taking the bible literally...?

Question

the reason why there are 4 gospels (among the dozens of gospels written) is because Irenaeus of Lyons, in the 2nd century thought this was the logical number to add to the Bible, his reasoning being that the compass had 4 directions, so naturally, the Bible should have 4 gospels. Other gospels (such as the gospel of Judas) were discarded without any particular archeological or scientific reasons.

In the centuries following the crusifiction, multiple branches of christianity existed, most of them were persecuted and many seized to exist. Many parts of the Bible were written down long after the crusifiction, and much of the christianity we know today has been heavily affected by the corrupt balances of power that existed many centuries ago.

How can people still take something so vague as the Bible so literal? I am not atheist, and I do believe there is a God, but I cannot take something which has been the foundation of so much abuse, many wars and so much suffering, literal.

If God wouldn't let his followers follow a book that wasn't perfect, then why would he let his followers follow a book that was edited by humans, and interprated as they please?

shaolt2002: Credible science, yes i do, because science is a human creation.

Answer 1

There is enough harmony in the new testament to give it credibility.

There was an incredible amount of care that went into compiling the King James version.

"The entire New Testament was written in Greek except for some passages that were written in Aramaic. The section of the bible sometimes referred to as the Septuagint, is the Old Testament translated from the original Hebrew into Greek by seventy notable scholars during the period of Greek supremacy during the period 300 BC and 285 BC. Greek was a more perfect form of language than Latin and it was still in wide use even during the period of Roman supremacy. Thus explains the use of Greek in the writings of the New Testament. Therefore the scholars who translated copies of the original scrolls into English needed only to concentrate their main efforts on the Hebrew and Greek and yet they referred to as many translations as were available to ascertain the accuracy of their work."

Just prior to the coronation of King James I, there was a meeting of a group of bishops and Puritan clergymen at the Hampton Court Conference in the interest of religious toleration. A chance remark regarding the mistranslations in existing versions of the English bible led to the movement for a new and better translation. After the accession of King James another conference was held at the Hampton Court to investigate matters thought to be amiss in the church. A Dr. Reynolds of Oxford made the motion that a new version of the Bible should be prepared to eliminate confusion being caused by some inaccurate translations that were circulating. His suggestion met with approval from his colleagues and also of the king. With the aid of the university, the king nominated fifty-four revisers, selecting the best Hebrew and Greek scholars of the day. This was in 1604 AD. It was not until 1607 that these translators actually began their labors, and only forty-seven of the fifty-four participated, the work was completed and published in 1611. It appears evident, however, that the three years which lapsed between the appointment of these translators and the date when the work was actually begun were employed in the preliminary preparations and in profound research by many, if not all of those who engaged in the undertaking. It may be stated safely that seven years were required for the completion of the translation known as the "King James" or "authorized version," for the preliminary work was, perhaps, more important than the actual labor involved in the translation.
The scholars were divided into six companies or classes, two each from Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Elaborate rules covering in detail every phase of the work to be done were given to each group; letters were sent to all noted scholars of the realm asking those skilled in languages to send their observations on certain passages; and in cases of difficult and obscure passages help was to be requested of the most learned outside the committee. Certain books were assigned to each group and that work was then to be reviewed by all of the other groups in turn. They each had a turn in examining each other’s work. Corrections were made and the entire work was then reviewed by the full committee of translators. The entire project was reviewed again and again such that some portions were revised as much as seventeen times.
Is it any wonder than that the translation made by this notable company of scholars has survived and increased in favor and use for so long a period of time? It holds the place of pre-eminence in literature of all ages and will continue to do so until Jesus returns to gather unto Himself His own.
This version of the Holy Bible is commonly known as the “The Authorized Version,” and yet there is no record of sanction by King, Parliament, or any other such organization. The only authorization in the production of this version was in the act of King James in appointing the scholars who carried to completion the task; and yet it is often called “The King James Version.”

Answer 2

Everything in the old testament is a shadow and a copy of the things in the new testament. One problem that people have made these days is that they have taken the Bible TOO literally. Honestly, if everything in Revelation was literal, would it make sense? We all know it wouldn't make sense, but most people can't figure out how it would make sense so they just believe that everything in Revelations will happen as-they-are. God has a way of making things make sense and if that dosen't seem to click then maybe you should stop going to run of the mill Baptist Churches and start looking for something new, and trust me, it's out there. Once you see it, you'll never look back. The Bible isn't just some 'instruction' on morals and the way you should live your life, it's a book of prophecy. Parables arn't ment to be taken literally, so take your time and look deeper. Everything has a hidden meaning.

Answer 3

It's not the question of taking the Bible literally or not. You need to take the principle from it rather than try to enforce the justice system of the biblical times. It was wrong to be gay during the Bible times. It is the same today. It was wrong to be disobedient in Bible times. It is the same today. As for the stoning, we live under the justice system of our own country. Each country has it own laws agreed upon. During the Bible times that was the law agreed upon. The laws of today are not based on the Bible and so certain things may not be considered wrong according to the present laws. That does not make them right.

Answer 4

Christians must take the Word of God literally. When God commanded man to do the Ten Commandments, men must follow them. When Jesus, the Son of God said: "You must Love one another, as I have loved you," his disciples must follow it. There are statements in the Bible that must be followed literally. But there are so much in Bible that must not be taken literally. Why? Because, on the first place, the words written in the Bible are not all intended to modern man as precepts; their value maybe simply to inform us, warn us, entertain us, make us wonder, etc.

The claim of the Bible's inspiration does not mean it is inerrant. The Church has an indispensable part in the formation, interpretation and proclamation of the Bible. Without the believing church, the book called the bible could not have achieved its inspirational value.

Most of the time, the people of the Book - the fundamentalists- miss the spirit of the book.

I better have a church less well-versed with the biblical wordings yet with the Holy Spirit guiding it; than have a group of members who are being indoctrinated with the Words from the Holy Book, without the Spirit uniting them.

Answer 5

Speaking of the Gnostic authorship of the Gospel of Judas, Irenaeus said:

"They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas."

Gnostics had a real problem with early Christian's acceptance of the basic goodness of the material world God had made. They had a long history of forging "gospels" suited to make their point. Problem was, Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a direct student of the Apostle John. Irenaeus knew all the facts of the Apostolic version of the Gospel, and was easily able to spot the Gnostic forgery. Thus, your statement that such imitation gospels were eliminated arbitrarily is completely false. The Apostle John went so far as to identify them with the antichrist spirit:

"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." 1John 4:3.

The Gnostics denied Jesus came in the flesh because they could not tolerate the idea of a divine being getting contaminated with something as awful as a human physical body. Their distortions of the historical facts of the life of Jesus thus always tend to deny his material being in some way. This is a problem for Christians, because Jesus had to really be one of us in order to be able to die for us, the central theme of Christianity. That is why John considered it the work of the antichrist spirit, because it destroys the understanding of the one hope people have of forgiveness before God, the death and resurrection of the God-Man, Jesus Christ.

Answer 6

Besides the other "gospels" which were not included in the King James Bible, generally accepted by Protestants as the authoritative Word of God, there are also many other books which were left out of the scriptural canon. The Douway version of the Bible, fully accepted as the Word of God by Roman Catholics and others, has several books which are not recognized as the Word of God by Protestants. In addition to that, there are many, many books which were believed to be God's Word by early Christians and Jews of various sects, but which are not recognized by either the modern Catholic or Protestant faiths.

What it seems to boil down to is this: The inerrant, infallible, perfect Word of God consists of whatever books you personally have been taught to believe are the definitive Word of God, to the exclusion of all others, regardless of what anyone else believes. To some people, one book is God's perfect and complete word, to others a different book, or a different version, is God's perfect and complete word. To some, this ultimately means that no book can be reliably considered to be the perfect Word of God.

If God does exist, it seems He could find a much better way of communicating with us humans than through hundreds or even thousands of books which may be beautifully written, but are often illogical, contradictory, or verifiably false.

Answer 7

Because of curiosity and doctrine that the Bible should be taken into account. But of what is written in the Bible, people are adamant, defensive and vigilant for the sake of their children... they are always on the look-out for something about God which they know is within their premises and relationships that others who have read it might be involving them in the process. People become defensive especially after Jesus was crucified, to mention Jews, Christians, Romans, unbelievers, Apostles... and etchetera.

Answer 8

I agree with you, but I think the Bible we have today has gone under many changes, since it's been translated down from many ancient languages and copied by monks, who have maybe made mistakes or added stuff.
The Bible I think should not be the base of one's life or taken literally, but be looked on for guidance. I'm not Christian myself, but I have read the Bible and it offers much wisdom, though there are things I don't agree with.
The wars and abuse I think are caused by fanatics, or people who justify their wickedness by saying it's the word of God.
Therefore in all, it's not the Bible's fault, it's actually the decisions that people have made which causes suffering.

Answer 9

that's good. Not all of the bible is literal. Many things are figurative. If you believe in God, trust him. I do and I believe that God would not let his followers follow the teachings of a book for thousand if it was not perfect in his eyes. this is my belief and food for thought.

Answer 10

Read up on the Council of Nicea if you want a good eye-opener on how a small group of men made Christianity what it is. It is they who threw out the collection of books called The Apocrypha (which includes the writings of Judas an Mary Magdalene).