i've posted a thread similar to this one i am posting now but this has some further evolved ideas from when i first posted about it.

i see all you theist guys and some non-theist guys posting verse and passage from the bible and hear differing opinions on what this passage or that passage is thought to mean- either personally gained or from an outside influence. however, to quote the bible figuratively is all but immpossible as if it were written by an infinitely knowledgable god with infinite wisdom on top of that, our minds have no way of ever being able to comprehend the figurative sense of the bible as from our own understanding, we are hopelessly equiped to do so. therefore i put forward the idea that the only way people can know they are successfully quoting the bible on something is if they are being literal. that is the only way we can take the bible as our very finite brains cannot possibly take into context the bible. so, literal is all we got in context to the bible (my opinion anyway).

I would definitely agree. We either need to take it as saying exactly what it says, or we can ignore it completely. As I see it, those are the choices.

Some passages are obviously symbolical such as portions of revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and the creation story in Genesis.

Originally posted by okinrus
Some passages are obviously symbolical such as portions of revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, and the creation story in Genesis.

Why "obviously"?
Don't you think that is a very subjective judgement?
I can say that "obviously" it is ALL symolic.

If that is true, who is the judge, other than the author?

Isn't alot of the bible said to be the parables of jesus and such?

Well if I wanted people to believe in the bible I would be desperately trying to tell them it is not supposed to be taken litterally. It quickly turns into a joke if it is read by someone expecting litteral reality.
For starters, no matter how big an arc was 2 of every animal could not possibly fit on it, nevermind the fact that no one, even with todays technology, could possibly gather 2 of every animal. And then to believe that you would have to accept that every single human on earth today descended from noah's family, africans would be extinct if this were true and so would asians and all new world branches of asians.
This is one little story that no one, no matter how dilluded, could possibly argue happened in real life exactly as it says in the bible. And there are oh so many others.
But the bible can be seen as rather brilliant in some ways if it is read as symbolic. The new testament is a load no matter what but the old is sort of profound. Only, of course, if read symbolically.

I said the new testament is a load but I meant that it was based on false assumptions. I believe most of it actually happened, unlike the old testament, but there are flagrant embellishments and it serves to say nothing of any importance other than some guy liked people and taught people to also like people.
It romanticised some nice guys life to the point of ridiculous fantasy.
I think its obvious that most of the old testament was originally intended to be symbolic, like fables and so on. I don't know why its obvious, it just is, it reads like that was the intention of the author, the new testament is different and you can see how the old testament was misinterpretted by the society of those days by the way the writers of the new testament spoke of god. Actually you can see how genesis got misinterpretted as you progress through the book, becoming a little less understood as time goes on.
I think the bible offers an interesting angle in which to view the history of the human mind vs the history of humans but little more.
I find it unbelievably amusing that people take it so litterally considering its obvious that the stories it was based upon were clearly never meant to be taken litterally.
Read genesis again and then read a later book, pay no attention to the "message" or whatever just the difference in writing styles, I find it obvious, but apparently a hell of alot of people on this rock disagree.

I agree that the bible should be taken as literal (even the story of Noah)

however, somethings ARE more symbolic (like Jesus's parables, He told a story using symbolism, so the content of that story is symbolic, not the fact that Jesus told the story)

as for Revelations, that is a vision that John (?) was given, and visions are often involve symbolism, so some of the stuff in Revelations is used symbolically, but the vision itself literally happened

did that make sense to anyone else?

Tyrell :
I would definitely agree. We either need to take it as saying exactly what it says, or we can ignore it completely. As I see it, those are the choices.

And how exactly are you going to varyfy that what it sais is what you understand by it ? How do you define literaly ? Sure it says "rock" , but how do you know that piece of stone is what "rock" means ? Why wouldnt it mean "banana" ?

Surely this way there isnt ever gonna be 1 objective interpertation , but that doesnt mean we have to go for one that seems objective because somebody decided its some particular way .

I have 3 very good point to question literal to be literal :
1)mis-translation
2)semantics
3)lack of intelligence incomparable to other intelligence in that time/place .

New Life
did that make sense to anyone else?

Not to me , but I do understand where your visions come from and where they're going . However it is this kind of stupidity that would refute point #3 , since I consider it highly intelligent you at the same time are capable to operate a computer & understand language and at the same time believe in the literal interpertation of non-sensical stories from a book that you probably consider coherent as well , while there are dozens of versions all thrown together by the likes and dislikes of dozens of peoples with specific interests . Did you know for instance thats its numerologically possible to prove that Shakespear translated the King's James version ?

Anyways , you mention some symbolical value , I wonder how you decide what is literal and what isnt . Is the border simply because you cant believe it ?

We either need to take it as saying exactly what it says, or we can ignore it completely.


Kings 2:10___So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David.

He slept with his father? Dude, that's just sick.

Not thats just STUPID .

2:10 Then David passed away1 and was buried in the city of David.2 2:11 David reigned over Israel forty years; he reigned in Hebron seven years, and in Jerusalem thirty-three years.

I mean come one now , at least a bit semantical understanding here please .....if peoples cant translate and others cant interpertate we got guaranteed bullpoo , like you prove here .

Again , what is literal ? Obviously here is ment layd down to rest in peace , not screwed up his ass damnit .

Actually its you who's not interperting literary , since sleeping with does not literary imply what you understand , but just to be asleep with . So its the otherway around in your case even .

I think no Biblical interpertation should have symbolical limits as long as it serves the purpose of logical understanding , even if the writer didnt even intend so . Its the result that counts .

Originally posted by Jihad_AlifLamLamHah

Anyways , you mention some symbolical value , I wonder how you decide what is literal and what isnt . Is the border simply because you cant believe it ?

well, i take it literally unless someone specifically says 'this is the story Jesus told' or 'this is the vision he recieved' thats where i and many people i know make the distinction.

I think no Biblical interpertation should have symbolical limits as long as it serves the purpose of logical understanding , even if the writer didnt even intend so . Its the result that counts .
no it's not, it's the message that counts. if people can read into the bible anything they want, you just get further and further from it's true purpose. besides, the writer was supposed to be god therefore we can't know the bibles figurative meanings because god has infinite wisdom, whereas we have finite wisdom. my point was, taken in that context, no-one on earth can understand or qoute the bible figuratively, rather only literally because we can't know for sure if what is being qouted is figuratively correct- so we can only take it's literal meaning. get it?

if the bible is literal, then why are their two different versions of creation in the book of genisis (creation is in a different order in each), in KJ's translation? Which happened, the first or the second version? did they both happen? how could that be, if the order of events is different? When did snakes stop speaking? Why could God not find Adam after he ate from the tree of knowledge? I thought he could see everything?


Jesus tells a story of the prodigal son. One who leaves, learns, and returns. a grand party is thrown for this son who has tested and returned, a fatted calf is killed. Why would anyone reading the Bible think that you can't question God? Doesn't Jesus suggest that you should, given this story? What other explanation does this parable have?

Originally posted by atheroy
no it's not, it's the message that counts. if people can read into the bible anything they want, you just get further and further from it's true purpose. besides, the writer was supposed to be god therefore we can't know the bibles figurative meanings because god has infinite wisdom, whereas we have finite wisdom. my point was, taken in that context, no-one on earth can understand or qoute the bible figuratively, rather only literally because we can't know for sure if what is being qouted is figuratively correct- so we can only take it's literal meaning. get it?

however, while Jesus was (according to the Catholic church) God, he was still human. so are his parables within our realm of comprehention? If not, why would he bother telling them to people, if they wuldn't really be able to understand?

if the bible is literal, then why are their two different versions of creation in the book of genisis (creation is in a different order in each), in KJ's translation?
because the bible is wrote and re-wrote to suite the times as a social control to suck money out of people, and in all probabilities is a work of fiction that people take WAY to seriously, especially when the bible manages to discredit itself yet people still believe in it and glaze over the hazy bits where their religion becomes baseless.

however, while Jesus was (according to the Catholic church) God, he was still human. so are his parables within our realm of comprehention? If not, why would he bother telling them to people, if they wuldn't really be able to understand?
i'm not sure but the bible wasn't written by jesus it was written by god through some guys. besides, isn't your common sense not even slightly skeptical of a god that is perfect yet basks in his glory, requires people to love him and yet he is still classed as perfect? that seems like someone who's arrogance is big- and someone with arrogance is not perfect. so what does that make god?

Originally posted by atheroy
that is the only way we can take the bible as our very finite brains cannot possibly take into context the bible.

So you are saying that God suposidly wrote the Bible for the purpose of us knowing of him and what he wants from us, but then he spacificaly wrote it such that we couldn't understand what he's trying to tell us?

Mystech
no, we can understand the literal side of the bible because we KNOW literal. what we can't know is the figurative side because we cannot comprehend the situation in which the bible was written, or the mind behind it's orchestration. so we know what god wants us to know because it's all there laid out for us, i just don't understand how people can so blithely interpret the bible and claim they know that their interpretation is right as by their own definition, god is not something we can understand.

Originally posted by atheroy
i've posted a thread similar to this one i am posting now but this has some further evolved ideas from when i first posted about it.

i see all you theist guys and some non-theist guys posting verse and passage from the bible and hear differing opinions on what this passage or that passage is thought to mean- either personally gained or from an outside influence. however, to quote the bible figuratively is all but immpossible as if it were written by an infinitely knowledgable god with infinite wisdom on top of that, our minds have no way of ever being able to comprehend the figurative sense of the bible as from our own understanding, we are hopelessly equiped to do so. therefore i put forward the idea that the only way people can know they are successfully quoting the bible on something is if they are being literal. that is the only way we can take the bible as our very finite brains cannot possibly take into context the bible. so, literal is all we got in context to the bible (my opinion anyway).

But what about us Theaists?

My two cents. When evaluating the bible, it has to be looked at in its historical context. What was the message when it was written? The most oft-quoted passage of Leviticus which denounces homosexual intercourse is right in the middle of a list of things which were believed to spread disease. The message when it was written was "don't get sick and die." It's only pragmatic to keep followers of a religion alive.

Secondly, even allowing for divine inspiration bestowed upon the authors, they are still the authors. The book of Revelations is a translation of what the author pulled from their vision.

Secondly, even allowing for divine inspiration bestowed upon the authors, they are still the authors. The book of Revelations is a translation of what the author pulled from their vision.
so they could have just as easily been on the wacky dacky when they came up with this stuff? man, i cannot believe people believe in this stuff.

When evaluating the bible, it has to be looked at in its historical context
yep, that would make sense, except people keep on applying it to today, that is why culture is retarded and we seem to be stuck in this rut of conformitive thinking.

New Life
well, i take it literally unless someone specifically says 'this is the story Jesus told' or 'this is the vision he recieved' thats where i and many people i know make the distinction.

That I understood , what I wonder is how literary do you take that what you considered actually happened . For instance :

Now5 the earth6 was without shape and empty,7 and darkness8 was over the surface of the watery deep,9 but the Spirit of God10 was moving11 over the surface12 of the water

How exactly would something like this be played out ?

or :
God said, "Let there be an expanse23 in the midst of the waters and let it separate water

Does God have voice ? Does he use it , think outloud ? Literal interpertation , in howfar ?

atheroy
no it's not, it's the message that counts.

Ok , but the fact that the message counts says little for your case of : if people can read into the bible anything they want, you just get further and further from it's true purpose. besides, , thing is you cant know what the writer ment by those symbols , maybe all those words back then didnt mean the same as you understand them now ? How would you know ? As long as you cant , there is no reason to refute alternative interpertation based on Gods interpertation , sinc you can never know that .

the writer was supposed to be god therefore we can't know the bibles figurative meanings because god has infinite wisdom, whereas we have finite wisdom.

So figurative falls out of our finite border ? Why is that ? Why doesnt it fall within our finit border ? Just because it falls out of YOUR finite border ?

rather only literally because we can't know for sure if what is being qouted is figuratively correct- so we can only take it's literal meaning. get it?

Yes I get it , thing is however you dont know what this literal meaning is in the eyes of God , so why do you choose this particular method of translation and interpertation ? My question , how do you know that what you think is literal , is actually literal .

The example given about that *sleeping* perfectly shows this .

Originally posted by Jihad_AlifLamLamHah
... thing is you cant know what the writer ment by those symbols , maybe all those words back then didnt mean the same as you understand them now ? How would you know ? As long as you cant , there is no reason to refute alternative interpertation based on Gods interpertation , sinc you can never know that .


______

This is not true.

While you may find that particular passage from Genesis to be quite baffling, there are people (like me) who have studied the text and have no problem telling you what the authors were telling their audience.

And if you put the effort into finding out what the words mean (and it isn't that difficult) you would realize the people who wrote the account in Genesis had no idea how big the universe is, how old it is, or even what the shape of the earth is.

Absolutely, no question whatsoever, the Genesis account of creation was NOT written by the Creator of the universe.

One reason: there are two different accounts in Genesis, edited together. The accounts contradict each other. If one is right, the other is wrong. So, no matter what kind of knowledge we gain in the future, part of the Genesis account will always be wrong.


I have no problem refuting the alternate translations advanced by Creationists or any of the other looney-toons organizations.

So figurative falls out of our finite border ? Why is that ? Why doesnt it fall within our finit border ? Just because it falls out of YOUR finite border ?
look, i have TRIED to exlpain to you why we can't understand the figurative concepts behind the bible, yet you still don't get it. to understand something figuratively you have to know the context in which it is written and know what the author's mind was at that moment. the author's mind here is infinite and unless you claim to be equal to god there is no way in hell you can make a definitive statement about the figurative meaning of anything in the bible, nor now the context in which it was written because unless you can time travel, there is no way in hell you can be sure about that either. that is why you can't possibly know, yet i still get people like you claiming they can be sure and that claim just means you rank yourself beside god when it comes to your apparently infinite wizdom. cheers for making a jest at my intelligence, when after 10 or so posts i still have to lay it out for you. learn how to spell if you want to put someone else down as well.

however you dont know what this literal meaning is in the eyes of God , so why do you choose this particular method of translation and interpertation ? My question , how do you know that what you think is literal , is actually literal .
the difference between literal and figurative (seeing i'm having to spell things out here) is literal is what we know, we can touch or smell, or has physically defining properties. when it says in the bible it took god six days to create the earth do you think they thought "oh yeah, seeing it doesn't specifically say what a day is i'll just interpret it to how i like". HELL NO. a day is a day, no matter where you live on this planet, why would god make it otherwise when this is a book for the people of earth? you can't take that to have a figurative meaning, just like how the bible lays out the whole scenario between adam and eve and noah and his arch. i make no claim to no the figurative side of the bible but so many of you dispute what is or was supposed to be clearly literal is twisted by you guys to fit in with your own little universe's where you have chat time with god and obviously think way to much of yourselves that your worth his personal time.

It seems premisses are holding some peoples minds back , oh well .....

My friend atheroy , you seem to be totally loosing yourself in here . Lets rewind for a moment . I dont know where your 10 posts are coming from , but no 10 posts of you have I read *explaining* how your omniscient creature might have implemented a meaning you dont understand , I know that . It is you however who doesnt understand that *figuratie understandings* can just as well be understood as much as not understood . You say we cant know the meaning because we cant be in the mind of your omniscient creator , while I say you dont KNOW weither you can go in or not , maybe you're stuck in it 24/7 and you dont KNOW this . Dont pretend you are the skeptic here who *cant know* , because I say you cant even know weither you know or not know . You know shit and you might not even know it . So if you know shit , then how can you know that you cannot know this meaning ? You say X to me figurative . But figurative is shit for you , you are omniscient you have abracadabr-concepts , so if man can understand this X literally , why not figurative ? Because you're not in his mind ? Then you dont even know if literal is indeed literal , since you are not in his infinit (while you are finit , somehow I do think you dont really understand the difference completely) , then how can you claim that you do by differating it from the formative ? You cant even know the difference since you are not in the mind of the creator of the difference . Your problem however is that when the bible say : "Rocks fall from sky" , what you understand is object called rock comes down from above , you can PLAY IT OUT like its some damn musical . Thats fine , but what Im saying is that all you know is that SOMETHING is said . You dont even know weither your literal understanding can even be equalized with that of your omniscient creature , since like you say : You dont know what the author's mind was at that moment. . Dont forget space .

So know do YOU get it ?

learn how to spell if you want to put someone else down as well.

Get serious please , what is your damn point ? Your anglo-centric view of communication only restricts your own mind , lets not doubt that my linguistics are FAR superior over yours , you native-tongued semi-colonist .

More importantly however , is your linkage to some kind of necessity in put someone else down (actually Im trying to pull you back up , you are the insulting one here) and *spelling* , who are you kidding ? Spelling is a totally over-rated nothing but a damn teqneek technique teknik wo cares ? Its totally useless in relevance to how you are trying to present it , I bet you're some grammar-teacher somewhere in Christchurch , PLEASE .......... you only make an ass out of yourself ..you damn potáeto potaato PLEASE

Now back to your deity-fantasies :

the difference between literal and figurative (seeing i'm having to spell things out here) is literal is what we know, we can touch or smell, or has physically defining properties.

Now how exactly do you know that we KNOW weither God has intended literal to be as we understand literal to be . Let me give you a nice example of how the creator/messenger can mean something other than what then eceiver understands and it totally mixes up the concepts of figurative-literal . The example HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN , but you seem immuune to that , its ok , we will try to inject it to you in a new and promising way .

LOOK :

Here we had a receiver : Vodoo : He received

2:10 Then David passed away1 and was buried in the city of David.2 2:11 David reigned over Israel forty years; he reigned in Hebron seven years, and in Jerusalem thirty-three years.

In a different bible version (yes another issue which one is correct and why ?) which uses the words *sleeping with* and concluded :

He slept with his father? Dude, that's just sick.

Now we we bring back things , literally sleeping with DOES NOT mean what Voodoo thought it ment . It is here actually a figurative meaning Voodoo understands , while a more literary one is meant . You see Voodoo misunderstood the literal meaning for figurative , juist like you might do with about EVERYTHING that the bible says because you might not have knowledge of it (* I also wonder if origins matter (Greek-Latin) in any way?Then I , wonder who knows these languages , or do we just trust Shake-Spear?)

But there is more even , now does sleeping with have this literal meaning as it is proposed , no it HAS NOT . That is because sleeping can only be done while alive , thus sleeping is figuratve since the man is DEAD . Get it ? Totally screwed , this literal-figurative understanding of yours ..

when it says in the bible it took god six days to create the earth do you think they thought "oh yeah, seeing it doesn't specifically say what a day is i'll just interpret it to how i like". HELL NO. a day is a day, no matter where you live on this planet, why would god make it otherwise when this is a book for the people of earth?

*ON THIS PLANET*
Is your omniscient entity stuck to this peace of shitty understanding of things ?Face it , you know shit . And your God seems to know everything , does he not own space-time ? Or is he subject to it ?

Now as for , "ake it otherwise when this is book for peoples of earth"....... how do you know the peoples the scriptures have been created for directly dont have a totally different understanding of figurative , or what if they have a superior enough understanding for God to trust them to understand this meaning , what if back then figurative was what everybody understood and literal what they tried to figure out , my point , you cannot know the minds of the peoples that directly created/received the scriptures .

just like how the bible lays out the whole scenario between adam and eve and noah and his arch. i make no claim to no the figurative side of the bible but so many of you dispute what is or was supposed to be clearly literal is twisted by you guys to fit in with your own little universe's where you have chat time with god and obviously think way to much of yourselves that your worth his personal time.

Slow down man , can you even follow yourself ? Yak what was that an emotional outburst ?

Adam & Eve right ? According the literal understandings of the bible Adam and Eve had an incest-peoples-family where we all come from right ? Also , I wonder on time.....since you just seem to love time-understandings so much ....... so the world is 6000 years old ? Yes ? Saying yes implies a neceserity of re-consideration what exactly we can consider within the human species from an evolutionary perspective .

Anyways , thanks for your time to read this . Im awaiting your response , I do hope this time you CAN make a point ......

:p

Hey RileyWins :)

While you may find that particular passage from Genesis to be quite baffling, there are people (like me) who have studied the text and have no problem telling you what the authors were telling their audience.

First of all , then my question is have you studied the bible within the context of its original Hebrew-Latin-Greek or whatever scriptures ? If not thats problem #1 . Problem #2 is can I trust your authority . For instance are you familliar with the anthropolgy involved , historical context etc ? Tell me , what exactly is the thing with the virgin Mary and Jesus ? Can you provide some insight on this if you know what you claim ? From what does it originate , its intentions etc ?

And if you put the effort into finding out what the words mean (and it isn't that difficult) you would realize the people who wrote the account in Genesis had no idea how big the universe is, how old it is, or even what the shape of the earth is.

Very possible , yet I dont think we can be sure enough that we know (not weither we can know , Im sure we can get very far , afterall they're just human in any way) . As for Genesis specifically , I do hope you see the importance of Hebrewic understanding . As far as I am aware of Ancient Hebrew I know it has specific perhaps characteristically semitic similarities with Ancient Arabic .......... and I know that one is a total joke as a translation into the Indo-European languages , Im quite skeptic about Hebrewic .....considering its much much older as well .

And then there's the new testament , wouldnt that conflict immensely linguistically ?

Absolutely, no question whatsoever, the Genesis account of creation was NOT written by the Creator of the universe.

Maybe you didnt know it , but deity's cant write with pencils ......its silly but about everything the CAN do is not to be perspected by the *literary* peoples of the planet . They can do everything , except for literary existing .......
How ironic .

One reason: there are two different accounts in Genesis, edited together. The accounts contradict each other. If one is right, the other is wrong. So, no matter what kind of knowledge we gain in the future, part of the Genesis account will always be wrong.

As far as I know the Jewish Thorah learned still disagree on what things mean , I dont know about specifically genesis though . Can you please elaborate on this difference you propse that is contradictory ?

I have no problem refuting the alternate translations advanced by Creationists or any of the other looney-toons organizations.

Im not even familliar with creationists , but I doubt you have the relevant amount of knowledge of Ancient Hebrew . If you care, please take a verse you wish and show me the translation and your interpertation according to what you think they tried to say .

That would be a very nice thing to do
:cool:

Originally posted by atheroy
... so, literal is all we got in context to the bible (my opinion anyway).If you believe in God and you are true to what you think His expectations are from you it won't matter if you take it literally or not. There are some parts of the Bible which just can't be symbolically interpreted. How do you derive symbolism from "Do not cheat on your spouse."? - paraphrased. That aside, there are many aspects which can be symbolically interpreted. Thus each individual's interpretation of what is said is valid, as long as it does not contradict any other aspect of the Bible or the Nature of God as defined by the Bible. - my view

I dont know where your 10 posts are coming from
that is an example of figurative english, i'm so glad you cottoned on to it.

Get serious please , what is your damn point ? Your anglo-centric view of communication only restricts your own mind , lets not doubt that my linguistics are FAR superior over yours , you native-tongued semi-colonist .
lol

seeing this is getting far from the point i was trying to make and jihad you are getting quite wound up- people can read into the bible all they want to. heck, i'm sure there are obvious examples of symbolism in the bible, but, if you want to be ABSOLUETLY SURE that you are quoting the bible correctly you can only quote the literal parts. that was what i started saying here but you seem to be taking me to literally. seeing you want to pick me apart be my guest, but i still stand by what i think.

The key to reading (and translating) the Bible, is to understand what type of literature is being employed: Types of literature in the Bible (http://www.bibleresourcecenter.org/vsItemDisplay.dsp&objectID=4DF2FB2B-2709-4A67-A4EC9BDCB7E4CFE1&method=display)

These types include the following. I will also give you an extra-biblical example, so you won't be able to accuse me of bias:
Laws and Rules (such as the code of Hammurabi)
History (like the annals of the kings of Egypt, also of other kings who make mention of the Kings of Israel - who were at that time required to pay tribute)
Poetry & Songs Hebrew and Greek poetry are well documented. If I showed you a poem you would recognize it as one. Hebrew poetry relies heavily on parallelism of ideas.
Wisdom Sayings & Proverbs Epistemology is very common to all cultures, and easily identified by the language used. Jewish philosophy is quite complex, so I won't go into it now. Other examples include some parts of the Gilgamesh epic, and various Egyptian scriptures. Also see
Wisdom Writing (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/aecb.html)
Prophetic literature Extremely complex, both literally and figuratively. Allegory and "Typology" (one thing as a type of another) plays an important role. No need to tell you, but parallels in other cultures and religions are abundant. I think apocalyptic literature also belongs under this category.
Gospels The life and teachings of Jesus. Unique to Jesus, but others exist, like the gnostic gospels. Of course, you get different types of literature inside the gospel accounts as well, which include oral methods, such as parables (also not exclusive to the Bible)
Letters The style of Paul's letters (epistles) conform to the formal Greek letter-writing style of the time. Some letters were meant to be read aloud, and on some ancient manuscripts you can even see marks made by the orator in the margins. As in the gospel, letters include different modes of communication, such as arguments (in the philosophic sense), references, quotes along with the usual prose and poetry.

All of this influences the way in which a piece is read (and understood). The Bible is a complex work. To say "The Bible should be read literally" or "The Bible is symbolic" is a gross mistake, and amounts to saying "Plato should be read literally" or "Anna Karenina is symbolic". It's non-sensical to suggest that all types of literature should be taken at face value.

A classic case of animal cruelty by William Blake? -
Tiger, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare seize the fire?


As for the Bible being reworked to 'suit the times', there is no evidence for this, on the contrary:
A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.
Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.
The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.

Originally posted by Jenyar
As for the Bible being reworked to 'suit the times', there is no evidence for this, on the contrary: ... Good. And the alternative to viewing Biblical anachonisms as scribal accomodation is to view the Tanach as the syncretic product of the Babylonian disapora community.

http://killerbutterfly.com/pics/advisory2.gif