Is the entire bible to be taken literally?

[Yarr the Pirate]

I cite, par example, the follwing verses:

Leviticus 11:7 - 'Regard the pig as unclean, for though has a cloven hoof, it does not chew the cud.'

Leviticus 20:27 - 'Put to death any man or woman among you who is a necromancer or magician. Stone them with stones.'

Deuteronomy 13:13 - 17 - 'If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it.'

And let's not forget the classic example:

Deuteronomy 22: 28 - 29 - 'If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.'


Creationists would tell us that there is scientific, steadfast proof for the bible to be taken literally (not just the Christian Scriptures, but the Hebrew ones as well!). Does this mean that rape victims should marry their rapists, we should kill all those who don't follow our religion, stone Lance Burton, and never eat pigs?

Why are we told to take Genesis literally, but no other part of the bible?



(sidebar: Why is there a fight to put the Ten Commandments up in public places, but no such fight for the Sermon on the Mount?)

[hannahjoy]

Creationists would tell us that there is scientific, steadfast proof for the bible to be taken literally (not just the Christian Scriptures, but the Hebrew ones as well!). Does this mean that rape victims should marry their rapists, we should kill all those who don't follow our religion, stone Lance Burton, and never eat pigs?

Why are we told to take Genesis literally, but no other part of the bible?

You're confusing history with law. To say that Genesis should be taken literally means that the historical portions, including Genesis 1, are to be taken as accurate history.
No one is claiming that every command in the Bible (such as those in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) should be obeyed literally by everyone who reads it. If it is a command from God, it should obeyed by the person to whom it was addressed.
Which laws are to be obeyed today is another topic which has been discussed here http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... .php?t=858

(sidebar: Why is there a fight to put the Ten Commandments up in public places, but no such fight for the Sermon on the Mount?)

The Sermon on the Mount is a lot longer.

Hannah Joy

[Yarr the Pirate]

Hannah, your post makes a lot of sense, but I have to ask - didn't Jesus himself say tht he had not come to destroy the law, meaning that we should still follow it?



Your last comment leaves me perplexed also - you just got through saying that we don't have to follow everything that God gave to people at a certain point, but still the ten commandments have precedence over the Sermon on the Mount? I believe the Sermon definitely is more recent than the ten commandments.

I have to say that I find that a little bit contradictory, considering the Ten Commandments and the laws I quoted above were given to the same people in the same vein.

Why should we follow the ten commandments but none of the other laws that God had given to the people of Israel?

[hannahjoy]

Hannah, your post makes a lot of sense, but I have to ask - didn't Jesus himself say tht he had not come to destroy the law, meaning that we should still follow it?
. . .
I have to say that I find that a little bit contradictory, considering the Ten Commandments and the laws I quoted above were given to the same people in the same vein.

Why should we follow the ten commandments but none of the other laws that God had given to the people of Israel?

As I said, these questions are already being discussed on the link I posted. If your questions haven't already been answered there, that would be the best place to ask them.
Your question about Jesus not destroying the Law is also being discussed here http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... .php?t=978
I guess there's not a rule about discussing the same topics on several threads at once, but it does seem a bit redundant 8)

Your last comment leaves me perplexed also - you just got through saying that we don't have to follow everything that God gave to people at a certain point, but still the ten commandments have precedence over the Sermon on the Mount? I believe the Sermon definitely is more recent than the ten commandments.

My comment was purely pragmatic. If you're going to carve something on a block of granite, and you want people to read it as they go by, the shorter the better. The same reason church signs display verses or quotes rather than whole sermons. It had nothing to do with the relative importance of the two.
My guess would be that it's also because the 10 Commandments are probably more universal and less obviously "Christian".
As well, the Sermon on the Mount is not just laws, and the issue came up over a courthouse. The 10 Commandments are more closely connected to the place they were posted. If the Sermon on the Mount were posted there, people would probably wonder what the connection was.

Hannah Joy

[YEC]

Well, if they are to be taken literally (adverbs are fun), that means you support the law that rape victims must marry their rapists and that men who have crushed testicles should not be allowed into church, along with the idea that we should stone Lance Burton and David Copperfield.

I mean, you couldn't take the book of Genesis literally and then just say to God "I don't feel like following the rest of your bible, Genesis is all I'm going to need today, thanks."

Good to know you believe in stoning and the punishment of raped women.

It's all I was asking. Thanks for answering.

you were answered...just what part of dispensation don't you understand?
Currently we are under GRACE, not the law.

But then again you already knew that.

[YEC]

yarr posted the followingHannah, your post makes a lot of sense, but I have to ask - didn't Jesus himself say tht he had not come to destroy the law, meaning that we should still follow it?
. . .


yarr, you forgot the ending of the verse..with out it, like the way you presented it, you can twist it to say what it doesn't really say.

MAT 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I trust that helps.

[Yarr the Pirate]

So because he has fulfilled the law, then it no longer exists?

[YEC]

No, the law is still there...just fullfilled.

Currently we are in a different dispensation. How many more times will I have to say that?

I'll grant you this is a confusing topic..but certainly no literal problem that you suggest.

Do you have something else to present?

What about my ancestral list several post up?

Where does the linage change from factual to myth?

[Yarr the Pirate]

So why are not the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus taken out of the bible while we are in this dispensation?

Please understand my argument better: I never accused the bible of being a myth. I simply propose a nonliteral approach as necessary. Just because something is nonliteral does not mean that it is mythological. It can be allegorical, metaphorical, or simply written in a dumbed-down version because the words of God are too incomprehensible to humans. Thus, the lineage chart makes no sense in this discussion.

Please also refrain form mangling my points as you are wont to do.

[YEC]

Genesis is a book chiefly about the account of creation and the flood..the only law given is not to eat from the tree in the center of the garden....other than that you seem to be comparing apples and oranges.

Sorry if your argument wasn't convincing.

[Yarr the Pirate]

I understand your point now Hannah, since you added the pragmatic part.

Call me a softy, but I'm a much bigger fan of the Sermon - you'd think we could get a few things to put onto a tapestry or something - "Blessed are the Peacemakers" with a whole hek of a lot of ellipses.

I'm going to go over to that other thread (thanks for pointing it out!) because that's one of the many things I can't get straight about the bible - this darn Catholic upbringing isn't the best thing in the world for understanding the book itself, but those breviaries, lemme tell ya!

Thanks again Hanna