Every time you point out an error/contradictions/mistraslation/something that doesn't jibe, bibleolators fall back on the literal-figurative argument and they can prove just about anything.
2006-09-09 07:12:15 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
relligas08 is joking!
2006-09-09 07:17:42 · update #1
Take it all with a grain of salt. It's fiction.
2006-09-09 07:14:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bible often uses the term “earth” in a figurative sense, referring to mankind. An example is found at Genesis 11:1, which says: “All the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words.” (See also 1 Kings 2:1, 2; Psalm 96:1.) At Revelation 21:1, “the former earth” refers, not to this planet, but to wicked human society that will be destroyed. This will open the way for the restoration of Paradise on earth. (Luke 23:43; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Revelation 21:4) And this agrees with the rest of the Bible, which indicates that the literal earth will never be destroyed. For instance, Psalm 104:5 states that God “has founded the earth upon its established places; it will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever.” (Compare Ecclesiastes 1:4.) Indeed, Jehovah ‘formed the earth to be inhabited’ eternally.—Isaiah 45:18.
“I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. I saw also the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: ‘Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.’”—Revelation 21:1-4.
Here some of the language is highly symbolic, but the idea of great blessings is unmistakable. The “new heaven” is the heavenly kingdom of Jesus Christ and his 144,000 associate kings and priests. (Romans 8:16, 17; Revelation 14:1-4; 20:4) Instead of a new earthly globe, the “new earth” is a new society of people on this very earth, all of them fully subject to Christ’s kingdom without racial, national or language divisions. (Compare Psalm 96:1.) This will follow the destruction of the present symbolic “heaven” and “earth.” The promised new earthly society will be righteous because, whereas the literal seas will remain, the figurative “sea” of restless, rebellious, ungodly people will exist no longer. Christ’s associate heavenly rulers constitute the “New Jerusalem,” a capital organization for righteous human society. God will tent with these people on earth representatively until they are fully reconciled with him through Christ, “the Lamb of God,” after a thousand year judgment day.—John 1:29, 36; Revelation 20:6.
Revelation 20:10 says: “And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet already were; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”
However, if a person gives closer consideration to this statement in Revelation he can see that it is in figurative or symbolic language. How? Well, the “wild beast” and the “false prophet” are hurled into the “lake of fire.” These are obviously not a literal beast and a single man, but are representative of organizations. (Rev. 17:8-14) Furthermore, the Bible itself goes on to explain: “And death and Hades were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire.” (Rev. 20:14) Death and Hades (mankind’s common grave) are abstract things, further showing that the “lake of fire” is symbolic. It represents absolute annihilation, permanent destruction, “the second death,” a death from which there is no recovery.
These are just a few examples of how a person can come to grips with the fact that the Bible is not contradictive, but rather, in full harmony. The key is to compare individual scriptures with others and, further, with the message of the Bible as a whole. Instead of pitting scripture against scripture, attempting to find an agreement between two seemingly contradictive verses with some scruiptural as well as secular knowledge can make clear a misunderstanding.
2006-09-09 07:23:56 · answer #2 · answered by da chet 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've never seen that "word" before, but "Bibleolaters" (or some version of it) is a very keen description of some Christians.
Speaking as a Christian myself, I believe that some of my fellow believers - particularly those of the evangelical or fundamentalist Protestant sects - have developed an unhealthy idolatry of the Word of God. In their zeal to defend every letter of the Bible as being "God-breathed" and perfect in every way, they dismiss those who can come to a genuine and deep faith in Christ without obsessing over texts. It is Jesus Christ - the Word made flesh - who came to save, not just to drop off a book by which we can save ourselves. It just doesn't work that way.
And if these Christians were as well-versed in their early church history as they claim to be in their study of Scripture, they would know about the highly raucous and spirited and politicized and controversial manner by which the canon was developed in the AD 300s. This alone should be all the evidence a person needs to convince them that the Bible, while valuable as a tool in pursuit of a relationship with the Divine, should never be presumed to be perfect itself.
2006-09-09 07:44:21 · answer #3 · answered by jimbob 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically it's all just a bunch of guys talking, as I recall. So take the stories having been told as being true, but the stories as false. Or somethign like that. I don't really believe in any of it. Not worth my time. Tch!
2006-09-09 07:17:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bible is one of the oldest known written pornographic works.
If the bible was made into an unedited movie, it would be rated "X."
It is a work of mythological porn, nothing more or less. And, should not be taken literally at all.
2006-09-09 07:22:42 · answer #5 · answered by Left the building 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Can't help but agree with you. It doesn't make sense if some of it's literal and some is figurative. I'd think that it would have to be either/or to be infallible.
2006-09-09 07:17:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The parts we take literally are the parts that we know can happen (Jonah and the whale, Jesus' death and resurrection, the flood, etc) and the part we take figuratively are the parts that are clearly metaphors.
2006-09-09 07:15:45 · answer #7 · answered by rillegas08 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Take it all to be figurative. As long as you are obeying a figurative Bible you won't take things too far.
Let the Holy Spirit guide your actions.
2006-09-09 07:29:12 · answer #8 · answered by theogodwyn 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's all up to you. If it makes sense and works for you, then you should take it literally, if not, then take it figuratively.
2006-09-09 07:14:27 · answer #9 · answered by tomleah_06 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The best approach is to see it all as nonsense.
2006-09-09 07:15:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋