all


none


yes


that which can cause light for imperfect creatures to use as a beacon was set into motion


yes thou shalt not kill is absolute ..murder can not take place unless you first kill ..it is not up to the believer to make the decision whether it's murder or not ..that's why thou shalt not kill is absolute


all of God's laws must be followed .. it is not up to the believer to pick and choose which laws to follow ..they of course can ...but that is what judgement day is for

Okay Spider, that was offensive. Saying I spout lies is the same as calling me a liar, and I have done no such thing, anyone spreading lies here is from the arachnid family

First, I didn't say that the bible lied, I said the walls of Jericho did fall, but not by trumpet blast. The trumpet blast was the definately the start of the "fall" of Jericho, but once again, literal morons.

Second, Why can't you see past the language of a verbally passed down tradition. Tell me Spider when telling a story in song, can you get all of the desriptive terms in there. Go on write one!!! How about telling about the battle of the bulge in song? Could you tell in detail about the trees shattering under shells? Digging in the frozen earth? Piling bodies of frozen men to use as protection from shells? I doubt you could, but you could definately get the story across. These were oral traditions passed down in song. There were no scribes in the first books of the old testimant. Name the verse where it says "and Joshua had the tale set forth by scribes." How about "and Moses?" Job? Ruth? Ezikiel? No it's not there? Why, there tales weren't written until years after their deaths.

To believe a literal translation, foolish.

RO...If you read the sentence above, you will see that I didn't say you were lying, I said you were claiming the Bible lies. So it's simply a misunderstanding on your part.



I certainly hope that you aren't calling me a moron, could you please clarify what you mean here?



According to the Bible, Joshua recorded these accounts himself. Why shouldn't I accept that? I'm not sure how I can interpret those words to be anything other than the literal truth without questioning the veracity of the Bible.



I agree. But some parts of the Bible are literal and I see no reason why the siege of Jericho cannot be taken literally. As I have said repeatedly, Archeology has confirmed that the walls fell. Archeology has confirmed that the walls on the North side of the city didn't fall. I'm not sure what is so far fetched about a claim that the creator of the Universe could cause a wall around a city fall. Your account is by far more miraculous than what is in the Bible. To imagine that the inhabitants of the city would sit idly by while the Israelites opened one gate after the other is ludicrous. To imagine that they somehow came in through a house on the outer most wall and somehow opened the outermost gate and the two inner gates without being killed themselves would require me to imagine that God made them invincible to damage. I'll trust to the Biblical account, because it appears to have been written as a literal truth and because it is far more believable than the alternative. In the end, my salvation isn't dependent upon if I accept the story of Jericho as a literal truth, a parable, an allegory or a metaphor. So I see no reason to argue with you over this detail. I think I have made my position clear, so I bid you good day.

Hey there...how have you been??? It's good to cya again~~~~

I think it's all literal as well as moral. As Christ came to fulfill the laws so we can more than just follow them we can actually get joy & life for living with them... I take the entire Bible as Literal. From God our Creator to God our Jehovah Jirah..to the parting of the Red Sea to Christ's resurrection & His second coming for His church. From the creation all the way to the book of Revelations. It's all true & it's all righteous.

...and that's the short of it.

I'll put one more arguement to it, just to show how a literal interpretation might be a bit simplistic of a tale (and by saying my account shows a greater miricale might just prove my arguement).

We know that the bible was passed down via oral tradition until such a time that there were scribes. This is fact. The oral traditions were best passed down in song, it is the same in all cultures. Now then in comparison to another song which tells of a great seige, would you say that the Star Spangled Banner tells an accurate story of the seige of Baltimore?

sorry

that really made me laugh

I've been good. I've been transitioning the majority of my time from one my jobs to another, you know how change can disrupt a life. Other than that I'm good. Of course God never has seen to throw anything at me I couldn't eventually deal with. I've also noticed that if I look at a longer view, He's always making things turn out for the better.

Did I miss any good arguements? Surely someone said something to really get some good stuff flowing in here. I heard a good quote the other day, I guess it fits well in this room.

"My mother taught us that the Bible is used to teach us how to fix ourselves and be good to others. Short of that, we should use it sparingly or we will destort it's meaning." I don't even remember where I heard it, I just remember thinking "Wow, that's probably right."

Saying that the Bible teaches us how to fix ourselves suggests that we are flawed.

Does the Bible actually state that we are flawed? I'm asking this because I'm really not sure.

Are we flawed as humans? Or, did we come to this realm specifically to be seperated from purfectness for a greater purpose? Further learning, perhaps...

It would be hard for me to trust a doctrine that flat out deems mankind as somehow broken.

Of course, I can choose to interpret text to fit for me. That would be taking it literally after filtering it through what I already believe (rather than through the religious filter).

See, I don't have a religion telling me how to interpret the words. When the question comes up about taking it literally, I always want to add...

Literally, according to ALL?

As far as Christians are concerned, are non Christians even at all welcome to answer a question like this? Could seem like a platform to further push the Christian agenda (not that this was the OP's intent).

I trust my guide... my heart... my connection to the Universe... to provide confirmation.

The Jews are a very interesting people, they always were. Their oral tradition was not one of song, they memorized the repeated the verses verbatim. Even today, Israel has competitions where the competitors will repeat whole books of the Torah. The Jews are very concerned about the laws of their religion and they would view it as a terrible sin to get anything wrong about the scriptures they believe were handed down by God. We see from the various Old Testament scrolls that exist today how exact the people who handed these traditions down were.

Now the account itself could be flawed, but I can't find any reason to believe that the story of Jericho would be any more difficult to transmit to others if the gates had been opened by an invading force.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, because I don't feel there is a convincing argument that the siege of Jericho described in Joshua is anything but a literal account of what happened.

Saying that the bible teaches us to fix ourselves does not imply that all humans are flawed. Nor does the quote imply that the bible says we are flawed. The quote only states that the original speakers mother interpereted the use of the bible in that manner.

I think the point of the quote is to say that we should only use the bible to better ourselves, and to learn to accept others for who they are. If we are setting any other agenda, besides personal enlightenment, then we are misusing the bible and twisting it's intent.

As that applies to the OP, it doesn't matter if the text is taken in a literal translation or not, only how the reader uses the information that is absorbed.

There is a good message in the bible, whether you want to believe the story of it's gods or not. There are hundreds of tales, parables, and analogies that tell of charity, kindness and goodwill and how we should take those qualities and teach them to the word.

But the idea was lost and replaced with dogmas and creeds. The church was built of stone and it is unyeilding, and it teaches it's subjects to be the same. That's why it's so easy to get christians riled up in the chat rooms.

The part that states "King James version" I take that literally....

Thank you, RO...

I especially agree with your last paragraph.

The Church and the Bible are two entirely different arenas.

Fair enough <<tips hat>>

If I remember right didn't King James have the monks at a monestary translate it. It should be "Monk Version"

The version that will keep his subjects "in line".....

because the seige of Jericho may be the part of the bible that is fake

it all the bible is not literal then how can one tell what of the bible can be an actual account.. metaphors are fake accounts on the same level as gossip here-say or rumors

A metaphor is comparing two unrelated items, the siege of Jericho isn't a comparison and it's too complicated to be a metaphor anyways.

When you read the news paper, you don't need anyone to come over and explain to you when the writers are using a literary device. In my opinion, it's the same way with the Bible. You can tell by the context if the scriptures are presented as the literal truth, a parable, a metaphor, etc.

The siege of Jericho is presented as fact and recorded in a manner befitting an event that happened. The wheres, whens, whos and hows are all filled in.

"Spidercmb" aren't parables and metaphors also presented to be accurate ..also when it comes to the newspaper people expect an accurate account of events and not metaphors ..beside the part of the newspaper that may be in metaphors is the comic section ..

because one may say that something is the literal truth others may say it's a metaphor ...in them biblical days to say the bible was not the whole truth would be blasphemy

that's why to not view the entire bible as literal shows how people are distancing themselves from God

If you read "The Cowboys destroy the Packers", does that mean that the Cowboys literally destroyed the Packers?

I read an editorial in a Toledo newspaper, where the author told a story about a town run by donkeys being invaded by elephants. Was he being literal or was he suggesting that Republicans are growing stronger in a city run by Democrats?

If you read a Newspaper with an open mind, you will find nearly every possible literary device used.

"Spidercmb"...so if you read that Jesus walked on Water, does that mean that Jesus literally walked on water ..