literally
NO = Metaphorically
(sry i screwed up the poll choices lol :D )


I voted other, but what I would really say is both. There are portions that fit both descriptions.

Okay.
1. Second-hand material is anything that is not DIRECTLY written by an eyewitness. Word of mouth therefore classifies as oral history (like Greek mythology) and is second-hand.
2. 50 years? Prove it. In fact, prove that the gospels were written by the disciples themselves and I'll accept 50 years. It's like saying that Theogony is an original work by Hesiod - it's more likely someone copied it down after hearing it later.
3. Please. Just because something is big doesn't mean that everybody remembers the details perfectly. All the gospels differ in some way, and how can you say all rumour was eliminated (see #4)? By some accounts of contemporary historians, Jesus was hunchbacked.
4. The main books of the Bible were selected by the Catholic Church as being the ones that most reinforced their view on Jesus's teachings.

1. who's to say that the writer of the gospels was not one of the many eyewitnesses?

2. if people believe carbon dating as a form of precise dating, and which has been used on the earliest form of scriptures, will you too not believe that it is accurate? for the record, carbon dating has been used on the earliest found scripture and it was been found to be dated around 50-70 AD if i'm correct.

3. ummm... let's see... when the tsunami hit the coast of penang in malaysia, the waves were so small that nobody was hurt. now we all know that that is untrue, since people did die and many people were hurt because of the incident. i would know since i live in malaysia. now what i said in my first statement was a lie/rumour that if i mentioned it to anyone here, nobody would believe me and would be shot down immediately by counter arguements and proof. so, for the eyewitnesses who saw it as children/teenagers, they would be able to stand as proof to what happened.

4. the main books of the bible were selected by the cannon and it was chosen not because they reinforce the catholic view, but because those were the ones that were consistent. there were books such as the gospel of thomas which was not included because what was written inside was clearly not what had happened during those days.

5. in reply to Jesus being hunchbacked - what proof did the contemporary historians have of this? according to the bible, Jesus died and was resurrected on the third day. therefore there is no skeletal proof of this.

now, if we take the bible to be literal in it's account of Jesus' life, if we look at the gospel of Luke 2:43-46, it speaks of Joseph and Mary travelling back from Jerusalem after the passover feast. It also states that they did not realise that Jesus was not with them. If Jesus was hunchbacked, would he not be easily spotted because of his different physique? Also, during that time, any physical distortions of someone's body is seen as a curse from God. so, would Jesus' parents not keep Him close to them, and attempt to hide Him from the other people?

in Luke 2:46 it says that Joseph and Mary found Jesus in the temple after 3 days teaching and the teachers there were asking him questions. If he were hunchbacked, I doubt the teachers would be listening to Him.

Finally, in Luke 2:52, it says "And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men." So, right here it says that Jesus grew in physique, height, built, and was in favour with God and men. If we leave out God and just look at men, this shows that Jesus was not scorned by the people of His neighbourhood, unlike someone who is born... let's say naturally crippled.

I said not sure, but I take it metaphorically.

Now we're talking :)
1. Who's to PROVE that eyewitnesses actually wrote the gospel?
2. I studied geology and chemistry, and carbon dating is actually only accurate for approximations. There's a small error involved which you have to plug in when you perform the mathematics, which is currently estimated at anywhere from 3-10%. Even a friendly estimate of 3% (VERY low in gathering and counting the miniscule number of C-14 atoms remaining) results in a error of 60 years from 60 CE. At the higher end, we have close to 200 years error.
3. In fifty years time, the recollections of the tsunami victims will begin to differ - memory is imperfect. After 120, it's been through two generations and will have been passed on orally, which is a notoriously unreliable source of information for historians.
4. If you're writing a thesis, wouldn't you select the books in your bibliography which support your view? I'm not blaming the Catholic Church here - I'm just saying that they chose the books which they considered the best for passing on the message of their perception of Jesus. We cannot prove whether Thomas was in fact correct or not! The Bible was put together at the Council at Nicea in 325 CE - now that's a good few centuries after the supposed writing of the gospels.
5. I didn't say I believed Jesus was hunchbacked! I was just saying that it's an example where sources from the same time period differ markedly in retelling. And you can't quote the Bible to prove me wrong - Jesus is the poster boy of the Church, they wouldn't let him be perceived as unattractive in any way. Oh, and may I just mention that if the Gospel of Luke were written a fair while after Jesus died, the image of Jesus portrayed by his admirers would tend to be romanticised a little. It's human nature.

Oh, and carbon-dating has been used to estimate the age of the Turin Shroud as only 700 years old. Forgot to add that.

the 4 gospels are similar except that they focus on different aspects.

it's like... let's say we take 4 different people, who are all in different professionalisms... bring them to a place hit by the tsunami, and ask them to write down what they saw/felt/got to know through interviews.

the gospel written by Luke, who was a physician, was mostly based on the biology whereas for John, he was more like a "This is how it is" person... so his part of the gospel is written like that...

hopefully i've suceeded in answering ur question...

Actually, there are direct contradictions in the gospels, not just "certain point of view" issues.

See for example: Mt.10:10, Lk.9:3 and Mk.6:8-9. These verses are all talking about the same things.

There are numerous others, as well.

2. if people believe carbon dating as a form of precise dating, and which has been used on the earliest form of scriptures, will you too not believe that it is accurate? for the record, carbon dating has been used on the earliest found scripture and it was been found to be dated around 50-70 AD if i'm correct...

You are not correct. The oldest fragment we have comes, tentatively, from 114AD. The oldest complete book comes, again tentatively, from around 200AD. Entire copies of the New Testament don't pop up until 350AD.

And also, please don't say the Bible was written 50 years after the Crucifixion. Please say the Gospels were. The Pentateuch and the rest of the OT were written decades and centuries earlier.

i definetly do NOT take it literally.. If you don't take it seriously it says a lot of great things.. The old testament + book of revelations.. i dont like.. But the new testament is pretty good and hi energy

You are not correct. The oldest fragment we have comes, tentatively, from 114AD. The oldest complete book comes, again tentatively, from around 200AD. Entire copies of the New Testament don't pop up until 350AD.
And also, please don't say the Bible was written 50 years after the Crucifixion. Please say the Gospels were. The Pentateuch and the rest of the OT were written decades and centuries earlier.
Ah, merci. Was needing keywords but shall now go and research further.
Ta for the ammo :sniper:

... book of revelations ...
I believe Revelations in particular is a little bit of a sticking point for those who take the Bible literally. Out of interest, does anyone here take Revelations literally? It'd be interesting to hear your point of view.

I don't take it literally. I'm atheist, but even when I was 8 (and somewhat open to religion) I didn't take it literally.

Ta for the ammo :sniper:

Ammo?

Ammo?
I'm in a constant war against people who haven't done their research.

I take it as a suppository twice a week, literally. j/k

I'm in a constant war against people who haven't done their research.

Same here. If you're actually going to say something, have links to back yourself up, right?

Oh, definitely. Although I personally don't like the Internet for reference - unless written by a reputable organisation, I tend to take what webpages say with a heavy dose of scepticism. Books, on the other hand, are solid and unalterable (and sometimes musty), but it takes a certain amount of money, editing, and fact-checking to write a book that isn't going to be ridiculed by critics on release. Hence my rather huge library right next to my study area...

Ah, merci. Was needing keywords but shall now go and research further.
Ta for the ammo :sniper:


I believe Revelations in particular is a little bit of a sticking point for those who take the Bible literally. Out of interest, does anyone here take Revelations literally? It'd be interesting to hear your point of view.

I do not take the Book of Revelations literally. In fact the Baha'i Faith says that the WWI fulfilled the Book of Revelations.

During my stay in America I cried out in every meeting and summoned the people to the propagation of the ideals of universal peace. I said plainly that the continent of Europe had become like unto an arsenal and its conflagration was dependent upon one spark, and that in the coming years, or within two years, all that which is recorded in the Revelation of John and the Book of Daniel would become fulfilled and come to pass. This matter, in all probability, was published in the San Francisco Bulletin, October 12, 1912. You may refer to it, so that the truth may become clear and manifest; thus ye may fully realize that this is the time for the diffusion of the fragrances.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of the Divine Plan, p. 22)

Oh, definitely. Although I personally don't like the Internet for reference - unless written by a reputable organisation, I tend to take what webpages say with a heavy dose of scepticism. Books, on the other hand, are solid and unalterable (and sometimes musty), but it takes a certain amount of money, editing, and fact-checking to write a book that isn't going to be ridiculed by critics on release. Hence my rather huge library right next to my study area...

Heh....I'm sitting in my library right now. The smell of books is comforting to me. :)

I do not take the Book of Revelations literally. In fact the Baha'i Faith says that the WWI fulfilled the Book of Revelations.

During my stay in America I cried out in every meeting and summoned the people to the propagation of the ideals of universal peace. I said plainly that the continent of Europe had become like unto an arsenal and its conflagration was dependent upon one spark, and that in the coming years, or within two years, all that which is recorded in the Revelation of John and the Book of Daniel would become fulfilled and come to pass. This matter, in all probability, was published in the San Francisco Bulletin, October 12, 1912. You may refer to it, so that the truth may become clear and manifest; thus ye may fully realize that this is the time for the diffusion of the fragrances.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of the Divine Plan, p. 22)

Wow, I've not heard about the Baha'i since I was in high school...ahhh....good times. :cool:

I've never heard of the Baha'i... wish I'd kept the encyclopaedia of religions when I moved :( I can see how the Book of Revelations could be interpreted as WWI - but then again, I once talked to someone who was convinced that the planes crashing into the WTC towers in New York on 11.09.01 was the Book of Revelations coming true.
And yes, books have a reassuring smell :) A bit musty, though.

I've never heard of the Baha'i... wish I'd kept the encyclopaedia of religions when I moved :( I can see how the Book of Revelations could be interpreted as WWI - but then again, I once talked to someone who was convinced that the planes crashing into the WTC towers in New York on 11.09.01 was the Book of Revelations coming true.
And yes, books have a reassuring smell :) A bit musty, though.

There are Baha'is in your country, small numbers by Christian standards and there is a Bahai House of Worship there also.

Wow, I've not heard about the Baha'i since I was in high school...ahhh....good times. :cool:

Actually I first heard about the Baha'i Faith in high school too. It was 19 mumble, mumble. How long ago was it for you?

Actually I first heard about the Baha'i Faith in high school too. It was 19 mumble, mumble. How long ago was it for you?

Hmmm....let's see, I was sixteen when I met her, so.....

Ummmm....13 years ago, I suppose.

This poll doesn't make sense. You're asking an either/or question not yes/no...

I do not take the Book of Revelations literally. In fact the Baha'i Faith says that the WWI fulfilled the Book of Revelations.

During my stay in America I cried out in every meeting and summoned the people to the propagation of the ideals of universal peace. I said plainly that the continent of Europe had become like unto an arsenal and its conflagration was dependent upon one spark, and that in the coming years, or within two years, all that which is recorded in the Revelation of John and the Book of Daniel would become fulfilled and come to pass. This matter, in all probability, was published in the San Francisco Bulletin, October 12, 1912. You may refer to it, so that the truth may become clear and manifest; thus ye may fully realize that this is the time for the diffusion of the fragrances.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of the Divine Plan, p. 22)

Uhhhh...WW1 never fullfilled the End Times. I'm using End Times b/c there are multiple books in the Bible which give various amounts of information. One, Isreal didn't exist then so therefore almost half the propheses couldn't come true. Sorry to burst your buble.

Yes, no, and both.

This poll doesn't make sense. You're asking an either/or question not yes/no...
Read the first post.

Metaphorically, I believe the lessons are more important than the events used to teach them (and this holds true for my belief on religion in general as well as in the bible). Of course, some of it was factual, but the stuff that can't really be proven I take as a story meant to teach ideals and morals.

Read the first post.

Metaphorically, I believe the lessons are more important than the events used to teach them (and this holds true for my belief on religion in general as well as in the bible). Of course, some of it was factual, but the stuff that can't really be proven I take as a story meant to teach ideals and morals.

But a good portion can be proven and also why simply believe that the things which aren't proven are simply fictional? Either it is or it isn't. Half a truth is still a lie.

Uhhhh...WW1 never fullfilled the End Times. I'm using End Times b/c there are multiple books in the Bible which give various amounts of information. One, Isreal didn't exist then so therefore almost half the propheses couldn't come true. Sorry to burst your buble.


Believe me my bubble is not busted.

Hmmm....let's see, I was sixteen when I met her, so.....

Ummmm....13 years ago, I suppose.


Whaaaat, you mean your girlfriend first told you about the Baha'i Faith. Me too.

23 believe the Bible is a statement of literal fact?

Thats just... scary. :confused: