Should the Bible be taken literaly?... what about the Book of Momon?

[changed]

Could I as a Christian, be a soldier in Joshua's army to kill men, women and children by the sword.

I think there is a big difference before and after the atonement. You know how there were two different sets of commandments made, Moses broke the first set, and then got a second one, that the first set was different, contained higher laws, sermon on the mount type of stuff - love your enemy, instead of - just try not to kill one another.... they were not able to live the higher laws, so Moses broke it, and started with something more basic... so there is this evolution of laws from the OT to the NT because those in the OT did not have an example to follow, had no foundation, and so they were rather barbaric.

I know the standard answer is "the women and children were better off with God", not that I would like to be the judge of that, but perhaps it was true.

Nephi killing Laban, better to kill one man, than to let an entire nation perish and die? choice between bad and horrible, instead of choice between good and bad...

or WW2, bombing Japan... everyone sais that we saved lives doing that - if the war went on, millions more would have died...

Could I as a Christian, be a soldier in Joshua's army?

Could I as a Christian, be the one to drop the bomb, knowing that in the long run I would save more lives than I destroyed?

[Mudcat]

Hi Mudcat,

As for myself I understand the Bible as being both literal and figurative, depending on what parts you are referring to. This is the entire problem of interpreting the scriptural records. I guess I am more of a literalist than most,...

And all this time I had you pegged as one of them Liberal Marmans

Kidding aside, as always, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. I agree, at least in that, when there is apparent metaphor parables, dreams, and so forth then they should be taken as such.

So in answer to your OP regarding should the Book of Mormon be taken literally, I answer as Nephi did his brothers:What I mean is that there are things both literal and figrative in the Book of Mormon and all the scriptures and aside from the obvious, the only way to know for sure which is involved is through the revelations by the spirit. I hope this explains my feelings and ideas on the subject.

I have difficulty when specific historic claims, don't specifically match historical evidence. This doesn't necessarily impugn a claim, because we don't have all the facts, but it certainly casts a bit of a shadow on them.

Bold mine, Holy Spirit epistemology is it's own can of worms, given that fact that many feel spirit led on somethings and many of these things differ amongst individuals.

Kind Regards,

Mudcat

[SentByHim]

He didn't deceive us. He told us what he did. And metaphysically it could be that we have immediately came into existence. But that is besides the point. He created the universe exactly the way it needed to be. no deception, just necessity.

Sure, if you believe in a God who, for some reason, set out to deceive us all about the age of the universe.

I believe a common response to your idea is, "why not say that God created everything yesterday, complete with all our memories of our past, which are completely fictional? You'd never know the difference."

[SentByHim]

I have heard it explained a few different ways. Mostly what I can see the logic in is the deluge theory. The bones are from the flood. The land mammals bloated and floated, amphibians were neutrally buoyant at a different depth and others sunk even deeper. This is why they are found at different levels. Under certain conditions fossilization can happen quickly, so it is possible that this could explain it. Then there is the circular logic that rocks are dated by the fossils that are found in that layer, and fossils are dated by the level of rock they are found in. Now we have carbon dating, but there are some possible explanations for that too. But I am not familiar with them, sorry.

I don't disagree that it could be plausible that Adam, if a literal Adam existed, could have been created maturely. However, if we accept the Genesis account literally, even though Adam could have lived in the Garden potentially for eons, before the Fall. We come head on to the difficulty of Adam dying at some point. His death would have been 6 or 7,000 years ago if we accept a literal interpretation.

What is problematic is that there are lots of dead human skeletons that are older than that. If we opt, for your maturity theorem, we would have speculate that God created the mature Earth and stuck a bunch of bones in the ground.. dinosaurs, people and so forth that would one day be discovered to be older than Adams corpse, for some unique purpose that is somehow part and parcel of fulfilling God's will.

I'm not ruling it out, just wondering what your thoughts are on this conundrum?

[blackstrap]

Off topic but perhaps on point, have you noticed how many people interpret a stop sign as not to be taken literally? The policeman parked just down the road from one has a different view,unfortunately .

A lot of people say that they KNOW there was no Flood,no Moses, no Christ.Many assert that they KNOW all kinds of things

happened millions of years ago.

Trouble is we KNOW very little even about things that happened relatively recently. We often have trouble getting at the truth about a car accident with 10 witnesses in REAL time.

As far as History is concerned,much is theory,guess,point of view,etc. Scholars cannot agree on the list of Pharaohs about whom quite a bit is KNOWN.

So we are left with Faith,in whatever power we please.

We should remember that God(should He exist literally) might be like that policeman,with a different view,unfortunately.

[Tarski]

A good rule of thumb is, if it reads like a fable or contradicts known facts about the world, it's not to be taken literally.

But do you think there are parts that were intended to be literal but contradict known facts simply because the author of that portion was mistaken about something?

[Mudcat]

I think there is a big difference before and after the atonement. You know how there were two different sets of commandments made, Moses broke the first set, and then got a second one, that the first set was different, contained higher laws, sermon on the mount type of stuff - love your enemy, instead of - just try not to kill one another.... they were not able to live the higher laws, so Moses broke it, and started with something more basic... so there is this evolution of laws from the OT to the NT because those in the OT did not have an example to follow, had no foundation, and so they were rather barbaric.

No I don't know this, I thought he got the same set. I understand that you say it, but I still don't know this. Why do you think this?

From what I can gather, if we assume that Moses was a literal figure and that he knew of Christ directly.. as we see in Moses 6,7 and 8. He didn't say anything about it to the Hebrews. Perhaps he chose the lesser of two evils... I dunno how preaching Christ would be the greater of two evils though.

I am really not following you here completely though.

Could I as a Christian, be a soldier in Joshua's army?

Could I as a Christian, be the one to drop the bomb, knowing that in the long run I would save more lives than I destroyed?

I understand the proposition.

If you want to kill all the rats, you have to kill the little ones too.

I don't think distancing the notion of Christ stabbing a sword into a toddler, is any better pictured when thinking of him dropping a bomb to kill thousands of them.

I suppose I would prefer to hang a millstone around my neck and get thrown in the ocean, instead.

[Thunderfire]

Where I find difficulty with the notion of inerrancy, is when challenged with verses like these.

Jos 10:39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.

Jos 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

God seems to be commanding genocide for whatever reason. Certainly this isn't the only claim of such in the Bible, but a fair example.

I started to chuckle when I noticed your reference to Joshua (10), I preached on this Wednesday night! What makes this passage even more difficult for the reader is not that Joshua and his army killed so many people, look at what verse (11) states:

"As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them from the sky, and more of them died from the hailstones than were killed by the swords of the Israelites..."

So the issue of concern is not just that Joshua's Army killed (genocide), but that God killed even more in that battle! Then when we add in what happened at Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's great flood, and even Jesus saying he didn't come to bring peace to the earth but a sword and how he was going to separate families (Matthew 10:34-35). It's no wonder people struggle with scripture inerrancy. It simply makes no sense that a God of love could do such harm or the seemingly inconsistency in how he tells us not to kill when it appears he has killed so many. But with this in mind, let me offer some bullit points and build a response:

1) We must remember that we have agency. We must also know that God has agency as well. He is sovereign and we are not.

2) We only "see" our existence from very limited and linear perspective (meaning either life and death). We do not see from an eternal perspective where God does. He does not see merely life or death, but see's people from the scope of existence on different planes of spiritual growth. Our spirit never dies and lives on never being lost to God (at least until final judgment).

3) We are told that Gods thoughts are not our thoughts and his ways not our ways. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are his ways higher than ours. He will accomplish what he desires and achieve the purpose for which all things were sent forth from him (Isaiah 55:8-11)

4) We are told that Gods work and his glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man (D&C 22 rlds)

So in these four affirmations (I could list more but this is enough for now) we begin to see the following which takes away any inconsistency in the scriptures:

God has agency and the right to choose what he wants to do on this earth. We know that he is a God of love, yet he will accomplish what he set forth for all mankind. We have the right to choose to line up with God or choose our own path. Yet if we get in the way of Gods work for all mankind he will move us out of the way. Simply because he "killed" from our perspective does not mean he did not bless them exceedingly on another plane of existence as they continued to grow spiritually as well (we simply do not know where they were taken). When we look at the scriptures from our limited perspective they in no way appear to be inerrant. Yet in my opinion, when we are able to see (and learn) them from an eternal perspective, all inconsistencies vanish. Hope this made sense, if not we can discuss this more!

Somehow, I run into an issue of consistency with the character of Christ on things like that. Could I as a Christian, be a soldier in Joshua's army to kill men, women and children by the sword. Or perhaps better posed, Would Christ have been a good soldier in Joshua's army? Would he kill children by the sword?

I have a hard time thinking so and am curious how you deal with this. Can this be approached from a standpoint of inerrancy?

It gets even more "mind-numbing" for me because I believe it was Jesus who was doing all this in the Old Testament! For me, he was the "Angel of the Lord" who appeared to Gideon, the one who spoke from heaven to Abraham, from the burning bush to Moses, and spoke to Solomon in the night visions". It was always Jesus whom we know as the Lord of heaven and earth, the one who created all things by the power of God (John 1:3). So in my opinion, Jesus would not be a good soldier in Joshua's army, rather he was the one who appeared to Joshua as the "divine Commander" of the greatest army of all (Joshua 5:13-15).

Again, as I wrote above, I only think that I am beginning to see our existence from an eternal perspective! But this I know, when we pray that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven, we need to understand the depth of this affirmation that God's will be done regardless if we help or work against it.

I do not believe that a God of love could ever kill "innocence", because this is what he calls us to become. Yet I do believe that there is much more to creation than we can fathom, nothing is lost and no one is judged as unworthy of his grace and mercy (at least until final judgment), even if we cannot see it ourselves.

[SentByHim]

The oldest culture we know of are the Mesopotamians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamians "The history of ancient Mesopotamia begins with the emergence of urban societies during theUbaid period (ca. 5300 BC)" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620741/Utnapishtim It is in there writings where we get the first story of the flood. So I question your assertion that there were cultures we have record of before, during and after.

Using the world "literal" to describe actual events is a misuse of the word. In texts we can describe things as literal or figurative. But we're not talking about a history or a text when we're talking about the real world - we're talking about what's written in the rocks and artifacts, not on pages.

Cultures all around the world, in China, Egypt, the Americas, etc existed the instant before the flood, and continued existing right afterwards. They didn't disappear. That's a fact, and you can either pretend that fact doesn't exist or you can face it and readjust your interpretation of scripture accordingly.

[SentByHim]

I like to say "I believe to a certainty" rather then "I know"

Off topic but perhaps on point, have you noticed how many people interpret a stop sign as not to be taken literally? The policeman parked just down the road from one has a different view,unfortunately .

A lot of people say that they KNOW there was no Flood,no Moses, no Christ.Many assert that they KNOW all kinds of things

happened millions of years ago.

Trouble is we KNOW very little even about things that happened relatively recently. We often have trouble getting at the truth about a car accident with 10 witnesses in REAL time.

As far as History is concerned,much is theory,guess,point of view,etc. Scholars cannot agree on the list of Pharaohs about whom quite a bit is KNOWN.

So we are left with Faith,in whatever power we please.

We should remember that God(should He exist literally) might be like that policeman,with a different view,unfortunately.

[flooger]

For me, the answer to this question comes down to an answer to a different question. How are scriptures created? It seems to me that a lot of people mistakenly get an image in their mind, of the past (and present, for that matter) prophets sitting in a classroom day after day, with God at the front of the class dictating each and every word, while some of the prophets who can't write very fast saying "hold on a second, i didn't get that last part, can you repeat that?" If that were the case, then i would say yes, take everything literally. The way some people talk about the Bible and Book of Mormon sometimes, they think the actual finger of God wrote the very words on those pages. I believe that true all true scripture is inspired of God, but it was all written down by men, and these men have received their inspiration in many different ways, through dreams, visions, impressions, praying, answers to prayers. I know if I had a dream or a vision, and then tried to write it all down after the fact, it would not be a literal word for word rendition, but it would be a good overview of the pertinent facts. Do I believe that prophets do sometimes get one on one instruction? Yes, sometimes. But i beleive it is the exception, and not the rule. Plus there's the whole passing down of written records though generations, and all that, which i won't even go in to here.

Short answer, some of it should be taken literally, and some of it should be taken figuratively (for all scripture)

[SentByHim]

then who gets to decide which parts we keep and which we disregard?

For me, the answer to this question comes down to an answer to a different question. How are scriptures created? It seems to me that a lot of people mistakenly get an image in their mind, of the past (and present, for that matter) prophets sitting in a classroom day after day, with God at the front of the class dictating each and every word, while some of the prophets who can't write very fast saying "hold on a second, i didn't get that last part, can you repeat that?" If that were the case, then i would say yes, take everything literally. The way some people talk about the Bible and Book of Mormon sometimes, they think the actual finger of God wrote the very words on those pages. I believe that true all true scripture is inspired of God, but it was all written down by men, and these men have received their inspiration in many different ways, through dreams, visions, impressions, praying, answers to prayers. I know if I had a dream or a vision, and then tried to write it all down after the fact, it would not be a literal word for word rendition, but it would be a good overview of the pertinent facts. Do I believe that prophets do sometimes get one on one instruction? Yes, sometimes. But i beleive it is the exception, and not the rule. Plus there's the whole passing down of written records though generations, and all that, which i won't even go in to here.

Short answer, some of it should be taken literally, and some of it should be taken figuratively (for all scripture)

[changed]

No I don't know this, I thought he got the same set. I understand that you say it, but I still don't know this. Why do you think this?

see:

(JST | Exodus 34:Entry - 2)

JST, EXODUS 34:1

[Calm]

lMO it is possible that these things were created mature thereby giving the illusion of age.

Why would God do it in such a way?

[semlogo]

Which verse are you speaking of? It appears that Jesus quoted over 20 different verses from the Old Testament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Christian_use

[semlogo]

Thunderfire,

You have got some great prose my friend. You definitely articulated your position well and I agree with some of what you have said.

Where I find difficulty with the notion of inerrancy, is when challenged with verses like these.

Jos 10:39 And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.

Jos 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

God seems to be commanding genocide for whatever reason. Certainly this isn't the only claim of such in the Bible, but a fair example.

Somehow, I run into an issue of consistency with the character of Christ on things like that. Could I as a Christian, be a soldier in Joshua's army to kill men, women and children by the sword. Or perhaps better posed, Would Christ have been a good soldier in Joshua's army? Would he kill children by the sword?

I have a hard time thinking so and am curious how you deal with this. Can this be approached from a standpoint of inerrancy?

I find it much easier to think that the ancient Hebrews wanted to feel Holy vindication for their actions and presented such vindication in their stories and writings. But certainly, my own view presents it's own set of problems.. maybe I am simply being preferentially humanistic and just don't like the notion of a God that would tell people to kill children.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

I agree 100%

[semlogo]

He didn't deceive us. He told us what he did. And metaphysically it could be that we have immediately came into existence. But that is besides the point. He created the universe exactly the way it needed to be. no deception, just necessity.

No, your model requires deception - a faked physical record of a faked natural world. Sorry, it makes no sense.

[semlogo]

But do you think there are parts that were intended to be literal but contradict known facts simply because the author of that portion was mistaken about something?

It's quite possible, yes.

[semlogo]

The oldest culture we know of are the Mesopotamians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamians "The history of ancient Mesopotamia begins with the emergence of urban societies during theUbaid period (ca. 5300 BC)" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/620741/Utnapishtim It is in there writings where we get the first story of the flood. So I question your assertion that there were cultures we have record of before, during and after.

If you're acknowledging that the flood story originated from them, (at an earlier date than is supposed by Bible literalists) then you'll have to abandon your Bible chronology anyway. Bible literalists think the flood happened in 2304 BC - before and after which we have many different civilizations on the earth. But of course, there were many people around for hundreds of thousands of years before the Mesopotamians as well.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/oldest-civilization-in-the-world.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/noahs_flood.asp

[Mudcat]

then who gets to decide which parts we keep and which we disregard?

Don't want to speak on flooger's behalf, but I liked the question you asked and thought I would respond.

From the standpoint of someone who doesn't take a literal reading of the Bible on all points, I don't think I am making a decision to disregard anything. I am making a decision that there are times when a metaphoric or allegorical understanding might actually be a better way of understanding the truth that lies within the Bible.

So I don't think anything is being discarded/disregarded from a non-literal view on some issues, rather its a change in perspective.

But who gets to decide what should be literal and what shouldn't be, well I do.

I am hopeful that the spirit of Truth has his own role in the affair, so I don't feel singularly alone in my decisions, however they are my decisions and if accountability for them must be addressed at some future point then I am good with that.

[SentByHim]

the easy answer is that is suited his purposes. Why create an infant that couldn't care for itself? Or a planet/universe that He had to wait on to create the life He desired to have?

Why would God do it in such a way?

[SentByHim]

would you give a few examples of thing you find are better to be understood as allegorical or just non-literal? Because I do agree that parables are allegorical but they are literally what was taught as an event being recorded. Like there is the contradiction between what is said about Jesus visiting Saul and how Paul later repeated it. In one of the accounts it says he alone heard the voice, in the other it is said that all heard it. I think this is not an error in its recording, but rather an error on Paul's part that was accurately written.

James

Don't want to speak on flooger's behalf, but I liked the question you asked and thought I would respond.

From the standpoint of someone who doesn't take a literal reading of the Bible on all points, I don't think I am making a decision to disregard anything. I am making a decision that there are times when a metaphoric or allegorical understanding might actually be a better way of understanding the truth that lies within the Bible.

So I don't think anything is being discarded/disregarded from a non-literal view on some issues, rather its a change in perspective.

But who gets to decide what should be literal and what shouldn't be, well I do.

I am hopeful that the spirit of Truth has his own role in the affair, so I don't feel singularly alone in my decisions, however they are my decisions and if accountability for them must be addressed at some future point then I am good with that.

[David T]

Or a planet/universe that He had to wait on to create the life He desired to have?

Do you think God Impatient, or that there may not have been other things He was doing as well?

[thesometimesaint]

SentByHim:

Jesus refers to himself as a mother hen. Not literal

Jesus refers to Pilot as a fox. Not literal.

Jesus refers to religious leaders as snakes, and whited sepulchers. Not literal.

That is what comes off the top of my head, there are undoubtedly far more.

[SentByHim]

I agree then. But IMO that is literally what He said.

SentByHim:

Jesus refers to himself as a mother hen. Not literal

Jesus refers to Pilot as a fox. Not literal.

Jesus refers to religious leaders as snakes, and whited sepulchers. Not literal.

That is what comes off the top of my head, there are undoubtedly far more.