Perhaps an old question, perhaps an obvious one

[southernmissfan]

What's "true" and what's "not true" when it comes to the Bible? What should be interpreted literally and what should not? And so on. And how does one determine this? If interpretation is a valid method of reading the Bible (i.e. not a literal reading), what does that say about the standing of the Bible in general? In this case, how is it that much different from any other written work? If the Bible is to be read literally, my questions should be self-evident in the passages below (i.e. do you promote/follow through with the messages of the various passages?), but I will ask them anyway. Here are some of my favorites, though it is by no means a complete list:

Lev.20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (If a man has sex with another man, both must be killed. Agree or disagree?)Lev. 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Those involved with adultery should be executed. Agree or disagree?)
1 Samuel 15:2-3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (This massacre was justified. Agree or disagree?)http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/womens_rights.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/incest.html

Let's start from there.

 

[calidog]

What's "true" and what's "not true" when it comes to the Bible? What should be interpreted literally and what should not? And so on. And how does one determine this?

If one finds the scripture hard to understand, perhaps we should read it to a child and then ask the child what was said.


Mat 18:3 And He said, Truly I say to you, Unless you convert and become as the little children, not at all can you enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Allow the little children and do not prevent them to come to Me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.

 

[southernmissfan]

I'm not sure I'd want to read Lev. to a child.

 

[calidog]

Perhaps in time they could read it themselves.

 

[ebia]

What's "true" and what's "not true" when it comes to the Bible?

It's all true, but it's not all factual.

What should be interpreted literally and what should not?

All of it has to be read taking into account:
the genre of literature under examination
the culture and circumstances in which it was delivered
where it fits in the grand narative.
and so on.

And so on. And how does one determine this? If interpretation is a valid method of reading the Bible

There is no alternative. Any reading, even a "literal" one, is an interpretation.

(i.e. not a literal reading), what does that say about the standing of the Bible in general?

That it is a form of communication like any any other - that requires the 'reader' to make meaning of the text.

In this case, how is it that much different from any other written work?

The bible is limited by human language, human communication, and human readers. It therefore shares many of the characteristics of an other text.

If the Bible is to be read literally,

Not only is it absurd to read the whole bible literally, it's actually impossible.

Lev.20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (If a man has sex with another man, both must be killed. Agree or disagree?)Lev. 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Those involved with adultery should be executed. Agree or disagree?)

Is part of a Law, delivered to Israel (not to the world), and fulfilled in Christ. The Law has much to teach us, but we are not bound to the letter of it because it couldn't do what needed to be done.

1 Samuel 15:2-3 "Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (This massacre was justified. Agree or disagree?)

If it happened, it was not justified. However, it probably never happened (at least, God never said what he is quoted as saying). The truth of 1 Samuel is not determined by its historical accuracy but where it fits in the grand narative of Adam-Abraham-Israel-David-Christ-us-.

 

[heron]

I'm not sure I'd want to read Lev. to a child.

Good thinking.

One of the ways you could approach this -- the laws of Moses were given to govern a group of people who had just come out of slavery, and were in transition.

In Egypt, the Israelites had such tight control that they had no say in their government, and probably lost so many religious freedoms that they had lost much of their faith heritage.

An estimated 2 million people just up and left in one day. Imagine being the person assigned to coordinate and lead a group this size.... who were probably more revved than kids on the last day of school.

I see the laws more as community standards than religious. The people were in transit, so they had no building structures -- no prisons, no police offices, no hospitals. Everything had to be workable in a nomadic structure.

Rules about hygeine had to consider how tightly-packed everyone was. Here's a discussion on meningitis --

A published study "...took a look at the infection rate among 2,500 students at the University of Nottingham in the U.K. The researchers examined the students and found that the number carrying the infection increased dramatically over a four-day period at the start of their fall term. By December, one third of the students tested were found to be carrying the bacteria."

Then think about what happened with HIV and AIDS in Africa. Someone needs to protect people from the spread of disease; it can't just be left up to individuals.

We would all admit that killing as a sentence was harsh, but think of the alternatives -- excommunication would leave a person stranded in the desert to fend for themselves. Allowing too much personal freedom would spread STD's and create too many innocent victims. This is a significant problem on college campuses today, where students have sudden freedom, and infect each other carelessly.

http://www.cdcnpin.org/scripts/index.asp

So Moses and God together set up a CDC, a Board of Public Health, a judicial system...on and on... to keep everyone alive.

 

[HypnoToad]

What's "true" and what's "not true" when it comes to the Bible?

It's all true.

What should be interpreted literally and what should not? And so on. And how does one determine this?

Basically, determined by context.

Lev.20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (If a man has sex with another man, both must be killed. Agree or disagree?)

Depends on what you mean by "agree/disagree".

I believe this is literal, and this was an actual law. BUT, what most skeptics don't understand, is that this is old covenant, between God and Israel. Christians today are under the new covenant with God. Homosexuality is still sinful, but we are not commanded to kill them.

Lev. 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Those involved with adultery should be executed. Agree or disagree?)

Again, this was literal. And, again, while still sinful under the new covenant, the death penalty is not commanded.

1 Samuel 15:2-3

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (This massacre was justified. Agree or disagree?)http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/incest.html

Justified. God is sovereign over all life and has the authority to determine when it ends.

 

[heron]

Something you might think about, is the nuances of the terms "sin," "missing the mark," "evil," "corrupt," and on.

Some of the human offenses God speaks against were humans oppressing other humans (sin against others)... certain others were humans missing the best life for themselves (sin against self). We tend to lump them all in together as WRONG.

We need to continually hold ourselves up to self-scrutiny, because there are vague distinctions --even within the rules, we hurt people unintentionally, drink until we're not remembering what our friends just said, forget to return things we borrow, flirt beyond what's safe.

Rules are there to remind us of guidelines and boudaries, because we have to admit that we can't always be trusted.

 

[Key]

What's "true" and what's "not true" when it comes to the Bible? What should be interpreted literally and what should not? And so on. And how does one determine this? If interpretation is a valid method of reading the Bible (i.e. not a literal reading), what does that say about the standing of the Bible in general? In this case, how is it that much different from any other written work? If the Bible is to be read literally, my questions should be self-evident in the passages below (i.e. do you promote/follow through with the messages of the various passages?), but I will ask them anyway. Here are some of my favorites, though it is by no means a complete list:

I know.. I have read more of those "Lists" then I care to admit.. and beyond an argument by outrage.. they are all quite sad and limited to tell the truth..

But I guess.. people have.. only what they have...

To answer your questions however...

Lev.20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (If a man has sex with another man, both must be killed. Agree or disagree?)

I would have to agree that this was one of the Laws of Moses.. and it was carried out..

Lev. 20:10

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Those involved with adultery should be executed. Agree or disagree?)

Again.. I would have to agree that this is one of the Laws of Moses.. and if I was Jewish.. I would be expected to carry out this sentence.

1 Samuel 15:2-3

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (This massacre was justified. Agree or disagree?)http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/womens_rights.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/incest.html

Let's start from there.

The Massacre was Justified.. as it was the Command of the Lord.. and it hurt the Jews equally.. but that would be it's own history lesson...


However...

I am not Jewish.. I am Christian..

And all those lovely laws of the OT that people try to bring up.. regarding putting people to death and stoning and all that fun stuff.. really.. the level of antisemitic they posses is bar none the highest I have ever seen.. and the irony is.. none of this applies to a Christian..

But then again.. I expect this level of misunderstanding from sites and lists like this.. it's really just run on the mill straw grasping...

Hope this Helps...

God Bless

Key

 

[southernmissfan]

Talking about the OT makes you anti-Semitic?

 

[heron]

Killing is an extreme form of punishment, but just remember that they didn't have all the technology that we have now -- vaccines,
precision weapons that seek out targets, mass communication for tolerance/drug-free/diversity education... and warfare between cities then was common. (Probably kill or be killed.)

Sodom often comes up in discussion. Travelers feared this city, because its citizens raped visitors as normal practice. Beds were set up in the streets. People were stolen from, treated like objects. When angels came to visit Lot, "all the people from the limits" of the city wanted to rape them.


The only reason I can imagine for killing the farm animals, is that people careless about intercourse are not always discriminate about their choice of mate. Need I say more.

Not only would STD's could have been carried in any of those seemingly innocent beings, but their lives might have been miserable, living in continued abuse.

Ezekiel 16:5
An eye did not have pity on you to do to you one of these [hygeine in taking care of a baby], to have compassion on you. But you were thrown into the face of the field, for your person was loathed in the day you were born. ...

And you have taken your sons and your daughters whom you have borne to Me, and you sacrificed these to them for food. Are your fornications small?
​

We don't know the situation, and can't possibly speak for what someone said thousands of years ago. An individual Christian today would not make the decision to destroy an entire city, even if they were a world leader. (Stifle your temptations to spin a tangent!!)

What would you have done to protect people? If you were a ruler of a neighboring town, would you let the abuses continue, or try to protect the innocent and influence toward justice?

You could ignore the city, but their influence would spread, and your constituents would be harmed when visiting the city. Would an embassy be safe there? What would happen to your citizens during a military battle with them? The decision isn't easy.

We read the Bible for personal inspiration, but the Old Testament is full of historical records about a nation.

Eze 16:49
Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters. Also, she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.


​

 

[Key]

Talking about the OT makes you anti-Semitic?

No.. talking about it.. is fine...

Trying to rip it apart and say that this is horribly wrong.. evil.. that the people that believe this are disgusting.. and what have you... is...

See.. these are OT laws.. as such they are Jewish Laws.. written by the Jews.. for the Jews... as such.. to try and "rip" on them.. just means you are "ripping" on the Jewish Religion.. which makes you antisemitic...

quite simple when you look at it...

The only sad part is.. people do this, and think (wrongly) that they are attacking the Christian Faith... but that is the nature of these types of people and their vain and pathetic attempts to try and tear down the path left by Jesus.

As a Christian.. none of that.. really has any bearing on my Belief, or my Lord and Savior Christ.

Tell you what.. when you get something that has bearing to a Christian.. I'll let you know.

God Bless

Key.

 

[heron]

If interpretation is a valid method of reading the Bible (i.e. not a literal reading), what does that say about the standing of the Bible in general?

Approach it just the way you see it. Don't try to sort out the inspirational aspect right now, but start reading it as a book of records.

Each section of the book was written with a different purpose, and sometimes addressed a different group of people. To see it as one congealed lump is a more contemporary view of the Bible.

Just imagine who each writer was, and why they wanted to record each part.