http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060762055/103-3753824-7907051?v=glance&n=283155 You guys know I'm agnostic but I just heard this gentleman on The Ron Insana radio show and I figured there were a few of you that would like to read his work. There are plenty of reviews on the Amazon site but in brief, he is a biblical scholar that takes issue with the fundmamentaist view that the bible is the direct word of God and should rather be interpreted within the context of today's society. You know Leviticus and all that stuff. He sounded like a pretty smart guy and I found his take refreshing.
All the bible talk we usually have and no one has a thought about a biblical scholar that thinks the bible is not literal? Maybe everyone is at church.
ok, i'll bite. even though i promised myself i wouldn't. and, yes, i was at church when you started this thread. the bible isn't one book...it's a collection of books. which ones is he talking about? if he's saying the Letter to the Romans is not to be taken literally, i'm not buying. if he's saying the Gospel of Luke isn't to be taken literally, i'm not buying. if he's saying Job isn't to be taken literally, i can understand that. if he's saying Genesis isn't to be taken literally, i can understand that, too. i grew up in the episcopal church. Spong has been a controversial voice in that church for years. He would tell you it's all metaphor. That there's no truth to any of it. That Jesus was a real dude, but that his resurrection is myth. Ok, great. Lots of people have said that over the course of the last 2000 years so. Spong has written this very same book about a dozen times. He repackages it every few years. He writes to get a response. I'm not sure what, if anything he actually believes in, one way or the other. He wishes to write out of the Bible what he doesn't want there. What he's uncomfortable with. Fine. He does not allow for divine inspiration though he claims to believe in the divine. I've seen him speak...we could not be more opposites. I'm less concerned with knowledge and intelligence than he is. Even liberal theologians see Spong as a bit out there. Good timing though....with the DaVinci Code hitting the theaters soon, he can make a fortune! I'm wearied by it all, frankly. I'm tired of theology. I far more enjoy watching God change peoples lives for the better in the here and now. I find truth in the Bible...and I see it play out in the lives of people today.
The resurrection is a myth but it doesn't mean it's not about something real. The ascension is also a myth. If Jesus shot up into the sky 2000 years ago, where is he now, still going outside the galaxy? The literal aspect of the story is meaningless. Metaphor is also truth.
So you literally believe the ascension, miracles and virgin birth etc? Does that go for the Old Testament as well?
I'm with ya, Max. (note: I grew up Lutheran, though I'm now non-denominational). I believe that there are parts of the bible thare are literal, and there are other parts that aren't.
Yeah I wonder why everyone is ignoring such an original concept as to telling people to not take the Bible literally. I'll definetely get to it after the 25 shows on the Discovery network, 38,000 books, and gazillion websites that say the same thing. I love original writing.
Just curious max, why Romans? What makes a letter from Paul so special as to be "literal word of god"?
The Bible- God has given man a message That a child could receive, Simple words to reveal His love If only its believed. God has given man a message From the poorest to the rich Every nation, tribe and tongue They are all within His reach. God has given man a message Not to argue or debate But to demonstrate His love And offers of His grace. God has given man a message Jesus loves us so He died, The righteous for the sinner. The simple path to life. God has given man a message Salvation through His Son, 'Literal' to those who trust The work that God has done.
i literally believe the ascension..the resurrection...Christ's miracles, etc. virgin birth...i'm not hung up on it. as i understand it, the translation is such that it may very well NOT mean it was a virgin birth. But when Matthew writes of things he heard and saw...He's writing about something within his view. What he saw. The Gospels present themselves that way. Luke starts out his Gospel in an historian's fashion. Depends what parts of the OT we're talking about. Job is written as a story. I could see it being merely metaphor...or as a parable. Kings, however, is written as history text. The Bible isn't one long narrative written one way or the other. There are tons of different writings there with different styles and purposes. I believe them all to be divinely inspired.
Because Romans is a letter...written with purpose. It's not written as a parable or as a metaphor. It's very purposeful. Paul was a student of the law and a high-ranking Jew among the Sanhedrin before he became a Christian. He was a contemporary of Christ. He writes them explaining the faith to them...and explaining how they should behave...etc. It's not story at all. It's like reading a letter I write a friend.
I have heard that objective writing wasn't known to the people of this era. It was completely beyond their scope. They knew no concept of it. Everything was written with an agenda. They knew no other way.
with agenda is true..."so that you may believe." but the idea that writing as if writing the truth was beyond their scope seems odd to me. there were historians in that day all over the world. just are there are today. it wasn't as if man in that culture was below giving an account. they were held accountable for witnessing to the truth in courts of law in that day, just as they are today. most of the disciples went on to very painful deaths. they were tortured. they claimed they saw something that changed them. they claimed to see the risen Christ. people will die willingly for a lie if they believe it to be true. people do not die and suffer willingly for something they know to be a lie.
The problem with this is that the people at Heaven's Gate willingly died believing they would be transported to spaceships, at the People's Temple they drank the Kool Aid and even made their children drink the Kool Aid because they believed Jim Jones, and the 19 terrorists on 9/11 willingly died believing they were to paradise. What people believe to be true is relative and while we might mock the belief of suicide bomber blowing himself up to get 72 Virgins to him that is as much truth as the World is round to us.
totally agreed. what they all share is that they believed it to be true. what the christians claimed is that they SAW him. that they saw him resurrected and that they spoke with him. it's merely evidence, Sishir. i'm not arguing it's dispositve. ultimately, it's always left as a matter of faith.
But if the whole Bible is holy then can one pick and choose which parts are metaphorical and which parts are literal?
