Scriptural PROOF the Old Testament & Bible is NOT to be taken literary

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2 Corinthians
Chapter 3

1
Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, as some do, letters of recommendation to you or from you?
2
You are our letter, 2 written on our hearts, known and read by all,
3
shown to be a letter of Christ administered by us, written not in ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are hearts of flesh.
4
Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
5
Not that of ourselves we are qualified to take credit for anything as coming from us; rather, our qualification comes from God,
6
who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life.
7
Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, was so glorious that the Israelites could not look intently at the face of Moses because of its glory that was going to fade,
8
how much more will the ministry of the Spirit be glorious?
9
For if the ministry of condemnation was glorious, the ministry of righteousness will abound much more in glory.
10
Indeed, what was endowed with glory has come to have no glory in this respect because of the glory that surpasses it.
11
For if what was going to fade was glorious, how much more will what endures be glorious.
12
Therefore, since we have such hope, we act very boldly
13
and not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites could not look intently at the cessation of what was fading.
14
Rather, their thoughts were rendered dull, for to this present day the same veil remains unlifted when they read the old covenant, because through Christ it is taken away.
15
To this day, in fact, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts,
16
but whenever a person turns to the Lord the veil is removed.
17
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
18
All of us, gazing with unveiled face on the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord who is the Spirit.

[trotsky]

1. Question.

Why didn't God just divinely guide someone to write in a disclaimer at the beginning of Genesis? Seems like that would have alleviated a whole bunch o' shit.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

2. Matthew 19:3-9

In Mat 19:3-9, Jesus makes it very clear that Moses, NOT GOD, gave man the legal ability to divorce his wife... but to do so would be an act of adultery, and a sin.

It reads:

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Now this particular Bible verse is traditionally used to admonish couples from leaving a disintegrating marriage, but it means much more than this: Jesus tells us that some Biblical laws traditionally ascribed to as being divine, are not always divine in nature, but from man.

Look also to Mat 15: 9, which reads, in reference to the hypocritical Pharisees (teachers of the jewish Law of God), "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

[CatholicEdHead]

6. I posted that pic before on a right wing board

and darn near got kicked off. I pissed off one of the Mods for life. He can dish it but not take it. Don't attack his "Jesus".

[bennywhale]

3. John Locke the English Philosopher

who's writings influenced the American sense of liberty the most, used to use the bible to beat his religious opponents.

As a star of the enlightenment and child of the reformation, Locke was a rationalist and against taking the bible seriously. But a few hundred years ago he was having the same problems as many liberals are having today arguing with bible quoting idiots.

In the House of Commons he conducted a debate with the Tories about the divine right of Kings. But instead of using his usual stance of enlightenment thought, he solely used holy scriptures he had studied. His power of analysis and argument comprehensively dismantled piece by piece the Torie's stance on the divine right of kings based on the bible.

This is an approach that should definetely be tries.

[JerseygirlCT]

10. I'd say there's a big difference between not taking the bible

literally and not taking it seriously.

I do not read the bible literally, but I still think it's a work worthy of serious consideration -- from both a literary and religious point of view.

[hecate77]

4. It is only taken literally when convenient, otherwise it is ignored

All the sects that I know of pick and choose what to take literally and what to take allegorically. They just don't tell you that. How many take all the rules in Leviticus literally? And how many pick and choose from there to suppress women and gays?

So, logical arguments and 'proof' will never hold sway, since the folks pretending they take the Bible literally are quite disingenuous about it. They only take what will further their personal goals and ignore the rest (like the parts about not killing.....).

My condensation of all that is valuable in the Bible (New Testament, mainly)

Love everyone, no killing.

Pretty much covers it for me.

[The Straight Story]

8. heh, reminds me of science sometimes

so many seem deluded with politics, and we have new studies all the time which seem to conflict.

Must be a human nature thing - pick and choose.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. I think a lot of the problem is in the translation

when one returns to the original languages of the Bible, namely Hebrew and Aramaic, one finds languages with few words with many many different meanings. Also one must understand that the way of thinking in these ancient language-where there isn't dichotomy, but unity. Good sources for recent study and direct translation of ancient texts are the books by Neil Douglas-Klotz; I'm sure there are others doing this work as well.

[Mich Otter]

7. the problem is in the translation?

I would assume that an all-knowing god would give the message in words that could not be mis-translated. An all-knowing deity ought to understand the importance of getting the message out in simple language.
If translation causes so many doubts about what was meant, what was the advantage of causing the people to speak different languages? That idea seems so very counter-productive when the people weren't really hurting anything building the Tower at Babel.
BTW, why would a deity find it necessary to step in to stop the useless effort at building a tower to heaven but not find it worth making an appearance to end wars and starvation on Earth?
Just a few random thoughts late in the day.

[catbert836]

9. Im a non-literal Christian

I believe in the doctrine, as may other do, that much of the Bible is truthful, but not factual. For example, the creation myth. Did some guy named Adam and some girl named Eve exist, and were they they first members of humankind and did they cause original sin? Of course not, that's not factual. But the story of the serpent in the garden gives us a very important moral, that we shouldn't be tempted by false promises and listen to what our parents say. Is that a truthful moral? Of course.

[JerseygirlCT]

11. Most of the biblical literalists I've come across are Christian

and what always surprises me is that they don't see that Jesus' preferred method of teaching was the parable.

Why then, would we not be expected to view all of the bible in the same way -- a tool for learning, a lesson, a story?

Why must some people reduce everything to simplistic black and white rule-books?

[grumpy old fart]

12. Hell, just look at all the bald faced contradictions. It CAN'T be literal

even the four gospels have contradictions on the places, times, genealogy of Jesus. And, of course, if you actually take your MIND along, the superstitious gobbildy gook is just plain laughable. IMHO

[hfojvt]

13. take it from a genealogist

there are not contradictions in the two genealogies of Jesus, there are simply gaps. In Matthew, the word translated as "father" also means "ancestor." Same thing in Luke, the word translated as "son" also means descendent.
That simple change, if it is true, can easily rectify the two genealogies. Matthew says that "Jacob is the ancestor of Joseph", say that Jacob was his father. Luke says that "Joseph was the descendent of Heli". Is that a contradiction? Not if Heli was Joseph's mother's father. Thus both genealogies can be true.
As far as both coming from King David, Matthew lists 26 generations between Joseph and David. If you go back 26 generations, you should have 2 to the power of 26 ancestors. 2 to the 26th is 67, 108, 864! If all those people could be named, not only would it be way cool, but my guess is that King David would be on that list hundreds, if not thousands (or tens of thousands, since he was David, after all) of times.