/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13789312]

Question for all the Christians here: (Don't worry, I'm not here to pass judgement) Do you take the stories in the Bible literally or not?

[Anonymous No.13789330]

>>13789312
I take them literally

[Anonymous No.13789340]

>>13789312
100%.

[Anonymous No.13789342]

>>13789312
Only prots take them all literally.

[Anonymous No.13789346]

>>13789312
what do you mean by literally? as in they happened, word for word, with how the people who compiled the bible recite them? that would be pretty stupid given the amount of translations that it has gone through.

[Anonymous No.13789365]

>>13789312
I wholeheartedly take the miracles and virginity and ascension of Jesus and Mary as gospel in the new testament. I believe there was a Moses, David, and Solomon etc but that a lot of the old testament are myths. In otherwords, I believe in this book too.

[Anonymous No.13789370]

I've never read the bible but acting like a religious fundamentalist irl and online is fun

[Anonymous No.13789436]

>>13789312
>Do you take the stories in the Bible literally or not?

Depends on the story. The OT is not something I have much faith in the historicity of. E.g. things like Exodus. Other stuff I simply cannot interpret in a literal manner, like Genesis. What is a day without a sun? 24 hours? If so, the phenomenal experience of time is relative to many physical conditions, so to whom does it appear as 24 hours? God? Is God's experience of a period of 24 hours the same as my experience of it? And so one. As for the NT, much more literally, as in I think it's historical. Do I believe each word said by Jesus is meant to be taken in a universal and literal manner? No, because I wouldn't be able to make any action without contradicting some other part of the NT. Thus I engage in a healthy dose of casuistry, and let the NT form a base of principles upon which I judge potential actions, knowing full well simultaneously satisfying all principles to their highest degrees is impossible, necessitating trade-offs and seeking a prudential course, not a perfect one.

Hope that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.13789458]

Some are, some aren't, and some are a mix. We're talking about a collection of 73 different books, some of them with multiple authors written in all sorts of different genres and directed at different audiences spanning thousands of years. What your question amounts to is walking into a modern library and asking whether or not all those books are literal. It's a bad question.

[Anonymous No.13789673]

Since Reverend Doctors now declare
That clerks and people must prepare
To doubt if Adam ever were;
To hold the flood a local scare;
To argue, though with stolid stare,
That everything had happened ere,
The prophets to its happening sware;
That David was no giant-slayer,
Nor one to call a God-obeyer
In certain details we would spare,
But rather was a debonair
Shrewd bandit, skilled as banjo-player:
That Solomon sang the fleshly Fair,
And gave the Church no thought whate'er,
That Esther with her royal wear,
And Mordecai, the son of Jair,
And Joshua's triumphs, Job's despair,
And Balaam's ass's bitter blare;
Nebuchadnezzar's furnace-flare,
And Daniel and the den affair,
And other stories rich and rare,
Were writ to make old doctrine wear
Something of a romantic air:
That the Nain widow's only heir,
And Lazarus with cadaverous glare
(As done in oils by Piombo's care)
Did not return from Sheol's lair:
That Jael set a findish snare,
That Pontius Pilate acted square,
That never a sword cut Malchus' ear;
And (but for shame I must forbear)
That - - - - - did not reappear!...
Since thus they hint, nor turn a hair,
All churchgoing will I forswear,
And sit on Sundays in my chair,
And read that moderate man Voltaire.

[Old Man No.13789732]

>>13789312
Some stories are to be taken literally, others not. I can tell you which because I am not a theologist or well-versed with regards to the Bible

[Anonymous No.13789740]

>>13789312
Yes. It is a historical record.

[Anonymous No.13790008]

Not

[Anonymous No.13790019]

Wouldn't it be cool if some of the stories written were true though? What's the use of thinking they're false? What good does it do?

[Anonymous No.13790025]

>>13789312
I mostly take an interpretationist view of the OT and I take most of the NT seriously.

[Anonymous No.13790029]

Yes, unless basic common sense tells you it is a metaphor. But even then the lesson/consequences should be taken literally.

[Old Man No.13790187]

>>13790019

[Anonymous No.13790269]

>>13790019
A genuinely good question. Even if the stories in the OT are somewhat myth, why believe some scientific nonsense over them, as a Christian?

[Anonymous No.13790354]

>>13790269
Because not all of us want to be seen as or be closed minded science deniers

[Old Man No.13790523]

>>13790354
We are "fools" in Christ. All the wisdom of this world serves only to "puff up" and "tear down" and is quite worthless because death washes away everything. Then Earth will die and man's legacies will also die, and there will be nothing left of man.

[Anonymous No.13790921]

>>13790523
yes but denying facts is a bit dumb

[Anonymous No.13790932]

No they are just stories. Anyone who looks at it on a literal level, whether in belief or disbelief, is a literal retard

[Anonymous No.13790936]

>>13790932
are you christian?

[Anonymous No.13790960]

>>13790269
Science is always changing every few generations the science as we know it is torn down and proven wrong. Not to say science isn’t important but a connection with god can be eternal and everlasting even after our physical form has passed away.

[Anonymous No.13791490]

>>13789312
Some take them literally, others (Catholics, and Orthodox too I think) don't.
Do I take it literally? Yes and no. Peter wrote that time is different to God. So, perhaps the Earth is older than 6,000 years, and it took longer to make the Earth than 6 days. But then perhaps the established geological record that is based on choosing what method of chemical dating to do that is based on strata is janked. Or perhaps our historical timeline that is based on fragmentary king lists in Egypt and the Sumerian kings list is janked.
We just cant know anon. I do tend to lean more toward a literal translation because, that's faith

[Anonymous No.13791513]

Read about the way the fathers used to read scripture; origen, dionysius, cappadocians, augustine, esp. maximus confessor etc.pp for them it isn't an either/or literally/allegorical, but all at the same time, so even the literal history has allegorical and spiritual meaning; if u rly wanna understand scripture uncuck yourself from ur modern presuppositions

[Anonymous No.13791522]

>>13790019
The real redpill is that it doesn't matter whether the stories are true or false in the literalist's sense, it has no bearing on the true meaning and wealth of the stories either way. The usefulness of this viewpoint is that one who believes this is free to focus on the true importance of the stories while simultaneously being immune to the autistic quibbling that accompanies the literalist's point of view.

[Anonymous No.13791524]

Both.

[Anonymous No.13791530]

>>13789312
Origen said :
“The individual ought, then, to portray the ideas of holy Scripture in a threefold manner upon his own soul; in order that the simple man may be edified by the ‘flesh,’ as it were, of the Scripture. For so we name the obvious sense. While he who has ascended a certain way may be edified by the ‘soul,’ as it were. The perfect man, again, […] may receive edification from the spiritual law […]. For as man consists of body, and soul, and spirit, so in the same way does Scripture […].”
>litteral meaning
>moral/ethical meaning
>spiritual meaning
There can be no litteral (historical for example) meaning in a passage of the holy scriptures, but there is always a spiritual one, as Origen says.

[Anonymous No.13791533]

>>13791530
>There can be no litteral (historical for example) meaning in a passage of the holy scriptures, but there is always a spiritual one
That is heretical

[Anonymous No.13791571]

>>13791533
coward

[Anonymous No.13791600]

>>13789312
>Do you take the stories in the Bible literally
No.

[Anonymous No.13791608]

>>13791533
t. protie

Some passages of the bible are contradictory, or just illogical litteraly.

[Anonymous No.13791612]

>>13789312

OP, there has never been a single sincere Christian who posts on 4chan. Not one time, not one post. You should know that.

[Anonymous No.13791705]

Depends on the story. The medical textbook chapters about how to diagnose leprosy I take literally. Christ's parables I take as parables.

[Anonymous No.13791710]

>>13791612
Jesus harrowed Hell.

[Anonymous No.13791714]

>>13789312
The virgin birth of our glorious lady the theotokos, the miracles, death, resurrection and ascension in full visual glory of our lord Christ I take as literal truth. The story of the apostles in Acts i take as historical as well as Paul’s letters (they ARE historical documents).
As for the OT, it’s complicated. How do you understand Genesis literally?>>13789436 touches on it too.
I believe the historical books in broad strokes (there was a David figure and so on), but recognize that a lot of it is folk legend. The prophetic books I understand typologically with reference to NT.

[Anonymous No.13791734]

>>13791533
>>13791608
not accepting historicity of the bible is heretical and leds to atheism, and comes for dumb scientism.

[Anonymous No.13791744]

>>13789312
I used to be skeptical about a lot of the stories in Genesis like the garden of Eden and the Flood, but then I realized that I couldn't faithfully take the words of Jesus Christ to be true in the NT if I didn't also faithfully take the words of the Holy Spirit to be true in the OT.

All of the biblical scriptures, excluding the pseudepigrapha, were written down through direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I take that on faith, but there's enough evidence from biblical prophecy alone to see why much of the bible wouldn't exist in the form it does unless there was divine inspiration when it was written down.

So I believe that if you're a Christian and you believe that the scriptures are the inspired word of God, then you have no choice but to accept the historicity of the bible as its told to us.

[Anonymous No.13791776]

>>13791744
Yikes mate

[Anonymous No.13791782]

>>13789330
>>13789740
>>13789340

Cringy

t. muslim who knows that everything in the Quran has not happened 100% accurately

[Anonymous No.13792662]

>>13789312
The NT is all literal while the OT is a mix of allegory and historical events

[Anonymous No.13792680]

>>13789365
Biblical literalism has been the ideology of the Catholic Church for most of history. Believing that “a lot of the old testament [is a] myth.” Vatican II niggers aren’t even Catholic.

[Anonymous No.13792692]

>>13791744
The people who wrote the Bible would laugh in your face at your idiocy. Ancient people had mythological thinking, something that the diseased Modern mind is seemingly incapable of grasping. The garden of Eden is a mythological story, and as such not a de facto representation of the origins of mankind, but must be understood allegorically. This is the case with virtually all of ancient texts, be it Christian or say Buddhist ones. It does not mean that the garden of Eden is any less 'real'.

[Anonymous No.13792696]

>>13791608
There are no contradictions in the Bible, you probably only think there are because you don’t know the Bible very well and only take an unthinking surface interpretation of isolated passages from scripture. If you read the entire Bible in context there is not a single contradiction.

[Anonymous No.13792701]

>>13792662
Other way around

[Anonymous No.13792706]

>>13792696
t. believes the Earth is flat. It's in the Bible by the way :)

[Anonymous No.13792710]

>>13792692
Imagine being spooked enough to claim you can know what someone who lived 3500 years ago would do or think if confronted with any modern situation. You don’t know anything about the people who wrote the Bible. Stop projecting your ideas onto the past.

[Anonymous No.13792713]

>>13792706
The Bible does not say the Earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.13792720]

>>13792680
The "biblical literalism" of the Catholic church is not the biblical literalism we speak of today, which arose due to to prots fucking everything up. You're being intentionally misleading.

From the Catcheism, paragraph 115: "According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses."

Paragraph 116: "The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: 'All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.'"

[Anonymous No.13792737]

>>13792720
>one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual
Yes, as in all Scripture has both a literal sense and a spiritual sense. Literal AND spiritual, not literal OR spiritual. You can’t deny the literal sense. All scripture has multiple layers, meanings and applications, of course.

[Anonymous No.13792747]

Old Testament? Sometimes. I believe some stories are parables.
New Testament? Yes.
I'm Catholic, I don't know if it matters to your question.

[Anonymous No.13792756]

>>13792737
What are you trying to argue? Catholic literalism is defined in paragraph 116, it includes sound interpretation (provided by the church), and primarily looks at the meaning that is conveyed by scripture.

Biblical literalism as on the rise in the US even among Catholics thanks to prots fucking everything up is opposed to Catholic literalism, as it rejects any interpretation at all. I mean, this is essential to Christian history, as it directly arises out of Luther challenging the Catholic church on its monopoly on the interpretation of the Bible.

[Anonymous No.13792764]

>>13792756
I’m arguing in response to the claim made of the old testament being largely mythological, which is heretical as fuck.

[卐 No.13792777]

>>13789312
No. The Bible belongs to mythopoetic works. That doesn’t make it less important, rather that mythopoeia should be taken very seriously, and it’s not. If you read any great book of science they always, in some subtle way, borrow the deliverance of small claims about their data to describe some sort of grand narrative. This impulse is due to the fact that the narrative is a reflection of how we sequence or “make sense” (i.e. being, sameness, difference, time, and space). Any work of science wishes to achieve implications that go beyond the data, because it was implicit in the very motive to collect it. We are surrounded by stories. The ancient poets knew this better than we did. Therefore, fiction proper, is always a truer reflection of the real. I do believe the real is given to us in the form of a puzzle, but what’s startling is the deception. Since the object is only known by subject and the subject only known by the object, it follows that this is as much self deception as it is “the veil of maya”. So ancient poems, whether that’s Parmemides or Plato or Hermès or even, yes, Works of the Bible and the Quran, are purposefully told in a deceptive way and this subtlety was appreciated by those in the know, because those who did not know were still those who were deceiving themselves. You know when you read a Dr Seuss book, say the Sneetches, and you realize what it’s REALly about, that smile and nod of the head is the Truth. And that kind of deliverance is as old as literature itself. Great writers of all times have always known this and my own relationship with the tradition moves only in so far as I can discover these authors and their works. For me it’s a kind of tonic or vaccine, it’s full of deception, I mean your reading letters, right now, you are already removed from “the phenomenon”- it is a testament to the fact that people to this day are still deceiving themselves when they think that anything “real” exists except only the shape and spaces within and around the sign(s) themselves.

[Anonymous No.13792822]

>>13792777
>swastika in name and Pitbull as pic
Why?

[Anonymous No.13792825]

>>13792822
Attention whore. Don’t reply to namefags or avatarfags.

[卐 No.13792926]

>>13792822
Because I am a fascist dog.

>>13792825
True. Reply to the content, this isn’t a place for anons to socialize. This board is a strictly designated meeting ground for people to discuss literature and, most importantly, for me and my baby butterfly

[Anonymous No.13793053]

>>13792692
The ancient mind is to the modern mind as the modern mind is to the autist mind.

[Anonymous No.13793297]

>>13789312
Regarding the Histories, I think that Abraham and afterwards literally happened -- i.e. Genesis 12 and after. What occurs before that in Genesis is "true" but it isn't literal in the same sense that the history of Abraham's family is. It certainly isn't a reliable calendar although the order of events is. The Flood occurred.

Regarding the prophets, I am open to the idea that Job and possibly Jonah are parables. I don't think it particularly matters.

[Anonymous No.13793300]

>>13791734
>>13792696
>In pic related "catholicism" does not mean papism but the catholic (meaning universal) orthodox faith.

[Anonymous No.13793337]

>>13793300
Origen was a pretty problematic character with a bunch of idiosyncratic stances on a lot of issues, examplar gratia universal salvation.

[Anonymous No.13793369]

>>13793300
Anti-literalists are reduced to quoting anathematized heretics like Origen because they have no-one better. Kekking heartily.

[Anonymous No.13793812]

>>13793369
>not understanding genesis as an elaborate metaphor for agrarian civilization

[Anonymous No.13793827]

>>13789312
It would be like taking an 80's movie seriously. Do you actually know what happens in Judges?

>15But when the children of Israel cried unto the LORD, the LORD raised them up a deliverer, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a man lefthanded: and by him the children of Israel sent a present unto Eglon the king of Moab. 16But Ehud made him a dagger which had two edges, of a cubit length; and he did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh. 17And he brought the present unto Eglon king of Moab: and Eglon was a very fat man. 18And when he had made an end to offer the present, he sent away the people that bare the present. 19But he himself turned again from the quarries that were by Gilgal, and said, I have a secret errand unto thee, O king: who said, Keep silence. And all that stood by him went out from him. 20And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting in a summer parlour, which he had for himself alone. And Ehud said, I have a message from God unto thee. And he arose out of his seat. 21And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly

[Anonymous No.13793847]

>>13793827
Its kind of hilarious how Christians try to make these brutal stories digestible for children. And then they complain about what's on TV.

[Anonymous No.13793919]

>I'm Catholic, and I regularly use the word nigger to demean black people (Ethiopians have been Orthodox for 1000+ years)
>I'm Catholic, and I regularly call women sluts to shame and insult them (Jesus was a good friend to a prostitute)
>I'm Catholic, and I think it's okay to defy the pope because I don't like him
>I'm Catholic, and I literally and unironically think everyone who attends mass in a language other than English is going t o hell

[Anonymous No.13793982]

>>13793919
>I'm a catholic
>I literally think an Argentinian old man living 2000 years after Jesus' ministry has the authority to change Christian doctrine

[Anonymous No.13794130]

They're obviously metaphors and the point of church is the preacher interpreting the book to modern times

[Anonymous No.13794187]

>>13789312
The world we live in, which is ruled temporarily by Satan himself, tries its best to make it hard for the sojourners to believe the bible in a literal sense. But once you break some conditioning and see through the lies of the world, it becomes easier to take it literally as it is the true Word of God.

Ephesians 6:12 KJV
>For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

[Anonymous No.13794198]

>>13793369
>>13793337
You didn't addressed the point. I don't have to answer your sophist ad hominem that are just prrof of your incapacity to give a real answer.

All the christian tradition (fathers of the church and contemporary orthodox theologians) always quote Origen, have a little respect.

[Anonymous No.13794207]

>>13794187
Don't tell me you think the earth is flat tho,

[Anonymous No.13794217]

>>13793369
>Ken Ham isn't a de facto anathematized heretic

[Anonymous No.13794221]

>>13794187
>OSAS

disgusting.

[Anonymous No.13794239]

>>13794198
>Ever since the 18th century Enlightenment, people have tended to become polarized over the issue of reading the Bible. On one side we find “biblical literalists,” those who read the sacred writings as though they were primarily history books that present us with a series of facts and events on everything from the creation of the world (in six calendar days) to the Second Coming (with trumpets from Heaven, a place “up there”). On the other side there are scholars who adopt a historical-critical approach that has little confidence in the historical accuracy of biblical texts, but focuses rather on the content and argument of a given writing, the circumstances that gave rise to it, and its function within the community of faith.

>Although these approaches seem to be poles apart, they are identical in one major respect. They both assume that the only real meaning to be found in Scripture is the “literal” one.

All literalist or the people refuting the bible by refuting it's literal understanding are the same. They are all modernist denying the spiritual meaning of the holy scriptures.
>https://www.oca.org/reflections/fr.-john-breck/meaning-or-meanings-of-scripture

[Anonymous No.13794254]

>>13789365
>haha Old Testament stories are obviously myths, I mean like Red Sea parting? Jonah in the fish? like come on
>OF COURSE Jesus literally walked on water and floated up beyond the exosphere, my faith would be shattered otherwise

[Anonymous No.13794263]

>>13789312
>2019
>being christian
lmao

[Anonymous No.13794274]

>>13793827
Yeah it's totally unbelievable that a Bronze Age warrior would assassinate an enemy king. Also violence is always wrong because it makes me uncomfortable.

What are you even trying to say.

[Anonymous No.13794283]

>>13794274
Judges is an unintentional comedy of errors. Its a Michael Bay movie.

[Anonymous No.13794448]

>>13789342
>only prots believe in the bible
Correct

[Anonymous No.13794465]

only the ones that helps my case. The ones that don't are meant to be interpreted.

[Anonymous No.13794501]

>>13789312
In Lutheran so I’m sola scriptura. A consequence of this is the idea that scripture alone has the information necessary for salvation.

It’s from this idea that you have literal biblical Interpretation. The Bible itself states it’s not literal and is full of metaphors and Christ himself states this as well (albeit referencing scripture).

But the Bible containing THE TRUTH needed for salvation is not the same as the Bible is ALL TRUE.

By practicing as though the Bible is all true you can assured though that you won’t miss an important component of the scripture. However, it is doubtful Luther himself intended for biblical literalism as we see it today.

Even still, why the fuck does anyone care if the earth was made 109 years ago, 5900, or 4.5 billion? It’s literally irrelevant, except I suppose if you’re dumb anough to think 4.5 billion year old sun means god isn’t real so you become an atheist. (Please recognize this is logically retarded)

[Anonymous No.13794517]

>>13791782
>Muslim who thinks the Quran is a historical account

Really makes you think

[Anonymous No.13794536]

>>13794501
I only care because it's fun to mock young earth creationists.

[Anonymous No.13794554]

>>13794536

You realize that the earth could hVe been made yesterday and you couldn’t disprove it. Descartes etc.

You saw a tree stump with 5 billion rings or ice patterns or some shit? What if thé evil daemon controlling us made the ice have layers the day before yesterday so you’d be a retard and count them to prove you weren’t being tricked by an evil daemon?

Imagine being a materialist in a post-Kantian world. Big yikes. Big cringe. Have sex.

[Anonymous No.13794562]

>you share a board with people who take the Old Testament literally, even to the point of being young earthers
People who are so dogmatic as to deny the logical discoveries of the universe made in the past few centuries are the laziest kind of Christian, you don’t want to think for yourself and critically analyse why faith matters, you just want to be right so you follow scripture to the letter. You deserve modern atheists, you’re the reason we have them and the faith is dying.
Fuck pr*testants.

[Anonymous No.13794578]

>>13794554
>but like, you can't really prove anything, maaan
whoah bro, that's deep.

[Anonymous No.13794644]

>>13794448
Protestants do not believe in the bible, but in themselves. A Catholic believes the word of God is so radiant and resplendent, no humble man would approach without a guide, and a protestant presumes God's mercy so completely that they believe any sinner can extract pure wisdom on their own.

[Anonymous No.13794660]

>>13793919
Anyone who attends mass in a language other than Latin is deffo going to hell and Jesus only became friends with a prostitute after he told her to stop being a slut.

[Anonymous No.13794686]

>>13793919
>>13793982
>>13794660
Do any of you really have any business telling other people their faith is poor?

[Anonymous No.13794709]

>>13794501
>But the Bible containing THE TRUTH needed for salvation is not the same as the Bible is ALL TRUE.
>Even still, why the fuck does anyone care if the earth was made 109 years ago, 5900, or 4.5 billion? It’s literally irrelevant

If you state that the Bible contains the truth, and after that mention that nobody should care about the truth of the age of Earth; then the fuck are you even saying, you mongaloid? That it is interpretable because of all of its metaphors? What is the metaphor of the age of the Earth, or even better, what is the metaphor of slavery condoned in the Bible?

[Anonymous No.13794741]

>>13794562
Sad, but true.

[Anonymous No.13794813]

>>13794709
The slavery isn't a metaphor. By natural law, slavery is very permissible. The moral barrier to slavery does not exist in the legal status, but in the righteousness of the master. A perfectly righteous and humble master would be justified in holding slaves, for he would look out for their well being better than they could, and he would bring them into a more righteous and loving life. The age of the Earth, however, is trivial. While of course it matters, it makes no difference to our moral or spiritual lives if we know it with any kind of certainty.

[Anonymous No.13794837]

>>13794562
>>13794741
Neither of you are right. The faith is dying because people on all sides of these issues believe that it is more important than prayer and adoration. We waste our time arguing over the peripheral, while the body of Christ is literally ignored. While I cannot come to agree with young Earthers, I know that the Catholics who adhere to it are far more committed to defending the real presence. If someone were to be wrong, I would much rather they were wrong about something which largely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.13794854]

>>13794187
so wait, is jesus god or the word of god