Bible content: literal or symbolic?

mousa · Post time 1-6-2012 10:37 AM

Should content of the Bible be taken literally?

mousa · Post time 1-6-2012 08:08 PM

Since there is no response, let me rephrase the question:

Is the content of the Bible factual, or is it only a collection of good stories?

freeman_long · Post time 1-6-2012 10:48 PM

Is the content of the Bible factual, or is it only a collection of good stories?
mousa Post at 1-6-2012 20:08

The content of the Bible are factual, and the purpose of Bible which God gives to the world is to let us believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing we may have life in his name, which (life) is the life of God himself. God wants to give his eternal life to us by our reading and believing.

John20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

1John5:12~13
Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

mousa · Post time 3-6-2012 10:15 AM

Reply 3# freeman_long

Back to the original question ...
Is the Bible content to be taken literally (i.e., to the letter), or symbolically?

freeman_long · Post time 3-6-2012 01:55 PM

Reply 3# freeman_long

Back to the original question ...
Is the Bible content to be taken literally (i.e., to the letter), or symbolically?
mousa Post at 3-6-2012 10:15

Sometimes, Bible content to be taken literally, and sometimes symbolically, or even both. It's depend.

Sephiroth · Post time 7-6-2012 11:19 AM

Reply freeman_long

Back to the original question ...
Is the Bible content to be taken litera ...
mousa Post at 3-6-2012 10:15

It supposed to be taken however you choose. Preferably with valium as well.

As you may (or may not) notice - there is a mixed notion on how the Bible should be read. Some read it as a direct translation - which means that take everything written in that book word-per-word. Mormons are one example of such people.

But some people (especially the new age people who know that taking the Bible word-per-word doesn't work, so that make their own translations (usually to modify the passage to fit the modern times).

mousa · Post time 7-6-2012 10:33 PM

Thank you all for your feedback, especially the valium bit. I don't take the Bible literally. To me, it is merely a collection of stories and by no means "God's words".

I respect religious teachings, but find religious radicals and crazies (in all religions) too much to stomach.

dark_knight26 · Post time 24-1-2014 05:02 AM

Religion shouldn't be taken to literally. The people who compiled and rewrote the Bible were from the Renaissance era. Those people were professional in using metaphor and hyperbolic symbols, thus, there is many symbolism in the bible. To make it simple, those people used many flowery words in the bible.

In the end, our action in the world is what truly matters not how deeply we follow the bible.

In every religion there are radicals, and these are the culprits who tarnish the image of a certain religion. It is the fault of the people, not the religion. Keep in mind that radicals take their religion and teaching too seriously and too literally..

louiektc · Post time 30-6-2014 10:41 AM

Reading bible literally is a good introduction to know God personallity and His works.

Reading a text without the guidance of Holy spirit, reader ends up with religious autism. And concluded that it is a symbolic reading.

your choice. Last edited by louiektc on 30-6-2014 10:53 AM

loQlaQ · Post time 23-8-2014 06:27 AM

Edited by loQlaQ at 17-3-2015 05:15 AM

hangpa bleh hadam dak video syarahan mamat New Age Christian Village Church nih?

514 The Bible Is Not A Literal Book