How do you interpret the Bible?

[QUOTE="Philokalia"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

It is a book of fables - poetic tales meant to convey certain teachings. Pretty much like every other holy text. That's how I see it.

worlock77

That only works for some books of the Old testament, it doesn't work for the gospels, acts or even the Torah.

Sorry, but I find the idea of a man being born from a virgin woman, who could literally heal sickness, disease and defect about as believable as I find the Buddha supposedly standing up at birth and talking.

its akin to the lord of the rings for me...just not quite as good...

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] lol You don't have a clue do you?chaoscougar1

Sorry, but I find the idea of a man being born from a virgin woman, who could literally heal sickness, disease and defect about as believable as I find the Buddha supposedly standing up at birth and talking.

worlock77

Your placing your naturalistic understanding onto the understanding of the gospel authors, in history this is called anachronism and is one of the cardinal sins of historical investigation. The Gospels are about the most historically written works (deliberately so) in the New testament, the entire bible. The small details they go over, the places and names of people which actually existed at the time, places these works firmly in the understanding of history, that is how they were written.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Philokalia"]

That only works for some books of the Old testament, it doesn't work for the gospels, acts or even the Torah.

Samurai_Xavier

Sorry, but I find the idea of a man being born from a virgin woman, who could literally heal sickness, disease and defect about as believable as I find the Buddha supposedly standing up at birth and talking.

It is not a fact that Jesus was real, and apart from a couple of dubious accounts there's no extra-biblical evidence for him. And many of the world's mythologies play off real history. Does that make them factual as well?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Sorry, but I find the idea of a man being born from a virgin woman, who could literally heal sickness, disease and defect about as believable as I find the Buddha supposedly standing up at birth and talking.

Philokalia

Your placing your naturalistic understanding onto the understanding of the gospel authors, in history this is called anachronism and is one of the cardinal sins of historical investigation. The Gospels are about the most historically written works (deliberately so) in the New testament, the entire bible. The small details they go over, the places and names of people which actually existed at the time, places these works firmly in the understanding of history, that is how they were written.

Is that why the Gospels offer up so many contradicting details between them?

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"] lol You don't have a clue do you?chaoscougar1

Literally!

Men who shave their beard are to be put to death!!

It is not a fact that Jesus was real, and apart from a couple of dubious accounts there's no extra-biblical evidence for him. And many of the world's mythologies play off real history. Does that make them factual as well?

worlock77

it was interpreted literally for a large length of time, but shouldn't be anymore. I don't think any sane person at our current time should take the bible literally. NEWMAHAY

I think the stories are supposed to be literal, if not then it's even more poorly written than I previously thought.

as allegory for astro-theology

I think the stories are supposed to be literal, if not then it's even more poorly written than I previously thought.

toast_burner

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

I think the stories are supposed to be literal, if not then it's even more poorly written than I previously thought.

Samurai_Xavier

The authors believed that what they were stating was true and I make it my effort to understand the text in the way that the author intended.

That stated, I take genre into account when I interpret the Scriptures. A proverb is to be understood as a proverb. A historical statement is to be understood as a historical statement. A poem is to have poetic imagery. You get the point.

If you wish to know my own beliefs regarding the nature of biblical interpretation, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Innerancy which can be found all over the internet gives a very detailed look at the topic.

As far as whether or not I interpret the text literally, I generally do. I accept the entire narrative of Scripture as truth - that God created everything to be good, man broke itself, God made countless promises that he would restore his beloved creation, and through the atoning work of Jesus Christ everything that has been made will be remade. I hold to a literal interpretation to the notion that Jesus is the resurrected redeemer of this fallen world.

mindstorm

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

It is not a fact that Jesus was real, and apart from a couple of dubious accounts there's no extra-biblical evidence for him. And many of the world's mythologies play off real history. Does that make them factual as well?

Samurai_Xavier

You should seriously attempt to understand what you're linking to before offering it up as proof of what you claim.

Couple thousand year old fairy tales with some intended moral teachings and hypocrisy galore.

Like Greek mythology, the bible is a book of stories. In this case it's a book of stories centered around a singular god versus multiple gods. I don't put any more stock into the bible than I would a book of any given mythology or religious text.

As for interpretation, it's pretty much up to the reader at this point. Don't tell the church.

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

It is not a fact that Jesus was real, and apart from a couple of dubious accounts there's no extra-biblical evidence for him. And many of the world's mythologies play off real history. Does that make them factual as well?

worlock77

You should seriously attempt to understand what you're linking to before offering it up as proof of what you claim.

Not to mention citing wikipedia as a professional source...

to the letter

it has some good morals, also some bad morals. god only exists in the bible and in peoples' minds though

I don't think anyone takes the Bible word for word literally anymore.

Pikdum

Is that why the Gospels offer up so many contradicting details between them?

worlock77

Lets grant the contradictions. Do you think Historians chuck out every contradictory account?

I think it's a book that just teaches good and bad morals. Not a book to be taken literally but symbolically

I think it's a book that just teaches good and bad morals. Not a book to be taken literally but symbolically

pero2008

Why do people have this huge misconception?

The Gospels are about the most historically written works (deliberately so) in the New testament, the entire bible.Philokalia

That's quiet a low standard of historicity

-Sun_Tzu-

Its on par with the greek history of the day :| Moron.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

That's quiet a low standard of historicity

Philokalia

Its on par with the greek history of the day :| Moron.

hahahahaha The things they teach in Sunday School -Sun_Tzu-

The things they teach in university :| Asshat.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"] Wrong. There is plenty of historical proof outside the Bible that Jesus was a real person, and many of the Biblical accounts such as the fact that he was a preacher and was crucified at the order of Poncious Pilate, etc. Theres a few a pretty long Wikipedia pages on the subject. Knock yourself out, maybe learn a few things here and there.

starfox15

You should seriously attempt to understand what you're linking to before offering it up as proof of what you claim.

Not to mention citing wikipedia as a professional source...

Anyone who suggests Jesus didn't exists is disqualified from being an intelligent person.

Anyone who suggests Jesus didn't exists is disqualified from being an intelligent person.

Philokalia

quite the irony herewis3boi

Yes it is. Tell me are you braindamaged enough to think JEsus might not have existed? Do you think Xenophon Existed? What about Aristophanes?

[QUOTE="wis3boi"] quite the irony herePhilokalia

Yes it is. Tell me are you braindamaged enough to think JEsus might not have existed? Do you think Xenophon Existed? What about Aristophanes?

Anyone who suggests Jesus didn't exists is disqualified from being an intelligent person.

Philokalia

Please show me the archaeological evidence of Jesus and/or first hand accounts that affirm his existence. -Sun_Tzu-

Show me archeological evidence Xenophon existed. Show me archeological evidence that EVERY SINGLE FIGURE IN HISTORY EXISTED. Im not in the mood for **** tonight. Your deficient if you think its even possible Jesus didn't exist. Much like your deficient if you think Athanasisus didn't exist. Funny how people like you (Liberal, atheist asshats) don't put this to all of history.

and hercules?wis3boi

Answer the question, did Xenophon exist? You even know who Xenophon is? Probably not.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Please show me the archaeological evidence of Jesus and/or first hand accounts that affirm his existence. Philokalia

Show me archeological evidence Xenophon existed. Show me archeological evidence that EVERY SINGLE FIGURE IN HISTORY EXISTED. Im not in the mood for **** tonight. Your deficient if you think its even possible Jesus didn't exist. Much like your deficient if you think Athanasisus didn't exist. Funny how people like you (Liberal, atheist asshats) don't put this to all of history.

The cheeky political jab Nicechaoscougar1

Cheeky? Its like the staring at the sun.

Fantasy

[QUOTE="Philokalia"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

It is a book of fables - poetic tales meant to convey certain teachings. Pretty much like every other holy text. That's how I see it.

That only works for some books of the Old testament, it doesn't work for the gospels, acts or even the Torah.

Sorry, but I find the idea of a man being born from a virgin woman, who could literally heal sickness, disease and defect about as believable as I find the Buddha supposedly standing up at birth and talking.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Please show me the archaeological evidence of Jesus and/or first hand accounts that affirm his existence. Philokalia

Show me archeological evidence Xenophon existed. Show me archeological evidence that EVERY SINGLE FIGURE IN HISTORY EXISTED. Im not in the mood for **** tonight. Your deficient if you think its even possible Jesus didn't exist. Much like your deficient if you think Athanasisus didn't exist. Funny how people like you (Liberal, atheist asshats) don't put this to all of history.

This isn't to say that Jesus doesn't exist, but to dismiss even the possibility that he might've not existed is to dismiss any desire for critical thinking. I personally do think that there was a Jewish man from Nazareth during the time period in question, but only for circumstantial reasons. There does seem to be an effort by the authors of the gospels to try and reconcile the actual life of this man with various messianic prophecies.

This isn't about Xenophon, and to compare the alleged existence of Jesus to that of Xenophon is absurd. We have Xenophon's writings, we have contemporary accounts that there was indeed a man named Xenophon. The same cannot be said of Jesus. There are no writings that exist that can be attributed to the pen of Jesus. There are no documents during the time period that Jesus supposedly existed that mention him. There are no first hand accounts of Jesus. No one from the time period ever mentions a man called Jesus.

This isn't to say that Jesus doesn't exist, but to dismiss even the possibility that he might've not existed is to dismiss any desire for critical thinking. I personally do think that there was a Jewish man from Nazareth during the time period in question, but only for circumstantial reasons. There does seem to be an effort by the authors of the gospels to try and reconcile the actual life of this man with various messianic prophecies.

-Sun_Tzu-

Oh? But Xenophon refers to himself in the third person in his works of history. Doesn't that mean he didn't write them? But how charming you think we need first hand accounts from JEsus or accounts from the time period about Jesus in order to establish historicty. thats cute, where did you learn that? The God who wasn't there? Apply some critical thinking and think for a moment on how well known a Jewish Rabbi from Palestine whose message was relayed by only a handful of followers would be well known enough to write about in those days and then consider the accounts we do have in the first century and the second and tell me unabashedly its not alot?

To think that Jesus didn't exist means your on the level of D M Murdock or Jack Chick.

But you know we don't have any writings from a man called Barnabas, that must mean its possible he didn't exist either.

What's up crankypants?

Edit: I saw Xenophon on the news the other day actually. REAL.

Iszdope

Be original.

That was unimpressive I know. Forgive me for being unoriginal.

Iszdope

No problem.