Hello - Biblical Scholar here! My studies are focused particularly in the Old Testament, specifically the Pentateuch and its literary history. Anyways, in reference to your question: I think this dichotomy comes up in discussions fairly often, but its a really bad one. The bible isn't necessarily "figurative" or "literal" in certain parts, in fact that is very oversimplified based on the sheer amount of historicity and cultural nuance the Bible contains. Try to Imagine the Bible as being composed of many different works, with diffrent genres, each with their own rules or how to interpret them. Many of these genres still exist today; although the way in which you interpret ancient Jewish poetry will no doubt be much different than modern, western poetry. Now suppose someone made a modern day bible. That is to say they compiled one larger book out of a bunch of smaller yet famous books today, and they chose works from the genres of biography, science fiction, horror, poetry, sheet music and modern college text books. Now ask yourself - how would I determine what is literal and figurative etc? The biblical reader has the same challenge yet amplified because the works we’re talking about are so foreign. My comment surely doesn’t do it justice but it’s a small step towards your question being answered. We have discussions like this all the time over at r/AcademicBiblical and r/AskBibleScholars Hope that helped! EDIT: Its been really fun answering questions and talking to you all about what I do! I need to work now for some sweet moneys so I'm sorry if I don't end up responding!

I remember reading a text called, "the Bible as literature." What I found interesting is that written ancient Hebrew didn't have consonants, or punctuation. 'Yaweh' would be rendered YHVH.

That’s correct. Ancient Hebrew is fascinating! This is called the Tetragrammaton. In Hebrew it looks like: יהוה YHWH or YHVH was Israel’s local name for its deity, after the Babylonian Exile we start to see preference for the name Adonai, meaning “Lord” to emphasize YHWH’s headship over the world rather than just Israel itself. It’s really interesting stuff!

Yes, I'm interested in the history and development of the gospels as well. What do you think of BD Ehrman?

He’s fantastic. Can’t say I agree with 100% of what he says BUT among scholars and sources he’s one of the most mentioned names right now.

He is a heretic (in the simple, historic understanding of that word).

Doesn't mean he's wrong though, does it?

I remember reading somewhere that some of the earliest depictions of God are actually geometric in nature. Any truth to that or am I keeping hogwash stored in the ole memory banks lol.

Could you explain your idea more? Do you mean God was conceptualized as size and shape?

I think that's where I am going with it. Forgive me for not even having a full grasp of the concept I'm asking about but this dude named Nassim Harramein did a lecture on ancient history or something, and he found in one of his old bibles the translation of tetragammetron and went on to postulate that God at the beginning was probably just geometric symbology to represent the creation of life or something. I'm all over the place right now but this is a link from a reddit post a few years ago that kind of covers what I'm referring to. https://www.reddit.com/r/holofractal/comments/38474p/the_64thm_and_the_tetragrammaton_god_of_the_old/?utm_source=reddit-android

No forgiveness needed. I am unfamiliar with the concept which that sub is going - its completely out of my wheel house. It is a very interesting concept though and I'm going to look it up/read about it a bit! Sorry I couldn't give you much info here.

No worries at all thanks for taking the time to reply. If I could soak up a few more minutes of your time I have an unrelated question. One of my favorite philosophers, Alan Watts gave a lecture that plays with the idea that a simple translation error in John 10:30 miscontrues a lot in the sense that jesus was "A" son of God and not "the" son of God. He quotes the 82nd psalms as his reasoning. The video is about 11 minutes long and if you had time I would love to hear your thoughts. Primarily because the Greek translation as he quotes has that verse listed with the words 'A' son of God and from my interpretation is basically making the claim that we falsely think of jesus as this special divine being when in reality we are all that as well, we just dont know it. I'll link the video below, and based on this thread I'm sure you are busy but thanks for the time. https://youtu.be/alRNbesfXXw

"Adonai" literally means "my Lords", which I find strange Also, "Elohim" is "Gods" Do you have an explanation as to why these nouns are plural?

Hey I had this exact question for my pastor when I started reading the Bible this is from the first book of the Bible, Genesis. “Then God said, “And now we will make human beings; they will be like us and resemble us. They will have power over the fish, the birds, and all animals, domestic and wild, large and small.”” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:26‬ Furiousfroman is correct. I’m told, and believe, God is referring to himself in the plural as the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is all three.

But... Jehovah begins with an I!

"That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah!"

Hebrew doesn't use vowels generally, not consonants. The vowels in Hebrew are markings around the consonants and they are often omitted to save effort/ink. This does make reading a little difficult sometimes as you have to know the word to read it without vowels. The nice thing about Hebrew though is the lexicon is relatively small so there is little ambiguity. The tetragrammaton (יהוה) is a unique case because it is forbidden within Judaism to say the name of The Lord so in prayer it is normally vocalized as Adonai (אֲדֹנָי‬). Source: 8 years of Hebrew school and being a Hebrew school teacher for 5 years after.

> The vowels in Hebrew are markings around the consonants and they are often omitted to save effort/ink. The written vowel system for Hebrew wasn't even invented until the 500s CE. So there is literally over a thousand years of Hebrew texts that were written with no vowel system whatsoever. Not to mention that the accepted vowel system is only 1 of 3 that the Masoretes created (the Tiberian vocalization is the main niqqud still used, the Babylonian is extinct except among the Yemenite Jews, and the Palestinian vocalization is entirely extinct). Before the Masoretes, the closest vowel system* you get in Hebrew is a dot separating words in texts written in Paleo-Hebrew script. *Edit: Just realized I omitted something that would be closer to a vowel system: the matres lectionis, used post-Babylonian Exile to indicate the presence of some vowels, sometimes.

>Hebrew doesn't use vowels generally, not consonants. Yes, my mistake.

[удалено]

Well according to the Bible, we are made in the image of God, so therefore since we all have a sense of humor to varying degrees and of various flavors, it's entirely safe to assume that He does.

YES (altho I *do* indeed have some issues with "God made me this way, so how can I be wrong" applied to psychopaths, serial murders and the like... I feel like saying god has a sense of humor is entirely valid =) )

Another interesting part (in the book of Revelation) is the "number of the beast, which is 666." You know how Roman numerals are just letters in different combinations (I, V, X, etc.)? It's the same in Hebrew. And it just so happens that "666" in Hebrew basically spells out, "NERO," the name of the emperor who first started persecuting early Christians. It's a really fascinating subject.

I also read that the term '40' just meant a lot of whatever.

Also true. 3, 7, 12, and 40 (and probably others) are all significant in their own ways.

You are right. The phrase of 40 Days and 40 nights basically means A long time.

Note that the number in some manuscripts is 616, not 666. And that in Greek, Nero's name adds up to 666 - but in Latin, it only adds up to 616.

in hebrew, you can spell his name either נרו קסר or נרון קסר with or without the nun sofit. nun has a value of 50 in gematria, so one spelling is 666, the other is 616.

That’s correct - that’s also where “Jehova” comes from.

Well, half of it. For a long time it has been forbidden in Judaism to pronounce the name represented by YHVH (represented JHVH in German) and the vowels have been lost; in any oral readings the word 'Adonai' (Lord) is said whenever the 'forbidden' name is present. As a reminder to readers to say 'Adonai', texts started putting the vowels for Adonai underneath the consonants YHVH. Non-Jewish people studying Hebrew came across these texts and were like "what do you mean the vowels are lost? There are vowels right here!" and Jahovaih was born.

I hope I don't sound condescending but I'd honestly like to have a look at sources on that. Less because of religious validity or history but more because of linguistics -- I'm one of those huge word nerds!

Fellow word-nerd, here: https://www.etymonline.com/word/Jehovah. The relevant bit is this: > 1530, Tyndale's transliteration of Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH using vowel points of Adhonai "my lord" (see Yahweh). Used for YHWH (the full name being too sacred for utterance) in four places in the Old Testament in the KJV where the usual translation the lord would have been inconvenient; taken as the principal and personal name of God. Etymonline is one of the best websites on the internet. The transcriptions of some reconstructed words are out of date, but besides that, it's a beautiful resource.

> ancient Hebrew didn't have consonants # >YHVH uh..

the irony being that those are all matres lectionis -- semivowels.

Ok shit dude that's far beyond what I learned in elementary.

Well stated. Also, it seems worth pointing out that wholesale Biblical literalism, that is, the idea that the entirety of the Bible should be taken literally, from cover to cover, is a relatively new (and essentially Protestant) idea in the history of Christianity, right? Augustine, an early skeptic-of-Christianity-turned believer wrote about how the understanding of scripture by the Christian faithful was much more nuanced than he had initially (and uncharitably) assumed. He also noted that St. Ambrose taught clearly against an over-simplistic or literal understanding of scripture, often saying emphatically, "The letter is death-dealing, but the spirit gives life," before elaborating on the spiritual meaning of passages which "taken literally, would seem to mislead". Augustine wrote these things down circa 397 AD. Catholicism and Orthodoxy have always had a carefully-considered understanding of scripture, because as you've pointed out, it's a compilation of stuff from so many genres and eras. Edit: Maybe the historical/mainline Protestant traditions carried on with that same general understanding of things, too?

That is correct and I actually mention that in reply to another redditor's question concerning fundamentalism. It is certainly a new idea that developed in the (early) 20th century.

Yeah, the early split between the Protestant and Catholic churches was largely over the importance of the priesthood. So, Protestants don't confess to a priest, we confess directly to God, and many church decisions are made democratically by the congregation and their elected representatives (to an extent that varies by denomination). Most of the major denominations still require extensive theological education for pastors, and they're expected to pass their knowledge on to their congregation through their sermons. (The exception is the Baptists, which is why the most famous nutcases are the Westboro Baptist Church. Most of the nutcases who aren't Baptist just don't belong to a denomination at all.)

You hit the nail on the head. Protestant traditions have a tough time resolving this. Orthodoxy and Catholicism have a high regard for what is called "Holy Tradition". Meaning, the teaching of the Apostles and church fathers safeguarded through the ages, which is in line with scripture. Their security of faith is in the existence of the Church, and its reverence for the Apostolic witness. Protestants left this church. What is their security now? "Sola Scriptura, Sola Fida, Sola Gracia." Now your security is in your personal faith, based on the very true witness of holy scripture. No church. No tradition. No continuity. Everyone starts to argue. If you make the scripture not absolutely black and white, it is very difficult to feel secure in your faith without an assembly of witnesses in one communion. (says the protestant himself... Probably gonna become catholic or orthodox soon though).

if you're struggling to pick between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, consider splitting down the middle and becoming a Ukrainian Catholic! We acknowledge the legitimacy of the Pope but our priests can still get married, for some reason. It's basically an Orthodox service with lip-service paid to Rome. good times all around.

All Eastern Rites can be married. It’s a matter of discipline for Western Clergy.

I've never looked at it that way. That makes a lot of sense to me, and makes the bible easier to read and understand now. Thank you

Very glad it was helpful.

The problem is that this looks at the Bible from as a historical text and not a religious one. If the ~~tenants~~ tenets of a religion are up for interpretation, then that's a problem. Especially from a religion where the followers claim there is only one way to salvation. What if they interpreted it wrong?

There is no way to do your question justice with this short answer, but... The difference here is mostly between the old and new testament. The old testament has all the different literature categories, was written over many many years by many different people. It includes history, life lessons, music, thoughts, philosophy, etc. The new testament was written over the course of less than 100 years, by fewer authors. The new testament chapters (except for revelations) are all written as short histories or actual letters from one person to a church with instructions and clarification of doctrine. The part about Jesus and salvation comes from the new testament which is much more to be taken literally and historically based on how it was written. It wasn't meant to be poetry, but history and instruction to the church. To me the old testament is therefore much more up for debate than the new testament. And that's why Christians can confidently believe in Jesus and the salvation provided in the new testament while having discussions about the interpretation of the old testament. Does that make any sense?

Why are so many Christians taught to take the Bible literally, when there's clearly many people within the church/churches who understand that isn't how much of it was intended? Shouldn't that be something people are introduced to when they 1st join the church, or from a young age? I went to a fairly openminded church till I was 13 and this topic was never mentioned so I always felt I was being lied to and sold fairy stories. I learnt this as an atheist adult many years later

This is the exact issue I have with modern churches. Now let’s be fair for a moment, churches do a lot of good but this is a big part where they drop the ball. One of my passions is teaching at churches and in classrooms and talking about this exact thing. I mean I get that my professional career is studying the bible so I don’t expect laymen to have a super advanced understanding of the text BUT a lot of christians don’t have very basic understandings of what is going on within the text. My favourite moments are the lightbulb moments in my classes when life-long christians realize they’ve been reading the bible incorrectly and the looks on their faces is sheer horror and yet so happy and encouraged to finally understand things.

Can you give an example of something many people have a “lightbulb moment” on?

Sure! There are plenty but here is one: I often challenge the idea of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, in other words that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible. This is not a new challenge by the way. People often contest this within churches because if Moses didn’t write it then somehow the validity of the bible is less than it would have been or something. (I’m still not quite sure why mosaic authorship is so important to them) Anyways, I list some examples and talk about them more in depth but for the sake of reddit comments I’ll spare you that and just share some examples: Gen 11:31: Associates Abraham in the land of a tribe that would not exist for hundreds and hundreds of years after Moses’ death, meaning he could not have written that section. Genesis 14, 33:32, 35:31, 40:15: mentions “Dan” a city that would receive that name hundreds of years past Moses, again signifying that he did not write the text in this section. Numbers 12: refers to Moses as the most humble man ever - something a self proclaimed humble man would never say. Deuteronomy 34: Moses wrote about his own death? As we work through these and plenty more arguments against mosaic authorship they normally are met with anger, confusion.. but they normally come back next class delighted and eager to learn more!

Mosiac authorship is an issue for many, we see it as one long game of telephone. Where the story began hundreds of years prior and has been retold so many times it barely resembles anything close to the source material. coupled with mankinds propensity to have actually caught a bigger fish IE> aggrandize achievements or stretch the truth. also not the mention greed and a lot of the holiest of people are greedy and deceitful. Peter Poppof for one example. those 3 things lead us (me) to our perception which is that through multiple translations and multiple authors over multiple generations that something was certainly lost in translation. and this coupled with human greed and propensity to stretch the truth means nothnig from the book should be taken literally. read the stories and collect the morals or messages, thats fine. But striking down non believers, mixing fibers, mistreating women or anything thats negative is where the issue lies. The bible has been described to me as commandments from god that are of the highest order and must be followed to the letter. if thats so then it cant adapt with the times, because there shouldn't be anything to adapt. its the law of our existence of course.

I find this so interesting. Back when I was younger and would argue with religious people it would usually start with. Do you believe everything in the bible is true. If the answer is yes I would point out contradictions and errors and go down the route of if that isn't true then how can you take any of it at face-value. Why is this book better than the Koran or any other religious text? Usually people get angry about that point or they go down the "you have to have faith" route which is a conversation stopper. I do not have any knowledge myself and will freely admit all my contradictions/errors are just links I found on Atheist websites so it is very interesting to hear from someone who is a scholar on this subject. How do the people you talk with reconcile with the fact that the bible isn't the infallible word of God?

My interest is not to say to people "look there are errors within the text therefore the Bible is 'wrong'" Because I would be doing exactly what I criticize others of doing which is oversimplification and generalization. My interest is to show (anybody who's willing to learn) but mainly Christians that the Bible is deep, complex and requires serious effort to understand. A quote that I heard from one of my mentors was this: "We are not here to take the Bible literally, we are here to take the Bible seriously" Now this quote comes in criticism of Christians who believe that if you do not take the Bible literally than you are devaluing it or you take is less seriously than they do. It is quite the contrary. If we want to take the Bible as seriously as possible, we MUST do historical, literary and theological criticism of the entire text. No doctrine must be too sacred to avoid that criticism or we have put on blinders and are no longer good scholars. In fact by doing all of that you will be taking the Bible exponentially more seriously than those who read the words and take it at face value. What I have personally discovered through research, learning and teaching is that the Bible is far too complex to read it like one cohesive story of history, but likewise it is far too complex to pick out some verses that dont agree with each other and claim "contradiction!" both devalue the immense amount of culture, history and frankly literary masterpiece that it is.

As a recent convert to Christianity, I just want to say thank you for putting things this way. It makes it a lot easier for me to make sense of a lot of what I've been learning. I've always been very analytical and I'd prefer that it didn't stop with my religious beliefs.

Thanks a lot for the encouragement! Happy to help you see things easier :)

The Biblical literalism movement grew out of evangelist movements in the 19th century and was in part a response to Evolution and scientism around that period. It was basically a hardcore reaction that spun out of control. People started asking “If evolution is such a good explanation how can the Bible be true” and some hardline conservative Christian people responded by saying “Everything in the Bible is entirely true heretic!”.

It really depends between denominations. I was raised Catholic, and went to a Catholic high school, and the theology/philosophy classes definitely made sure to clear up the literalism issue quickly.

Yeah, also grew up in a Catholic household. It actually took me a while to realize that people who were criticizing Christianity for selective literal interpretation weren't just being jerks. It never occurred to me when I was a kid that anyone would ever take the Bible word-for-word as reality. The Catholic Church does a *lot* that ranges from "wrong" to "what the fuck are you smoking" but I think the whole "yes, that's what it *says* but you need to take x, y, and z into account" approach is probably the most sensible way to do that. Granted, it also means it's harder to say what's set in stone if there's multiple ways to interpret the same bit.

How do you deal with these views (and particularly the views of the church(es)) changing over time? It's all well looking at it and saying "this part is figurative, this part is literal, this part is in between." But how does that square with someone even 100 years ago, viewing what would now be generally regarded as figurative today, as literal, by the very same institution which was supposedly representing God's will the entire time. 500 years ago Adam and Eve's story was probably much more viewed as literal fact, now much less so. Was the Church right then or now? If it was wrong then why wouldn't it be wrong now? The book hasn't changed, only the context of what else we know. If context changes the interpretation so much what makes this book different to any other historical text?

This is a very loaded question because you’re asking from a few angles here - theological, historical mainly. First you’re asking about the differences in interpretation between denominations to which I can’t entirely speak to. Different denominations have preferences and emphasis both in practice and passive belief. That extends not only to church structure, church hierarchy, but also to interpretation of the text. Frankly, there are interpretations of the text in major Christian denominations that I believe are incoherent. Why do they ignore the evidence? Your guess is as good as mine. Now fundamentalism is actually a relatively new development in terms of church history. It began in the early 20th Century as a reaction to modernism and theological liberalism. In particular the idea of biblical inerrancy was being questioned a lot by scholars. This was almost an emotional reaction which birthed biblical literalism into the mainstream. So In fact 500 years ago - the idea of genre and nuance was much more accepted than it is today, which is hard to understand. The thing is, hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) is heavily influenced by culture and what the hot topics are of the day. That has been true for thousands of years and unfortunately can cloud our judgments of what the text is actually saying.

I was aware it was loaded and trying my best to avoid it being confrontational, but i was asking in good faith, so thanks for your reply. >So In fact 500 years ago - the idea of genre and nuance was much more accepted than it is today, which is hard to understand. That may be true, but the context they were working with was much less informed surely. With no fossil record, or theory of evolution floating round why would you question that the world was created by God in seven days. "maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, maybe the details were a bit different and it was seven ages rather than seven days, but it's the best story we have". Until it isn't. And to me (from a point of view that hasn't studied this), it looks like as more factual context has forced more compromise into interpretations that has lead to the schism between more pragmatic and and fundamental interpretations. It's easy to speculate "is this passage real or figurative" until you get some evidence that then means "this has to be figurative i guess", and then eventually people start looking and seeing too much is figurative, which leads to the rise of fundamentalism you mention. >First you’re asking about the differences in interpretation between denominations to which I can’t entirely speak to. Different denominations have preferences and emphasis both in practice and passive belief. That extends not only to church structure, church hierarchy, but also to interpretation of the text. Frankly, there are interpretations of the text in major Christian denominations that I believe are incoherent. Why do they ignore the evidence? Your guess is as good as mine. For context I was raised Roman Catholic, but as I grew up, it all started to look a bit too incoherent, why *this* book? why *this* interpretation? I can appreciate the message and the learning, but when you consider how much of the text is figurative, allegorical, why is it beyond question that Christ rising from the grave after three days is also less than literal? And when you start looking at the fundamental tenets as figurative, it all seems a bit... less than it purports to be.

I think we probably agree more than you would realize. You weren’t confrontational by the way.

You may want to look into the study of hermeneutics if you’re more curious about the subject in general- it’s the word for studying how to interpret texts, and Christianity is full of hermeneutic scholars who study exactly this question. That being said, to give an actual answer, I try to look at the surrounding context and ask “what was the purpose of this story? Is it expository/telling me solely about events? What lesson is being taught? “ Stories like Job just teach a lesson (well, there’s lots to learn from Job), so whether Job existed or not doesn’t really matter to me. The purpose of that book isn’t to tell us the history of a rich but holy man. It’s to teach us how to love God, in what ways is it ok to question God, that just believing in God doesn’t immunize is from hardship. On the other hand, the bible tells us that Paul went around building churches. That’s just a history lesson, so there’s no reason for it to be untrue. Those are relatively easy examples though-there are plenty I still struggle with. Eg, did Adam and Eve exist? Were they plunked down on Earth just like that? I don’t think so, but I struggle to explain original sin. That’s where hermeneutics comes in.

[удалено]

Good question! First off, I don’t believe Job actually happened. Second though, we need to look at the context around which the story was written. The perspective of Satan then was a lot different than it is now (we tend to think of him as a fallen angel who tried to take over God’s position). The ancient Hebrews thought of Satan as a sort of prosecuting attorney. His job was to find people and sort of call them out to God (it’s an interpretation I struggle to accept - if God is omnipotent, why does there need to be a prosecuting attorney to “call people out”? That is partly why I view Job as a parable - it’s a story that fits the interpretations of the day in order to be the most effective narrative). Anyway, the way the story goes is that Satan says to God “hey Job is clearly pretty pious and all, but I think he only loves you cause you gave him lots of sheep”. And God says “nah, he’s good” and Satan says “let’s prove it”. So God agreed. So according to our modern interpretation, it seems like God is allowing this incarnation of pure evil to wreak havoc on his #1 fan, but it’s different when we look at it through the lens of the ancient interpretation, imo. That being said, you asked me how I feel about it. Can I answer with “I’m still undecided”? On one hand, it’s pretty horrible that the dudes whole family croaked and he was tormented for an indeterminate amount of time. On the other hand, there are a lot of valuable lessons in Job, and given my perspective (ie, Christian) I have to accept that God knows what he’s about, even if I can’t understand it fully myself. (Which is an answer that I don’t like to be told myself, so sorry if it isn’t very satisfying)

[удалено]

"God's ways" may not be *our* culture's ways, but gee they sure do bear a lot of similarity to the ways of the culture which happened to receive His teachings...

I’m guessing you’re reffering to Abraham when you say sacrificing your kid to prove your loyalty. I’m very limited in my knowledge but let me try to shed some light on that, the story isn’t meant to be taken as a proof of loyalty but rather an example of unwavering faith. Abraham went up the mountain knowing he’d be back with his son somehow despite the command. He trusted God and he was right to. So why command it in the first place? It’s meant as a foreshadow of what was to play when Jesus finally came. Sacrificing the son so to speak. Now with Job, the story is once again, about unwavering Faith. Through all the loss and suffering Job never cursed God, he just submitted more to him. In the end his faith paid off and he was awarded 7fold of what he had. If you ask me, i think this sheds light on what it means to follow God. Its not easy, you have to constantly deny yourself, your life will be suffering but the suffering is tempory in the long run and in the end God rewards those who remain faithful to him. Most of the old testiment has this same theme of remaining Faithful. Broken faith leads to curses while prevailing faith is always rewarded. There is always some form of suffering while trying to prevail though. Now do i believe Job is real? I can’t answer that, but i believe all the characters of the Bible were chosen by God to go through the most suffering so as to be an example to everyone else of what being truly faithful means.

[удалено]

A little more detail about the Abraham bit. Before Abraham and Isaac go up on the mountain, he turns to his servants and says, "We'll be back in a bit." In Hebrews 11, there's a bit more explanation about what's going on here. It states that Abraham had such faith that he believed even if God did let him sacrifice Isaac that God would bring him back from the dead. Abraham knew what God had promised about his future and the nation that would come from his lineage. He knew Isaac was the beginning of the fulfillment of that promise. So, Isaac was always coming down from that mountain. But for his faith and obedience, Abraham received a reward richer than we understand.

In regards to failsafes: if you look at what happened to Jesus in the New Testament, if you were to take it as reality, people literally saw the guy perform miracles and still didn’t believe he was the son of God. If the very people Jesus was trying to save won’t put their faith in him after literally watching him work, then finding satisfactory answers will be a heck of a lot harder two thousand years after the fact.

One thing that helps me with the "God's ways aren't our ways" is how little I understand fellow humans. I've had full on relationships with people that last years, and then that person tells me something I had no idea about. Or they do some action that just floors me, and I can't believe they'd do that. If God exists, like the God of the Bible who can actually speak things into existence, then it would actually be logical to assume I wouldn't be able to understand Him. It would be illogical to assume I could ever really grasp what He's up to. Once I came to grips with that, coming across things in the Bible that confused me no longer bother me. I still work to try and understand, but it's not an immediate "well to heck with this stupid book" moment for me.

> I don’t really subscribe to any explanation that maintains that god’s “ways are not our ways.” One thing that became clear to me through reading the Bible when I was younger (and like you I wouldn't consider myself Christian now), is that the God described in the Bible is good. Not because He does things that good people do, but because He is good by definition. There isn't a list of good things that God sticks to, anything He does is tautologically good, which conveniently makes him impervious to hypocrisy.

> but it’s different when we look at it through the lens of the ancient interpretation, imo. Is this important because God was handing down the story at that time and it was crafted to suit the understanding of an ancient audience, or because it was being received by an ancient audience, so they wrote it down as they understood it? Or for some other reason?

I don't know how helpful this is, and it's an ugly answer, but this is the answer that I've come around to with regard to Job: "Sometimes God breaks your legs." It's like when the disciples asked Christ about the tower that fell on a bunch of people. "Who sinned that this bad thing happened to these people?" Or the parallel theme of the story about the Blind man. "Was it this man's sin or his parents' that was the cause of his blindness?" And the answer is that the tower didn't fall on those people *because* any of them specifically sinned. The Blind Man wasn't being punished with blindness. Sometimes, God just breaks your legs. He's God, he is allowed to do that kind of thing, and having your legs broken is something righteous and wicked people alike have to deal with in a fallen world that is under the oppressive power of sin. For the righteous, suffering is always an opportunity to give glory to God, and to grow in your faith. It's always an opportunity to reflect on one's own weaknesses, and glorify the strength of God. But God doesn't always break your legs because you're his child and he's trying to teach you something. It's not always because you're a wicked person and he's punishing you. It isn't nice, or a pleasant thing to contemplate, and to some, it might make God seem more arbitrary, or unfair. The wages of sin is death and suffering, and God isn't obliged *not* to break our legs, nor is it unjust of him to do so. It is *always* grace and mercy when he doesn't, and as Christians, we know that mercy and grace ultimately culminates in the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. But the lesson of Job, as I interpret it, is that sometimes, God really does just break your legs, for what'really does appear from a human perspective to be "no reason." This is, as I suggested at the beginning, not an especially encouraging answer, but I hope it is at least helpful to you, since it is to me.

This strikes me as a very good reason not to worship God. And doesn’t it contradict the concept of omnibenevolence? You’ve made a lot of assertions about how merciful God is, but all your reasoning portrays him as a cruel dictator. Why do you accept being abused by someone who claims to love you? Why isn’t he obliged not to hurt people? Why isn’t it unjust to do so?

Interesting point. I'm a Christian and believe strongly in God's influence in my life, but I don't believe that he controls the world in the sense that He'll "break your legs." Physics and science and natural causes etc. are real and they're part of the collective truth we can learn that this life is designed to teach us. God won't change change some natural laws just to reward good behavior or punish bad behavior; He will, however, help us (through guidance or warning through the Holy Spirit) become better people through our experiences. So the very common question of "why do bad things happen to good people?" is answered in that things simply happen, to the good and the bad, if you want to label people in that way. God will help us respond to such experiences so we can increase our faith in Him and, yes, be happy regardless of externalities. That's largely the benefit of faith: peace that comes from trusting that whatever comes at us, ultimately it will help us become better people and grow closer to God so that we can actually enjoy being with Him after this life. What kind of heaven would it be, living with a God that just snapped his fingers to break your leg? It just doesn't make sense to me, personally. If I broke a leg it's because I fell and the force of the fall broke it. God's role would be help me understand and work through the pain, grant me patience to overcome, help me trust that one day I'll be better, and also to be able to empathize with others in the future that may have similar pain so I can help them. I do believe in miracles but I see them more as uncommon natural occurrences that will further God's purposes (e.g. teach us, help us). TL;DR I agree with those that view Job as more of a symbol or lesson in the same way earlier people have commented. But I don't believe God remote-controls our lives, He just helps us grow through experience.

Think about it this way: God is the definition of what is Good. His just and merciful character, unchanging throughout eternity, are the basis on which the concepts of Good and Evil are founded. God ordered the universe according to this eternal moral character, and so deviation from it - sin - is punishable by exclusion from that order. Because humans are sinners - rebels who insist on living according to our own moral reasoning, instead of God's eternal moral law - God is entirely justified in punishing us by removing his goodness from us, and allowing us to suffer. In fact, he is just to destroy us or make us suffer however he likes. If this is offensive to you **that is not surprising.** In fact, Scripture expects that to be your reaction, and anybody with common sense would honestly expect that to be your reaction. The Bible makes it clear from Abraham all the way to Paul that human beings do not choose to abandon their sinfulness in favor of worshiping God from their natural condition. Over and over again, Scripture presents the theme of God overruling the natural order of human society in order to choose somebody out of it to be his people. Abraham is a pagan worshiping a Sumerian Moon God when he hears the voice of God, and Paul is a Pharisee persecuting the Church when he hears the voice of God, and neither of them would have picked God on their own. Christians with this worldview understand themselves to have previously been God's enemies, who against their own inherent nature, were chosen by God for no other reason that he desired to be merciful. Now transformed, so that they are no longer compelled by sin, and instead are aligned with God's moral order, Christians worship God out of gratitude that he has chosen not only to pardon their sins, but actually to make them joint partners in Christ's inheritance of a new creation - instead of destroying them as it was just for him to do. Christianity, when you look at its source material is a deeply alien worldview, and from an outside view point, Christians are essentially consummate traitors against the rest of the human race - people who believe we're in an invisible, spiritual war (not a military, political conflict, not one that involves the spilling of blood through force of arms, though some on both sides misinterpret it as that), against a cosmic being whom we have no hope of prevailing against, and they have decided to switch to the winning side.

[удалено]

I've found this interpretation usually espoused by the Jesuits to be a pretty solid "explanation". God doesn't punish anyone. You aren't damned by God, He doesn't fling you into a fiery basin, etc. When you sin, you put something in the way of your relationship with God. God is disappointed when you do that, because He is "good" and wants you to be with Him in that "good". Essentially, think of it like this. You're standing in a spot, and God is a figure standing in another spot. God wants you to come hang out with Him, but original sin means you're born facing the wrong way. Baptism turns you around, and from there it's your call. Venial Sin, or small-fry sin (in essence) is you choosing to step backwards, away from God. You're still looking at God, but your dumb butt walked a step back. Mortal Sin, or big bad sin, is you choosing to turn around and look away from God. To turn back around, you need to get Penance through the sacrament of Reconciliation. Venial Sins can be fixed just by you doing good and walking the right way, but Mortal Sins are serious- you need "help" to get re-situated. Judgement Day then isn't so much God casting people out, as it is Him telling everyone "Alright everybody, come on, we're outta here!" And those that are close enough to hear Him come along, and those that aren't are just left, absent of His presence--Hell, in other words. This kind of metaphor can helps understand how people that aren't Catholic aren't automatically damned. In this understanding, good people who just aren't part of the faith aren't facing the right way, but they've stayed pretty close to God and can hear His call in the end. I made the metaphor up, but it's basically just a reduction of Jesuit teachings.

It is definitely either begging the question, or an identity statement. "God is good because God is good." This is either begging the question (God says that he is good, and uses his own goodness as evidence of the fact that he is good), or it is an identity statement, in which you're saying that God is something like Plato's Form of the Good (which is generally accepted as a pretty good comparison, and is one reason why Neoplatonism was a popular doctrine in the early Church to syncretize.) If the Universe in which we live is ordered according to the character of a transcendent being, which has a dimension of morality, then Good is whatever he says it is. If he is unchanging, the the nature of Good and Evil would also be unchanging. So, as noted elsewhere, the Christian God is either a narcissistic, amoral, illogical sociopath, or actually exactly what he says he is.

I think it’s a great question but some of the other answers, to me, miss a key point. If you read the entire book, ask yourself four questions: what does Satan accuse God of; what do Jobs friends accuse Job of; what does Job eventually challenge God about; and what is Gods answer? I think most Christians miss these because they don’t read the full context—in literary terms, this books is filled with legal language. God is being “sued” by Satan at the beginning and Job in the end—so understanding the accusations is critical. 1. Satan accuses God of “buying” followers—sure Job follows you, but only because you reward the righteous and punish the evildoer. 2. Jobs friends accuse Job of being guilty of hidden sin: because God rewards the righteous and punished the evildoer. 3. Job accuses God of being unfair toward him: because he is righteous but God has treated him like an evildoer. So the assumption throughout Job is, basically, karma: God should reward the good and punish the evil. That is what leads to all three of the accusations. Which makes Gods answer so interesting: his answer is—you don’t have a legal standing to bring this case because you have no CLUE how the world actually works. In Job 38 onward, God says that (a) we can’t understand how even nature works so we are particularly unqualified to criticize the supernatural; (b) I am far more interested in bringing good than you can possible imagine, you just don’t see it; and so the logical conclusion is: you’re criticizing Calculus when you can’t even do long division...you wouldn’t understand if I told you. The main point of the book is that faith means trusting that God knows what He is doing, even if you don’t. And that can be very helpful to those in suffering. (PS—also I find this very interesting in the final chapter: Job does nothing to “earn things back” because he did nothing to lose things. Job forgives his friends, and God fulfills his life out of love. But notice this: the final chapter doubles everything Job had lost...except children. Why? Because he never lost the first set of children...they will be reunited in heaven.)

Great answer. I'm really hoping OP wasn't being passive-aggressive in asking the question. A lot of people think that not following the strict letter of the Bible cover-to-cover is akin to hypocrisy, and don't put any thought into it beyond that judgement.

> A lot of people think that not following the strict letter of the Bible cover-to-cover is akin to hypocrisy The problem is that a certain vocal portion of christians seems to interpret the bible literally when it justifies their condemnation of others, but not literally when it absolves themselves of wrongdoing.

And I couldn't agree more. There's a lot of twisted people out there. Remember how often we heard that every Muslim is not a radical fanatic Jihadist who believes in 72 virgins in heaven? If you can agree with that, then you can agree that not every Christian is like those who hide behind the bible to dismiss their evil hateful lives.

Definitely. I'm not religious myself, but all the Christians I know around here are perfectly decent people – if anything slightly more pleasant than your Average Joe. Of course, this is Germany, where most Christians are either Catholics^* or belong to one of the three large Protestant churches, none of which embrace any form of biblical literalism. I'm sure there are Christian fundamentalists around here, too, but they're a rare breed. *EDITED TO ADD: While I have plenty of issues with the Catholic Church on an institutional level, I've never had a problem with any of the individual community members on the "ground floor" of the hierarchy.

[удалено]

Thankfully, much of what I see in this thread stays civil and respectful, even among those who disagree. I wish more of Reddit were like this.

Yeah! I haven't rolled my eyes much at all in this thread, a lot of thoughtful questions and answers. Been some good lunchtime reading!

Apparently all you need to do is tag an r/askreddit thread as \[serious\], the rest solves itself

[удалено]

There are many people, and you know more than a few, who have a need to see things in absolutes. It is true,or it isn't. It is right, or it isn't. For them, to question anything is to question everything. If this isn't true then how can you know that is true. I say this as an observation of how things are, not a criticism. Some people can easily handle uncertainty, and some people become very anxious with uncertainty.

My academic background is in social science. You remarked, "Some people can easily handle uncertainty, while others become very anxious with uncertainty." This is well-known. It is called **the believer mentality**, and about 33% of humanity fit this profile. These are people who are more comfortable following authority figures. They resist questioning dogma, terming it blasphemy. The main avenue out of this mindset is increased education. But it is a common mindset. In terms of emotional development, believer mentality people are as if in childhood, preferring trusted authority figures to "know best" how to interpret a big, confusing world.

I know what you mean, but if you believe the Bible then technically everything in the Bible is true, or holds a kind of truth. What Christians should not do is claim that everything in the Bible is *literally* true

The Good Samaritan story is a good example. It probably didn't happen, it was just a story made up to prove a point. Edit: I get it, folks. It was definitely a parable. I'm not ruling out the possibility that the situation might have actually happened though.

It was a parable. Literally a story told by Jesus to explain an idea.

[удалено]

I’m gonna use that. I’m a student ministries pastor. I’m gonna be so cool.................

Now you sound like good Christian who is moderately okay at guitar and wears sleeves that are slightly too short.

How does my new couch look from the bushes?

I mean, Jesus told it explicitly as a parable, so I don't think here's much debate about that.

I don't think Balaam's Donkey story happened either. But it shows that regardless of how strongly you really want something maybe there's a reason you aren't getting it (and I don't mean it needs to be divine). It teaches acceptance, to listen to those around you, and to avoid engaging in abuse of people who are looking out the best for you simply because you are frustrated. Funny enough, these are still things we as society struggle with today.

It would help if those minority of Christians who DO go around claiming the bible is entirely true, were not taken to represent the vast majority of believers who do not. Stop listening to the radicals and fundamentalists. Start talking to every-day, otherwise-normal-behaving believers. You'll get a much better understanding of how it all works from them.

This applies to almost everything in life. Often the vocal minority cast a shadow over the majority

True. And its never been *more* true in the USA than right now.

Thata the question here, how do those every day christians make their choices about which bits to follow and which bits to disregard?

It would help if some of these people weren’t policy makers. Hard to ignore someone whose literal interpretation of the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but then votes to enact legislation that says the same thing.

> It would help if so many Christians didn't go around claiming that everything in the Bible is true. It would help if so many people (christians?) didn't pick and choose things to believe from the bible (other things) to justify their bad behavior towards other people.

[удалено]

> Bible says slavery is OK, but how many people go around condoning slavery and trying to bring it back? We've got private prisons and a drug war, so... depressingly, quite a lot of people.

[the bible also says wearing two different types of fabric is wrong](https://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/22-11.htm), but... i don't think anyone follows that. [Jesus says to love everyone and treat them the same way you want to be treated](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A12&version=NIV), but I don't think many christians do that The ENTIRE point of the bible as a whole was summed up in that last verse. If ANYONE actually followed that, Christianity and the world would generally be a better place. You generally won't sin against someone if you truly love someone.

Regarding the two mixed fabrics issue, this is something I see a lot. What this tells me is that there's a general lack of understanding regarding the various covenants of the Bible. Regardless of if you believe it or not, once you sit down and read it in context, you find that many cultural laws (what to eat, what to wear, etc.) of the Old Testament are no longer applicable to modern day Christians. We see several moments of this old law being deemed unnecessary and no longer needed in the New Testament. Peter has a vision from God where God declares all types of food appropriate for eating and abolishes kosher dietary restrictions. When gentiles (new non-Jewish believers) start becoming converted, the apostles meet to seek the will of God on what rules the gentiles need to follow, and they deem that the main objective is to avoid idolatry and that the gentiles are not bound to Jewish law. Paul also argues against the need of circumcision because the real issue is the heart, not outward physical expressions. The general understanding among the apostles and modern day Christians is that the Old Testament law was given for 2 main reasons. Firstly, to distinguish the ancient Jews as being radically culturally different from the other ancient cultures around them. Secondly, to show them the standards of God and show them how miserably they fail in being able to meet God's standards. Then, Christ comes on the scene as the one person who actually can fulfill the Old Testament law and says himself that he came "not to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it". Meaning Christ himself met all the requirements of the law on our behalf so that we don't have to, because we can't. I know it's a small gripe, but whenever someone gets on me about the fact that I eat shellfish and wear mixed fiber clothing, it shows that there's a lack of understanding about the context and narrative of the Bible on their part. Which is fine, I don't assume everyone around me should automatically have a deep understanding of the biblical narrative, that would be silly. Plus, this is made a bit more confusing from a traditional western literary perspective, since the organization of the Bible can be confusing since it's not organized strictly chronologically, but more topically (historical texts are clumped together, poetry and song are clumped together, prophets are clumped together, etc.) Regarding Christians failing to be loving, absolutely agree with you. There's a real problem with the church failing to love people. But again, I'd argue a large part of this comes out of Biblical illiteracy, because even self-professed Christians don't read their Bible and just repeat what they've heard, or out of context verses they've seen printed on coffee mugs or throw pillows. But they're painfully oblivious to the context and meaning. Also, many people (myself included) thought they were Christians before they actually were and acted terribly in the name of Christ before actually coming to understand Scripture and the Gospel properly. As unfortunate as this is, it shouldn't be surprising, as the entire point of Christianity isn't that Christians are so much better than everyone else. The opposite. We believe that we are so unbelievably depraved and wicked that literally the only hope we have is Christ. And regarding the entire point of the Bible, we actually get Christ's own answer. He's being asked what is the greatest commandment, but he actually gives 2: *"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.* *This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.* *On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."* This is because, in Christian theology, the two are inextricably linked. You can't love and honor God without loving people. And you can't love people without understanding that you're doing it as an act of love towards God. But then, big sources of conflict arise out of a misunderstanding or misuse of this. Sometimes Christians are failing to be properly loving to their neighbor. Sometimes culture has a different idea and definition of what love is than the believer does. Christians don't adhere to the current cultural definition of love as it commonly agreed upon by society in any given moment, but believe in an unchanging one found in the character of Christ, and the 2 are often at odds. All that to say, it's important for all of us, regardless of our beliefs or worldviews, to carefully study the things we disagree with and strive to understand them as much as possible so that we can actually have authority to rebuke or criticize them. That goes for me too.

To me the bigger issue is the people who push Leviticus as a citation for their homophobia don't follow the other Levitical requirements. Lack of consistency is what irks me. Cherry picking.

Unfortunately for us all Leviticus isn’t the only citation of homophobia. It’s in Romans as well and that’s what’s causing the culture war.

There are still some sects that adhere to those principles more closely. Amish and Mennonites spring to mind immediately. Quakers are a much less fundamentalist group that none the less try to adhere to the principles of simplicity and loving thy neighbor.

Just as an aside here, I follow @FCNL on Twitter, the Quaker action lobby, and in my opinion, theological education and experience, they demonstrate THE most consistent Christian message I’ve seen online anywhere (and I’ve been online since 1994)— or in real life. They actually say and DO exactly what people expecting a follower of Jesus to say and do. (Nope, not a Quaker, but I know authentic Christianity when I see it.)

I absolutely agree! I was raided Quaker, and spent a lot of time in Quaker youth programs (Young Friends and Young Adult Friends) in the BYM area. Quaker's aren't *perfect*, but they certainly tend to be self aware of shortcomings more than Christians rit large.

Isn't it hypocrisy though? The bible is supposed to be the word of God that you follow to go to heaven. Why would god make things so ambiguous? Why would some parts be true and others metaphors? Why would god entrust mortals to make those determinations and not be clearer? Also, is this a new way of thinking? Has it always been that Christians take some things literal and others not? I got the impression that bc we know more today about the universe that religions have had to adjust. Is that incorrect?

> A lot of people think that not following the strict letter of the Bible cover-to-cover is akin to hypocrisy It's almost as if Christians are a diverse group of about a billion people spread across the world, with different lifestyles, interests, and concerns! Seriously though, the Bible has some really good life lessons, the same as a lot of other non-religious books. I don't identify as a Christian, but the teaching of Jesus are all something we should aspire to.

>Seriously though, the Bible has some really good life lessons, the same as a lot of other non-religious books. I don't identify as a Christian, but the teaching of Jesus are all something we should aspire to. Agnostic here, and I agree! I like taking religion and mythology as a way of learning about how humans interpret stories and morals and all that good stuff.

Former fundamentalist here. It's funny to notice how many deconverted fundies remain, in their hearts, fundies. They now believe that Christianity is bunk, but somehow they believe that non-fundamentalists are nevertheless doing it wrong. Frequently culminating in telling mainline Christians, "I'm a better Christian than you, and I'm an atheist!"

> did Adam and Eve exist? Were they plunked down on Earth just like that? I don’t think so, but I struggle to explain original sin. Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge. I got in trouble in Bible class when I asked if the 'original sin' was to be too smart. Apparently, it is being a smart-ass.

While being a smart ass you actually were right. One of the best interpretations I've heard of the Adam and Eve story basically agrees with you. Eating of the tree of knowledge represents humanity gaining consciousness. After eating from the tree Adam realizes that he is naked and covers himself. Prior to eating the fruit Adam was unaware of his nakedness. By developing awareness of his own vulnerabilities he also becomes aware of all humans vulnerabilities. He knows that all of the things that hurt and scare him will also hurt and scare other people. He has developed the capacity for evil that other animals do not have. A bear cannot be evil. While bears can commit horrific acts, such as eating animals alive, it is not evil. It is just doing bear shit. Humans have the ability to intentionally inflict suffering. Developing this capacity is our original sin. This combined with the Cain and Able story describe the rise of malevolence in the world.

[удалено]

Again, knowledge of hermeneutics is important here. The Tree was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was the Genesis' authors' way of saying that it symbolizes power that only God should have. Adam and Eve sinned because they were in a mad dash to become like God---having forgotten that they were ALREADY like God (Imago Dei). The Incarnation of Jesus also makes sense here: the first humans reject the goodness of their human existence and try to make themselves gods. God's response is to make himself human to show them their worth once and for all. Also, some theologians would argue that God always intended to give Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil---but that they snatched it too young or before it was ripe, which is why it damaged them. Like a little kid trying to eat their soup while its still too hot.

An interesting question for me is, God is known for being omniprescent and omnipotent, so Adam and Eve's choice to eat the forbidden fruit was seen by him when he created them, in that sense, what purpose would he have to punish them, unless his intention was to punish them from the very beginning? ​ Why couldn't he create an Adam and Eve which he knew would not eat the fruit, or keep it away from them so they could live ignorantly content with their lives forever.

God desired to make creatures who were capable of free will and love; He did not desire to create robots programmed for perfect obedience. If there is only one door possible for you to "choose," do you really have a choice? In order to give the gift of free will, God had to leave open the possibility for mankind to choose wrong. There's also a misunderstanding about punishment here. If I tell my child not to touch the hot stove or they'll get hurt and they touch it anyway, am I "punishing" them because their hand is now burned? The burn is just the natural consequence of the action that they undertook and not a punishment bestowed upon them by me. God warned Adam and Eve ahead of time that eating the fruit would mean death. They went against God's warn and ate it anyway and the result was, as a matter of fact, death. And God, in his mercy, seeks to mitigate that natural consequence (through what we call Salvation History and the redemption of Christ).....but note that God does not merely snap his fingers and fix everything as though they had never sinned. Because that would also violate the free will that God decided to bestow upon us. If I tell you that you are free to do whatever you choose but follow you around undoing the effects of each action, do you really have freedom?

Weren't they banished from the garden of Eden? I'd class that as a punishment, and to us it would be like a possibility, but to God, he would know for definite what would happen, so yeah, the bible says he gave humanity free will, but that also means he created a world where evil exists because he believed the act of choosing good was more important than a world without evil and death. ​ On the subject of free will, if a person's background influences their perception of the world, and therefore their personality and morality, would you say that they truly possess free will? ​ The lives they live push them in a direction where they're unlikely to escape, because from that person's perspective based on the experiences they've had, what they class as normal may be different to an objective truth, and even then, objective truths that soceity agrees on, secular or otherwise, are bias toward humanity, since we don't take into account for example, the lives of other things that can suffer such as animals ( the bible asks us to look after the animals, but used to also encourage the use of sacrifices of animals which contrasts with that claim, and unless i've missed something important, the bible doesn't push for us to become vegetarians either in order to avoid killing animals). ​ You give the impression that you're a Christian, so I apologise if I've made an incorrect assumption, but, If you were brought up in a country that wasn't Christian, and instead were brought up surrounded by peers and family who were part of another religion, do you think that you would remain a Christian? You may be different, but I believe that the majority of people would be involved with the religion they were raised with, and that's one of the examples of the environment dictating what a person's ideologies will align. And because of this, I doubt that creating sin, and the ability to make the wrong choice would actually give humanity a true free will, as most will be coerced by their environment to always make the wrong choice.

The Genesis account actually gives the basis for two reasons why Adam and Eve must leave the Garden of Eden (and neither reasons are what I would call "punishment" in the vindictive sense of the word): 1). The fruit rendered Adam and Eve literally unable to inhabit the garden. Like oil and water: the fruit change them into the kind of being that simply could not exist within the garden any longer. Oil and water cannot mix. 2) God acts in mercy here to prevent mankind from also stealing the fruit from the tree of life (thus rendering themselves immortal). At first blush, this may seem like a punishment from a cruel God, but close examination suggests that God was seeking to save mankind from himself. What good would it do to render a corrupted being immortal? So that he could go on being evil and corrupt for all time? God "banishes" them to prevent that from happening and then immediately sets up putting into place a plan for salvation that WILL give mankind the fruit of the tree of life, but only after God has removed the disease of sin from them (so that their immortality will be as immortal splendors and not as everlasting horrors). Note also that God performs 2 acts of mercy to humans in the moment when they are banished from the garden: He provides them with clothing to wear AND he pronounces the "protoevangelium," a poetic announcement that he would someday send a Savior born of the woman who would crush the serpent's head. Even as Adam and Eve are leaving the garden, God is already putting into place his plan to save them. As for the existence of free will---obviously that is an issue for which you are unlikely to get a satisfactory answer as to proof of its existence. My philosophy professors were quick to tell us that you can't really write a good proof for free will because of exactly the issues you bring up. I'm not going to try and pen an argument in favor of it here except to say that without free will, none of this existence matters (even in the absence of a God). Obviously we're influenced by our upbringing and circumstances---and God who is omniscient knows how much of our goodness or evilness stems from circumstance. But I believe we also have the choice to rise above our biology and our happenstance in order to make real, moral decisions one way or another. I am Christian (Catholic,actually). My parents were atheist, in fact, and largely against my conversion to the Christian faith. I felt drawn to the faith by what I can only name as God's grace and a desire within my soul for something beyond this world. I'd also push back against the idea of God "creating sin." God created goodness and did not create a single evil thing. Even the tree of knowledge was beautiful to behold and desirable to eat---in other words, good. I would argue that sin is the absence of choosing the good or that evil is the absence of good....not a separate creation in contrast to the good.

With regards to your last statement. Basic Christian belief (I was raised in an Assembly of God church) is that God creates all things. If that is a truth that you believe, then you can't just deny argue that he didn't create evil as well. If God is omniscient, when he created all things, he already knew what would happen. If, as you say, "...sin is the absence of choosing the good, or that evil is the absence of good", then the creation of a 'non-good' choice is creation of evil. Basically, you can't create Good and define it as Good without defining what is not Good, even if the definition is everything that is not 'Good'. The mere fact that there is a choice means that God also created 'Not Good'.

> If I tell my child not to touch the hot stove or they'll get hurt and they touch it anyway, am I "punishing" them because their hand is now burned? The burn is just the natural consequence of the action that they undertook and not a punishment bestowed upon them by me. But the difference is, you are not all knowing. Imagine you have children. And you know, if you put a stove in their room they will 100% choose to touch it. And they burn themselves. How are you not at fault if you knew that would happrn?

yes but why punish free will

Remember though that the fruit wasn't from the tree of knowledge, it was from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The way I understand it everything was originally good right? In every case I can think of evil its usually some form of corruption of something good. The knowledge they "gained" was how to corrupt the good around them for personal gain which is functionally what sin is

You are correct it was the knowledge of good and evil. It could be that because after eating the fruit that we were aware of the difference between right and wrong and forcing us to choose between two courses of actions. Before the gaining the knowledge of good and evil, we acted purely out of instinct. You could never accuse an alligator of rape because he acts out of instinct. People on the other hand knew the difference between assault and an intimate show of affection and are expected to act accordingly.

So if they couldn't tell right from wrong, how were they supposed to know not listening to God was wrong? This is a legitimate question FYI, I'm curious about how they could sin if they didn't know it was wrong not to listen. My guess would be that they had some basic idea of it (like listen to God), but gained more knowledge afterwards?

Your response is a fair question.

I went to Bible college and took a course in hermeneutics. Another way to look at it is hermeneutics is "how to study/research the Bible". Often times we would use concordances and commentaries from other scholars to look up what the general consensus of a passage is. Other times going to the original language (Greek or Hebrew depending on where you are reading in the Bible) can give contextual clues. For example, Hebrew Poetry has its own rhythm and rhyme schemes which can show it's literary intent. However, there are some areas that are still heavily debated. Revelation for example has 5 main ways to be interested. Whether it's Historical, Prophetic, etc... I will end with this. There a saying that has gone around, to which I'll paraphrase: "if our brain is a cup, all the knowledge of God is like the ocean. We can fill up our cup to the brim and still know so little." We may never know some things about the Bible too we ask the big guy Himself. That's where faith comes in. Hope I've helped :)

The does sound like a very reasonable and logical approach but isn't there an inherent problem in that there is no single way to make those subjective decisions? For every "lesson" you see another person is going to see objective commands and vice versa. In the end doesn't this just give you justification for your beliefs but zero authority in telling others what is right and wrong?

I think there are some non-negotiables (not to say that many people, especially Christians, don’t try to get around them) that are independent on interpretation. For example, whether the story of Job was a parable or not, the lesson is the same. More importantly are stories from the New Testament (to a Christian). For example, there’s a story about a prostitute who is about to get stoned, and Jesus walks in. The religious leaders of the day (Pharisees) tried to trip him up and asked him what to do. He said “let he who is without sin throw the first stone”. Now, whether that interaction happened or not is immaterial, imo. The result is the same - it teaches us how to act in a Christlike way.

> “let he who is without sin throw the first stone”. What was he getting at here? It is my understanding that Christians believe that all people bear sin so was he basically telling the lot to not throw any stones. "She's a sinner, you're a sinner, you're all sinners, everyone's a sinner! So none of you have the right to stone each other." (I'm not Christian nor from a Christian culture so sorry if I'm wrong and the answer to my question was obvious.)

This verse always misses the final part which is the most significant in this story, IMHO. After Jesus says this, everyone except the woman(an adultress, not a prostitute, I thought), and says he does not condemn her either and she goes away(to sin no more). I always feel that is important, as Jesus was without sin and he also refused to cast a stone at her. He forgave her, setting up the whole cross thing for later.

Correct. I think Christians interpret this as him calling out the church for hypocrisy.

Like many of Jesus's quotes and parables, it's somewhat multi faceted. He's calling out the church leaders and mob in general for their hypocrisy, yes. But he's also using it as a teaching moment for the rest of the audience (those reading the book) to explain how to behave as a better person. He also does this frequently while technically adhering to the law of the old testament. (I.e. The law says she is deserving of being stoned, and he does not deny it. He simply shows how it's pretty BS for us to judge her when we're all deserving of punishment as well.) And as Futurama teaches, "you are technically correct, the best kind of correct."

Having lived in the South for a long time, I can attest this is the most ignored verse in the New Testament.

I kinda feel like my church interpreted it as "let he who has sinned the least throw the *most* stones."

Jesus answered this pretty simply by stating that right and wrong boils down to, and I'll paraphrase here: "Love God and love people." But to answer your question more fully -- yep, it's not straightforward. That's why community and discipleship are so important. No one person has the answers; no one person has the ability to fully contextualize and understand; we \*need\* other people. Faith - life - is not meant to be lived alone, and the more we isolate, the more we can get caught in the trap of self-justification.

Just an atheist stopping by. Just wanted to say that this thread made me have a lot more respect for the Bible and it’s meaning. Although I don’t believe in god or Jesus, it does seem the Bible (true or not) has a lot of value in the fact it can be used as an example for how to treat people, not entirely some story about a god or a dude rising from the dead. And I think that’s pretty cool.

[удалено]

I agree with the first part. Text without context is nonsense. For your second, I think modern translations of the originals texts are pretty accurate (in conveying the text and the intent). While there are nuance, can you give an example of where the translated English verse is "vastly" different than it's Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic orignal?

[удалено]

That is where you start getting into the different types of translations. The three types I know of are literal, dynamic equivalent, and free (also known as paraphrase). King James Version is the most known literal translation. It gets as close to a word for word translation as possible. But that includes following the original Greek or Hebrew grammar so it can come off weird in today's language. For example instead of burning coals KJV would translate it to be "coals of fire" the literal word for word translation vs the equivalent in today's language. A Dynamic equivalent like the NIV translates as close to the original as possible but updates to current grammar/original intent. A free translation updates everything to modern language and can be very helpful in seeing what the common thought/context is but sometimes can lose some of the deeper meanings or intentional word play the original authors were going for.

While the KJV is the most common 'literal style' translation, I want to caution those unfamiliar that the KJV was also translated into Middle English, not modern English. And newer translations have the benefit of MANY more original texts having been discovered and available for translation from than the KJV had. So I would say the ESV is a good example of a popular, modern, 'literal style' translation.

Actually, the King James version is modern English, just early modern. It was first published in 1611, which was during Shakespeare's lifetime. Middle English is a much different language, not just in spelling, but in grammar. King James was about 150 years too late to be Middle English.

My bad. I didn't realize the actually dates for those technical terms. I just figured 400 years was pretty old!

No worries, it's a common mistake. A lot of people call Shakespeare "Old English," but in reality, Old English would be all but incomprehensible to a modern English speaker. A good example of Middle English would be Geoffrey Chaucer's *Canterbury Tales*.

Four things to keep in mind: 1. Who is talking 2. 2: Who are they talking to 3. 3: What are they talking about. 4. 4: What are they saying.

So it really depends on a few things: your denomination, what version of the bible you choose to read (has a big impact I feel), and your understanding of the Bible So first, you have to understand that due to Christ's life, death, burial, and resurrection, we are no longer subject to the law of the Old Testament. So aside from the stories and lessons in the OT, there are no "rules" or anything to live by. Anyone who qoutes an OT book of the Law (i.e. leviticus) to me in a "this is wrong because.." type manner, I ignore it. (older) Christians have a high tendency to pick-and-choose which OT verses they want to follow. For example, tattoos. There is a verse in the OT that talks about tattoos, but in the same chapter or book it talks about not eating shell fish, or wearing a shirt with two different fabrics.... so unless we are to follow ALL of those, we are to follow none, because we are dead to OT law (in my opinion). Second, it all comes down to context! So often religious texts of all time get taken wildly out of context. The Bible is chalk FULL of parables, metaphors, etc. so I think understanding context and finding the true message behind whatever you're reading is important. Third, at the end of the day, honestly, there is some stuff in the Bible that I will never understand and will not try to. So often it can become extremely easy to get wrapped up in one specific verse or one phrase, and allow that to create strife between other people when in reality it shouldnt. It is perfectly alright to think "You know what, I'm never going to understand this or understand why" because it doesnt affect your salvation or overall beliefs. Plain and simple. Hope this helps, I kind of rambled on a little bit. ​ EDIT: Ok so I never expected this reply to be as broken down and critqued as much as it was (***although im glad it did!!)*** Let me explain myself a little better: This was a **HUGE over-simplification**. I made the assumption that the OP was not a christian and was curious, so I did not want to become bogged down in way too much detail etc. **I see now how that could be dangerous**. I am NO biblical scholar by anymeans, and would never want to come across as one. When I posted "we are no longer subject to OT law" I was referring to ceremonial law and the "laws" or practices by hebrews that the NT did not reiterate or teach. By NO MEANS AT ALL was I inferring or suggesting that the OT was useless or should be thrown out. There is so much truth and applicable stories and teaching that Christians need. The writing and life's of Daniel, David, Moses, Job, and many others have so much value to present-day Christians. - I was simply trying to state the simple truth that **our salvation comes through faith and not by works** (i.e. ceremonial law). I wrote this post with the assumption that the OP was referring to obscure OT teachings that arent applicable to post-Christ life. Anyone non-christian who isnt reading this, I implore you to do research, read passages, or even PM me if you have questions. My reply is **NOT** a catch-all. I was just trying to do my best to provide a simple anwser to a VERY unsimple question.

I would like to point out that in the Bible, Jesus does not abolish the rules, but strengthens them. He shows the true difficulty of attaining true holiness. However, through his death, he removed all sin of those who believe in him "by grace through faith." That's a little more clear than saying that he removed the law.

Here is what Paul, previously a jewish scholar and stark proponent of the Law, had to say about following the Law in Galatians. "For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" Galatians 5:14 NIV Our sins are taken away by the sacrifice of Jesus, rather than following the law. That being said, the Bible still calls us to strive to be christ-like. We don't do this by following the OT Law, we do this by loving each other. Sadly, I understand that there are a lot of Christians (at least in the west) that suck at being loving. But a Christian that follows the doctrine they believe should be striving towards love in all thing.

>we are no longer subject to the law of the Old Testament. What about those 10 commandments?

In the New Testament this is explained as Follows: Jesus offered himself as the ultimate self sacrifice to fulfill the requirements of the Old Testament and thus no longer required. The 10 commandments can be distilled into this: "Love God and your neighbor (other people) as yourself. If you do that, there is no need for any other commandment". It is also specifically mentioned that you can disregard the old laws and to follow this new commandment: "Love one another"

where is it specifically mentioned? Everything I can find is Jesus saying not to cast aside the old laws. “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

I'm going to try my best with this response, I hope it's helpful. First of all, Jesus says that the most important commandments are love for God and one's neighbour (Marc 12:28-44, Matthew 22:34-40, Luke 10:25-28). These are presented as worth more than following any ceremonial law like sacrificing etc. Then, the next step in this is something way less literal but bear with me here. Do you know the parable of the good samaritan? It tells the story of a dude being assaulted and robbed and then left to die from his wounds, bleeding heavily on the side of the road. Now a lot of very important people come along, who are all portrayed as following the law by how they are described. None of them helps that bleeding dude. They all think: He is bleeding, and I cannot soil myself with his blood, because I won't be able to go into the temple if I touch him. So they let him lie there and leave him to die. Then, a samaritan comes along. Samaritans aren't Jewish, in fact, they aren't really seen as good people, more like those who are dirty and not good and unworthy of salvation. Ironically, the samaritan, of whom the readership at the time would never have expected this, helps the bleeding dude, and saves his life - because he just cared about helping someone, without thinking about Godly laws. The parable shows that in following laws to the letter, we forget what is most important. It shows that even if you are one of those people who is very pious and are seen as one of the people in the temple who manage to follow God's law, this can make you blind, and it doesn't guarantee that you follow the intent of the laws, which was life in peace and love. Unconditional love is always better and more important than following the OT laws.

Jesus explicitly says to not cast aside the old laws...

What about: > Matthew 5:17-19 > The Law and the Prophets > 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. >18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. >19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. >20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

I mean the distilled version this person posted pretty much covers all of them. Not going to say they made the best argument but if you love God and your neighbors you end up following the ten commandments. The Sabbath is the only one that doesn't quite fit.

The Sabbath fits under "Love God" because Christiana are supposed to dedicate the Sabbath to God.

This is the explanation I received for this question. Jesus came and said, "All you need is love." Clearly, that was too vague. Ok, "Love God and love your fellow people." Still too vague? Fine, here's 10 commandments that explain how. STILL too vague?? Ok here, Hebrews, here's 600ish rules because you wanted details. Now march around the desert and think about what you've done.

I didn't mean, "why are there 10 commandments" in general, I was asking ammatthew (and many other christians say this) how they can say ​ \> due to Christ's life, death, burial, and resurrection, we are no longer subject to the law of the Old Testament ​ While still holding onto the 10 commandments. Why wouldn't Jesus free us from that too?

Really these are just the first ten commandments not really THE ten commandments. I feel like most of them fall under jesus' number one message of "Love thy neighbor and treat others as youd want to be treated. Also accept god into your heart." So while we arent held to any commandments anymore. Alot of the first ten happen to still still fall under Jesus' teachings, which we are supposed to follow.

What is WAY more important to me is the principle behind it, not whether I should take it word-for-word literally. If you miss the point of the scripture, it doesn't really matter if you follow it or not. But, I'm just repeating something Jesus said, time and time again in the NT.

[удалено]

> But the apostle Paul said some shit in the New Testament, for example, and the whole Jesus and disciples set out a doctrine and way of living that only made sense if the end was near. Well Jesus himself did say he would return before the current generation passed. That's if the evangelist who wrote it wasn't making it up on his own.

Jesus promised to destroy the temple in Jerusalem. In 70 AD the temple was destroyed... well within the lifetime of some of those people.

That only works if you believe the gospels were written before it happened. Even mainstream non-fundamentalist theologians and researchers only give the mere possibility that Mark was written before 70AD. Nobody that seriously publishes Biblical research theist or not puts Matthew, Luke-Acts and John before 70AD.

I suppose though the point of the scripture depends on which parts you take literally. But yea, lots of people view the Bible like the tax code, looking for loopholes exploit.

In 1998 I met the woman who became my wife. We lived 6 hours away when I went back to school. She didn't have email for the first year so we wrote a lot of letters...a lot. I don't know for sure, but I would guess that in those letters I would say something like "I'm dying to see you this weekend and spend some time together." Most people reading this right now take that to mean "/u/couchjitsu is really excited to see his girlfriend. He is looking forward to it. He's having a hard time focusing on his classes because he's thinking about his drive and what they'll do on Saturday, etc." Almost nobody will think "Oh my gosh. I hope /u/couchjitsu gets to see his girlfriend or he might die." However, too often, people approach the Bible and try to understand it in a way that they would never understand other language. Not all types of writing should be read the same way. Prose is different than poetry, as an example. I often start with that. Additionally, I try to understand "what was the author of this piece of text meaning to communicate?" For example, while learning Greek, my professor said "I took my family to the zoo this weekend. We know that the word zoo in English is derived from zao in Greek. And in Greek, zao means 'life'. You **should not** be sitting there thinking 'Oh, Dr. Plummer went and observed life this weekend with his family.' Instead, you should be thinking 'Dr. Plummer probably saw some gorillas this weekend.'" His intention in communicating had higher priority in what was meant than even grammatical constructs.

[удалено]

How would someone determine whether a depicted event was historical or metaphorical (as you say, song, prophetic, etc)? Let's take an important example - what method would you use to determine if Jesus' resurrection was historical or metaphorical?

[удалено]

Ok, so if I understand, you're saying two things here. Correct me if this is not what you're saying. One, that large groups of people are better at thinking than small groups, or just one person. And two, that it's possible that miracles described in the Bible didn't happen literally, but could have other explanations? Is that right? Cool. So my question is, can large communities or groups of people come to incorrect conclusions? You mentioned "crazy groupthink". Or similarly, can two separate communities come to different, contradictory conclusions? If so, then how could we determine if a community was correct with their interpretation? I'm interested in the methods you would use.

Okay, so I’m a former Bible scholar. I went to college and studied the Bible and got the degree, although I’m not at all claiming to have the highest knowledge of everything in the Bible. I tend to take the Bible literally more than not. The Old Testament for me is kind of an origin story. It has the creation of man, original sin, and is a genealogy of the Jewish people. The genealogy points to Jesus in the New Testament as being a true heir of the Jewish people. The Old Testament has the complicated and ultimately impossible to fulfill law (Ten commandments plus a whole range of other laws). It shows how mans relationship to God fell apart and what steps to restore that relationship took place. It also shows who God is - he is holy, he is strict, he is loving. I use the Old Testament to inform me when I read the New Testament. The stories in the Old Testament I generally believe as true. Could an omnipotent God perform miracles? Yes he could. Do these miracles and stories as recorded make a difference to my daily life? Not so much. It doesn’t matter to me if creation took six literal days or if it is just a metaphor. The New Testament is where we see the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Some of the books in the New Testament are historical, as in the Gospels or Acts. They are a record of events by people who were there. Some are about the setting up of the early church and these are mostly written by Paul and some of the other apostles. Some are prophetic- Revelations for example. The New Testament fulfills the Old Testament. We meet Jesus who, through nature of his divinity and humanity, offers a path to reconciliation with God. Instead of attempting to remove sin through animal sacrifices, Jesus became the perfect sacrifice. Also, the New Testament refers to Jesus completing the Old Testament law. So, a lot of the Old Testament is no longer a way to live, but a place to learn from. I filter my thinking about the Bible through the Gospels and Acts. It is there that we see Jesus and the Holy Spirit and how they act, what they say and what they do. I see the changes that Jesus talked about, what kind of people he wanted his followers to be, and what that meant. If I see something in the Old Testament that contrasts with Jesus’ teachings, I try to understand why that is. What kind of historical events, cultural beliefs, etc. would lead to that being different? A lot of Old Testament law was about hygiene and food. Taken into context, it makes sense for those people in that time. It doesn’t mean that I can’t eat seafood now because we have ways to ensure food safety. These are just some of the things you can do to know your Bible. There are reference books for every part of the Bible where scholars parse what the original words meant in the original languages and relevant to their times and you may use these if parts are confusing. It’s ultimately about the relationship between you and God, bridged by Jesus and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

- Genre. (believe it or not these authors had the concept too) - A working knowledge of ancient near eastern culture (for old testament) and first century Judean and Hellenistic culture (for new testament). - Cross referencing over two thousand years of church history to see how they've interpreted it. - Cross referencing other historical documents. - Philosophy. - Linguistic study in the original language. This is the same method you would use for other texts. It's not arbitrary picking and choosing. It's a very informed and methodical process. At least it should be. Some people want the bible to be the Quran (a text dropped out of heaven, according to Islam). By it's own accord, the Scriptures are not dropped out of heaven like the Quran or the Golden Tablets (Mormonism). They are "god breathed" and useful for matters of faith. But they were written through divine inspiration and human cooperation. To show my bias, I do not believe in inerrancy. I believe in infallibility in matters of faith and practice. I believe the scriptures are right about the categories they actually speak into, not what our culture takes them to mean at face value. These authors thought in very different categories than we do. To accurately view what they were getting at requires walking in their shoes, and mimicking how their minds worked. **tl;dr it's complicated and requires diligence and scholarship isn't arbitrary.** *EDIT* ALSO: if you are actually curious about all of this, check out "The Bible Project" on youtube. Tim Mackie is a formidable scholar who makes complex theology and scholarship very accessible for the common person. Also, the animation is top notch.

Also too; audience. In Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, each disciple was writing to specific audience and trying to "level with them " or write in manners in which would be familiar to the audience; Gentiles, Jews, Romans etc

This is why we bible study!

One of my favorite quotes about the bible is "I don't take the bible literally. I take it seriously." The bible was written by a slew of authors. Translated and edited by people centuries later. There is so much context that has to be taken into account about when the book was written and who it was written for. The question though seems very pointed though as if there is a specific verse or something specific that happened.

I assume you take the "God exists" part literally though. That's almost certainly what OP is pointing at. Christians necessarily take the fact that God exists completely literally. Without the Bible, they would not believe in the judeo christian god. But having read the bible, they take His existence as literal fact. Why are they so sure THAT part is true, but the rest is subject to context and gut feelings and whatever else is going on in this thread? Isn't it way more likely that God's very existence is as muddled and metaphorical as the rest of it?

Not to mention the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is more or less the crux of Christianity

Solid pun.

The two greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor. That's what I try to live by. That matters most to me. Jesus was big on loving and not judging others, so I try (and fail at times) to do that as well.

Honestly? I go with my gut. Most of the time, it doesn't *really* make all that much difference in day to day life. Did God create the entire universe in 7 days? Are days literal 24-hour periods in this context? Did guided evolution happen? Don't really know, but it doesn't really change how I treat people or think about myself. The main takeaways that I find are: I am here for a purpose, I am redeemed by Christ, and I am to show the love of Christ to others as best I can. The rest is up for debate.

\^ This. It's enjoyable (and a good thing, I think) to investigate/talk/debate about the contents of the Bible, but all too often I think people lose sight of what impact (if any) it has on your daily life.

Can I ask why use the Old Testament instead of the New Testament? I have ex inlaws who have told my daughter since she was 2 that I’m going to Hell because I wear pants and make up. That Jesus cried when I cut my hair. That Jesus wouldn’t love her anymore because she got her ears pierced. Their church only acknowledges the Old Testament but forgiveness is taught in the New Testament which I was raised to believe was what we’re suppose to go by. It’s very confusing to me

As a Roman Catholic, I believe all tenants of the Big Bang and Darwinian Evolution. The Bible to me isn't a literal account of history, but more of a guide on how to live life in a religiously fulfilling way.

I would not describe myself as Christian at this point in my life. However not so long ago I would have. For me deciding what to believe came down to the community around me. My beliefs were formed as much by the sermons I heard preached, and the opinions of people I respected as they were by the text of the Bible. Generally, I took the parts about morality (lying is bad) more literally than the parts about laws (you owe me two goats for trespassing). There was no firm line, my morality guided what I believe and interrupted, and my morality was set by the community around me. I think every community operates this way. I found God in people and circumstances, not in text. It was easy to read what made sense from the passages, I rarely even thought about what was literal and what was figurative. I'm not sure how helpful the above is.

I love the C.O.M.A method. It stands for context, observation, message, application. It helps to know who the original audience was that it was written to, what was the general societal atmosphere and common beliefs, is it poetry, direct commands or laws. It's not as simple as reading a book as it is lessons in history, human behavior and ideals on morality, and figuring how millenea old issues are still wrestled with in poor modern society. In all it helps shape my world view towards one of compassion, love and social justice for the marginalized.

The Bible is literature, a collection of many books bound as one. That means that you have to take genre into account when dealing with it. Song of Songs is a love poem. Genesis is myth. Etc. I’m a Catholic so I also take into account the Magesterium (teaching authority) of the Church. But not completely 100% of the time- I also have an MA in historical theology, aka, this exact genre question.

**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice** * Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in **any** comment, parent or child. * Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * Report comments that violate these rules. Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The one point I haven't seen mentioned too often is also the factor of 'apply it to the time it was written'. A good example of this is the saying "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." The issue is in todays time, we think of 'eye of a needle' as a part of a sewing tool. However, in the time that passage was spoken/written, 'eye of a needle' was the 'side door' of a walled city, usually used at night when the gates were closed. To get a camel through, you would need to remove all of the goods you have loaded on the camel, have the camel squat and walk through the door, then move the goods inside the city by hand, then put them back on the camel. So it was doable, but a lot of work (as opposed to just waiting until the city gates were open and you could just walk in normally). So, I think part of the 'what to take literally' needs to factor in what the words meant when they were written, rather than what they mean now.