The Bible.Literal or metaphorical?
819416
I'm agnostic, but here's the deal: of course the Bible is metaphor. Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, parting of Red Sea, Sodom & Gomorrah, Virgin Birth, Lazarus rasied from the Dead, etc. But we have to remember that those stories were all told by a group of semi-nomadic, largely illiterate people living 2000 years ago. They were simply using metaphor and allegor and symbolism to convey as best they could their understanding of God. So yes, they ARE a bunch of stories, if you want to over-simplify like that, but the big question is: what compelled them to go to such lengths to create such myths? And why would Jesus' disciples risk death--and incur death--if they thought he was a fake? After his death they could have simply disbanded, yet they continued on. To me--the reasons for the stories are more important than the literal accuracy. To read the Bible like a history book is to totallt miss the point!
55232
Frankly, i am not sure how to respond to your question. When you say, 'the most beautiful literal meaning,' what does that mean? The most literal would be those who can understand the Hebrew Scriptures in the original Hebrew, and those who can understand the Christian's New Testament in the original Greek, in order to understand the 'literal' meaning of the texts. The same thing would be true to understand the literal meaning of the Vedas, the texts of Hinduism, and the Kuran, one would have to know the original languages of those texts, to understand the literal meaning.
1143553
I'm nearly 60 and was a practicing Christian for over thirty years. I am currently an atheist.\n\nHere is the real answer:\n\nThe bible is a book of mythology. If you choose to believe it to be true, that is your right. However, if that's your choice, stop asking questions about it, or trying to make logical sense of it. \n\nTake it on faith because that's the only way it can be taken.
1051666
No. It doesn't say either of things.\n\nBut it doesn't matter anyway. The bible is a book of fiction and is a terrible waste of paper. Recycle it. Maybe it can be used to make toilet tissue. That would be a good thing, finally.
546012
The bible should never be considered anything but a work of fiction.\nEdit: I'd also like to point something else out. A lot of people are making the statement that God threatening with the possibility of hell is like a parent warning a child against a blazing fire. For one, the act of burning a child, though perhaps practical, is very cruel and sadistic. Kind loving parents would take a more practical and less cruel approach: simply do all that is necessary to keep the child away from the fire. There are numerous other logical fallacies in this analogy, but I would hope that they are painfully obvious to anyone intelligent enough to consider religion critically.
566548
The Bible is just ancient MEN's view of the world.  The moral codes within it represent the ancient moral codes of a Greek subculture considered a bunch of nutjobs in their day.\n\nWhy should you, or anyone else, bind themselves to such an arbitrary set of nonsense?
984291
if you ever quote a bible passage that is evil or cruel its taken out of context,  otherwise everythings a ok.    lol
780667
These were figurative and not literal representations.\n In Genesis...\nGen 3:1  Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? \nSatan is represented as a serpent (snake) here..alludes to his sneaky nature and the poison which he spreads..\n\nIn Nehemiah..\nNeh 2:13  And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well...\nthe word translated in from Hebrew to mean dragon actually means...sea serpent or jackal\n\nIn Revelations...\nRev 20:2  And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, \n\nThe word used for dragon, here, means...(from Strong's greek and hebrew Dictionaries)\n"a fabulous kind of serpent (perhaps as supposed to fascinate)"\n\nThe Bible is not endorsing the idea of a literal flying, firebreathing reptile. It is symbolism..so that only the "chosen" would understand.\n\nHere's an example:\n(Rev 17:7)  And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.\n\n(Rev 17:8)  The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.\n(Rev 17:9)  And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.\n(Rev 17:10)  And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.\n(Rev 17:11)  And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.\n(Rev 17:12)  And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.\n(Rev 17:13)  These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.\n(Rev 17:14)  These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
532799
well, don't read the bible word for word. the person who wrote it probably exaggerated a bit.
971908
The Bible is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God.  Everything in it is true.  People didn't create the New Testament, but holy men wrote as they were led by the Holy Spirit.
742993
I think that this is the biggest problem with Christianity.  If you take the whole bible literally, than you aren’t making any logical sense, but it you take parts of it metaphorically than you have to pick and chose which parts to take seriously.\n\nIt’s all pretty self-serving if you ask me.
239924
This is a question that I've always asked.  I see it as being closed-minded to believe that the Bible is 100% true.  It was written my man, not God.  It is human nature to exaggerate stories, and that's what the Bible is; stories.  I believe that there is truth in the Bible, but I think it's nuts to assume all of it is true.
1049029
The parables --- from both the Tanakh, and New Testament -- are figurative.  Object lessons for us to learn from.\n\nThe proverbs --- which are found throughout the Bible --- are bits of wisdom, to guide us in our life.\n\nThe historical records.  These are literal.  If somebody did something, somewhere, it did happen.  [There is only one major event in the Tanakh, for which there appears to be no supporting archeological evidence --- The Exodus from Egypt.  This probably is a result of looking in the wrong place.  (There are some very interesting artifacts in the territorial water of Saudia Arabia, which have implications about the crossing of the Red Sea.  There also is some tantilizing evidence in the Arabian desert, that has implictions about them wandering for forty years.) ]\n\nThose historical records are also meant as object lessons.  Whilst one can debate whether or not 1 Chronicles 4:10 deserves the attention it has received, it is an object lesson ---  to pray to God for help in overcoming evil, and to not cause pain to others --- in how to live.\n\nThat leaves Revelation, and the related  prophecies about the end of the world.  \nAre they understandable?  At present time, not really.\nAre they literal descriptions?  Possibly.\nAre they figurative descriptions?  Yes.  \nObject lessons in how god expects us to behave?  Yes.\n\nWhat Revelation 20 means by its usage of 1,000 years is unclear.  It probably is a literal 1000 yers, the only question as to being when, and how it occurs.
827939
The Bible is very clear when the author is speaking in parables.  It will indicate that in the notes.  Other than that I do believe it is literal.  Many people tend to use the book of Revelation as proof that the Bible can't be taken "literally."  What we have to consider is that Revelation was written by a man in Biblical times who was seeing and trying to describe events of today.  He's never seen a plane or a helicopter or a gun or a laser.  There was no technology like we have today.  His vocabulary was limited to what he knew.  Can we take Revelation literally?  Absolutely.  But we have to dig a little deeper to try to understand what the author was referencing.  God will reveal these truths to us through prayer and seeking to know and understand.
960100
You have to understand that the Bible was an oral tradition for hundreds of years.  People told the stories long before they were written down.  Do you remember the story of Goldilocks and the three bears?  Do you remember the exact words in the story from the first time you heard it?  I doubt it.  But you remember the message and could still tell the story to your children.\nWhen the Bible was first written it was in Hebrew (atleast, the Old Testament was).  You're reading an English translation.\nIn all of this, things change, and we shouldn't focus on one word "Us."\n\nMore to think about: Royalty in medieval brittain referred to themselves in the plural (i.e. "We are not amused.")  When the Bible was translated by King James (the most famous English translation) any royal attributes of the day may have been given to God as the Almighty King.  \n\nNo one knows for sure.  You could study this for years and not know.  I hope this summation here does the subject justice.\n\np.s. many people referred to the Trinity (I don't want to say they are wrong, but I don't agree with them).  \nThe trick with that is that the Trinity as a concept wasn't known to humans until the Coucil of Nicea in 325.
994244
The Bible is not the silver bullet, of course. I do believe in God and in Jesus's ressurection, however, there are parts of the Bible that sound like pure nonsense to me while other parts contain great, true wisdoms everyone should live by.
1049922
I agree that it is out of date, but I don't think that you can just go and arbitrarily change the content.  And by whose standards would it change?\n\nI think that there are many misinterpretations of the bible over the centuries.\n\nI am going to be ordering one that is supposed to be a direct translation from the orginal Aramaic New Testament to see what the difference is.  It is called The Modern New Testament : Translated from the Original Aramaic Sources by G. Lamsa.\n\nHaving said that, I also think that much of the bible directly speaks to that generation's society and political culture and therefore, not a lot of it has to do with how things are in this day and age, although I feel that Jesus taught us timeless lessons of love and acceptance and faith.  \n\nBut I don't believe that Jesus was the only master and that timeless lessons were taught by Mohammed and Buddha and many other masters as well.