To the Christians who don't take the Bible literally:

Post Reply New Topic

Just a useful guide?

If someone were to tell you that God doesn't exist and that the Big Bang came about on its own, or if he told you that Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, wouldn't you, as a Christian, go to the Bible for correction? Shouldn't you heed what 2 Timothy 3:16 says?

Also, why should Jonah's story be rejected literally if the Bible says that every prophecy is spoken by God through men instead of men making them up? Is not Jonah Scripture (spoken by God)? Why believe that the bit about Jonah being inside the big fish was made up by men when the Bible clearly states that no prophecy is of man's own will and that God himself spoke it through the prophets? Is God now a liar?

Didn't the Apostle Paul warn against vain philosophies?



Yeah, sure, lol.

Because large portions of the Bible are obviously allegory. Because Christ was known for speaking in parables and allegory, and no one is ridiculous enough to believe that every single one of those stories was literally true. Because that Timothy passages says that Scripture is useful, not that Scripture must be interpreted literally. Because the story of Jonah was not even a prophecy.

You don't have a leg to stand on here. You are misquoting those Scripture passages every time you try to cite them in support of your claims, and you have not yet asked any question more honest than "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

It saddens me to see how certain branches of Christianity can permanently stunt otherwise capable minds.

Assuming the Bible is from God ...

First of all, a prophecy is what God speaks through man. It's not just about foretelling the future (as is commonly thought today). All Scripture is God-breathed (as the Bible says). Therefore, all Scripture is prophecy. Hence, the Book of Jonah is a prophecy from God.

Taking the Bible literally doesn't mean taking every single word in the Bible literally. It means literally taking the context of whatever verse/passage is being read and studied within the Scriptures. A parable is taken as a parable because the context shows that we must look to it as a parable ... NOT because we simply feel it's nonsense and, thus, reject it as a historical fact. When it comes to Jonah, it is clearly meant to be taken as a historical fact. Just as Jesus talked about the Queen of Sheba praising King Solomon as if it were a historical fact, Jesus talked about Jonah inside the big fish as if it was a historical fact. They were not taken as allegory. They were literally accepted.

And you also didn't answer the following:

If someone were to tell you that God doesn't exist and that the Big Bang came about on its own, or if he told you that Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, wouldn't you, as a Christian, go to the Bible for correction? Shouldn't you heed what 2 Timothy 3:16 says?

By the way,



I should be saying that, not you.

He doesn't adhere to it, he's trolling.

I am only going to make this point once because I'm sure you're not going to get it. Those of us who don't take the bible as the literal word of God are not going to take any verse you throw at us to be either, so any attempt to prove it that way is an automatic fail.

I added him to my reject Don't Fly pile a little while back, You gentlemen can use your own judgement, of course.

I know way too many atheists like this but when you think about it: jerk atheists originate from jerk Christianity. It's kind of a tragic circle.

jerks is jerks, no help for it. They were jerky thoughtless hunter.gatherers and they are jerky sophisticates today.

So you don't take the passages I mentioned seriously. You just pick and choose according to your own desires.

And, guys, no more ad hominem. Stick to the main topic. I have the right to criticize liberal Christianity as much as any other forms of Christianity.

So have you stopped beating your wife yet?


The main topic is garbage, because it is based on a false and unsupported premise. The only thing that can be done in this thread is to speculate as to your motives and thought processes.

The passage is saying that God inspired the prophets to write scripture.
Thats it.
Thats basically all its saying.
you're projecting alot of verbiage onto it that isnt there.

I does NOT say "God himself wrote this account and every detail in it is litereally true."

If anything its admiting that the word of God had to pass through the lips and pens of fallible humans before it could be in turn read by other fallible humans who may make rash intrepretations of this account-like taking it absolutely litereally.

You misunderstand the passage. No one claims that the authors or prophets messed with God's word and that is why you do not have to take it literally. We believe that (a) God never meant it to be literal, for symbolism and abstraction allow His word to live and breathe in a way a literal accounting never could and (b) there was room for interpretation in how the original texts were translated into other languages.

Many passages were written for a specific time and place, and a very specific audience. One must understand the context to understand the reason the language was chosen in the way it was. But what is really beautiful is how that all can transcend time and place when you look beyond the literal, and find the heart of the message.

God wanted His people to have a simple way to understand the way he created the world, because the reality of it was beyond their understanding. Hence, a seven day story. The heart of the story isn't the seven days, it is that God created the world. The fact that science is slowly uncovering some of the "how" doesn't change that in any way: God created the world. He wanted His people to understand that in a way that would transcend the changes in understanding and knowledge He knew His people would undergo over time.

I guess I would be considered a "Liberal Christian", although I quite dislike that label. I'm not fond of getting thrown in the liberal or conservative camp.

I do not look at scriptures through Christian eyes. I came from Judaism. I find this to be beneficial because most Christians are lacking in their understanding of the culture and language found in the Bible. Because I come from a different background, I am well aware that there are Christians who disagree with me and I'm okay with that.

I do not interpret a single verse, as this is not how the Bible was really written or meant to be read (in my opinion). You have to look at the bigger picture, the deeper layers of truth. I don't believe the Bible was meant to be read literally either. I think Jesus hints at this. It seems that (some of) the Jews during the New Testament period were becoming legalistic about their teachings and writings. Jesus says "It is said..." (often referencing something from the Torah or oral law) and correcting it with new ideas that were being debated among Jewish scholars and are found in the Talmud to this day.

If you read the Bible literally, verse by verse, God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son would seem cruel. If you take a deeper look into the story, it seems the point of this is to emphasize how God did not have Abraham sacrifice Isaac. This was quite a concept in a land where pagan practices often required human sacrifice. The moral of this story is that human sacrifice was not required by this God.

The point is, there are other ways to read the Bible. Now, if you want to read the Bible literally, have at it. It's your faith. If you choose to believe the Bible is rubbish, that is also your right. However, there is a legitimate position for those of us who don't choose to read the Bible literally.

Should we ditch our faith? No. It means we should go on examining, reading, and questioning. The Bible is a complex piece of literature from a complex God. He wouldn't be God if we understood everything with ease.

I often wonder about the motives and thought processes of those who say that the Bible supports evolution even when it clearly doesn't, but maybe that's just me.

All you've shown here is that you have yet to read the passages more carefully.

The first passage I copied is clear on what divine inspiration is. Your interpretation contradicts what the passage says.

Yes, God didn't write the Bible with his own hands, but still the Bible is clear that it is God's word not man's word.

Very poetic but not anywhere close to the clear obvious facts.