When to be literal?

When looking at the Bible (whichever Canon you choose) the first step is to remember that it is NOT one book or story but rather an anthology of anthologies written by men for men of a particular era.There's no one theme, no one concept, no one universal rule or technique.Each of the stories in the Bible needs to be seen as a separate story with separate purpose writing for an audience unique to the period, culture and society. They were never written to be incorporated into a single document.That act, compiling them into one book, actually diminished the value and worth of the separate documents and has caused many people to totally lose sight of the content.Your example of Leviticus is a great example.Leviticus is a collection of folklore that covers in particular the societal rules governing the Levites (the priestly tribe) but also covers some of the rules for the laity, the worshipers in this case, Hebrews. It is a compilation of cultural mores of the period and society (likely during the Babylonian exile) and should be understood within that context.During the later Babylonian exile the general Jewish population were becoming increasingly influenced and amalgamated into the wider society of Babylon, losing their Jewishness, their identification as a people apart.The basic premise is that the world was created good and can be good with effort. Laws and ritual were seen as a way of encouraging what was seen as "right behavior" and godliness of what was "moral".But losing that identification, that culture, meant becoming something other than a Hebrew in Exile.Leviticus was a reaction to that influence both within the Priestly Class and the Hebrew society in general.

I need to ask you the same question I ask many Christians. Have you actually read the Bible?The Bible tells us very little about Yahweh, rather it tells us about the people of a given era, about their cultures, their mythos, their folklore.It tells us about how those people viewed Yahweh and how those views evolved over time, about themselves, their neighbors, their histories, their evolving morals.Have you actually read Leviticus, not just skimmed and cherry picked quote mined verses?

There you go doing the same thing the fundies do, quote mining and leaving your brain at the door.Let's start with 2 Timmy.First, it is NOT referring to the Bible, the very concept of a Bible had not been created yet. "Scripture" refers to inspired writing and includes any writings that can teach you instruction of righteousness.Deuteronomy was again like Leviticus, a fairly recent creation and likely a product of Israel originally that later took shape and was codified in Judah after the exile of the Israelites.Again, in your quote mine from Revelation the Book mentioned is NOT the Bible. The very concept of a Bible had not been created when that was written.Psalm 12 also has NOTHING to do with a Bible.In each of these examples what you have done is take a verse out of context.Further, none of the really tell us anything about Yahweh and each one is an example of adding to, rewriting, changing, rewording, editing and expounding scripture, dogma and doctrine.

You need to understand that the different "books" of the Bible were written for different purposes and for the contemporary audience and you need to understand that contemporary audience.Look at Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They are both reactionary texts.Understand that Israel and Judah were separate nations and that the tribes really were their own political, cultural and religious entities far more like the United States during the very early days where the states were separate and individual and aligned only in a weak Confederacy. Tribes changed allegiances between the two larger states and even religious positions and dogma varied. Even under the short lived Davidic unified state it was more like England and Scotland under James I and VI than one state.Israel suffered cultural destruction by exile of the whole political, economic and religious leadership. Judah remained and under Assyria kept some identity.But then came Persia, and they were an even greater threat because they were tolerant. They accepted those from Israel or Judah and what was happening was the people were rapidly being assimilated, becoming "Persian".As I mentioned above, Leviticus and Deuteronomy were reactionary works meant to stop assimilation and restore an identity of a people.Leviticus is basically a listing of the laws that they should follow as Hebrews, as the people "Israel" (not the state Israel) and has two main parts, the duties of the Levites (remember that is a tribe and the tribe that priests were drawn from) and the laity or people. They were laws and meant to be taken literally by the people "Israel" during that period. But it's important to remember that Leviticus is meant for just the people "Israel".Deuteronomy has a slightly different purpose. It has three basic parts and goals. First it recounts the mythos, the history, of the creation of the people "Israel". Next it describes the basics of that identity, that the people "Israel" belong to the God "Yahweh" exclusively and exhorts obedience to his laws. The last part says that even if bad things happen, if you stick to your identity in the end all will turn out right.Both are reactionary responses to the overall trend of day, of people becoming somewhat sophisticated Persians rather than Benjamites, or Israelis or Judean.It's not a matter of what is factual or metaphor, rather it is a matter of understanding the writings within the context of their creation.

Possibly but I really can only address my experiences. Remember I am a product of a Christian education that was in the CoE, Anglican, Episcopal tradition. It was a tradition that encouraged questioning and in depth research and understanding, where bumper stickers and sloganism were constantly challenged.

Very unlikely. Again, at the time the Gospels were written Christianity as a separate religion was at most still just a thought. The Gospels, unlike Leviticus or Deuteronomy or Genesis was not the product of a mythos evolving over millennia, rather they are an almost contemporary account of what a small group actually believed.

A short aside.Let me return yet again to the concept that the Bible is NOT one book or story but rather an anthology of anthologies.An anthology is a collection of works (they could be stories or histories or poems or UNIX commands or ...) selected by the compiler. Bibles as we commonly think about them are one step further, they are collections of collections selected by different compilers. We call those compilers "Committee of Canon" and different committees have drawn up different lists of what should be included, what order they should follow and how they are divided.These anthologies evolved over time. For example, at the time of Jesus even the Jewish Canon was different than today; it most likely included the Torah and Nevi'im only, commonly called "The Law and the Prophets" in most Christian translations. The third part of the Jewish Tanakh, the Ketuvim (Writings) was likely not canonized until about 70-125 years after Jesus death.The common translation of Torah and Nevi'im into "The Law and the Prophets" also creates some misunderstandings.When we look at Old Testament found in a Bible the Torah would include the first five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but to a Jew the Torah is actually much more and includes an oral history and also the Talmud (collections of rabbinical discourse and discussion of the written and oral histories as well as rabbinical decisions based on those discussions).As you can see, the Torah is far more than just "Law" and is better translated and understood as "Instruction".When the Christian Canons were created lots of context and material that would have been common knowledge in the community and society at the time Jesus lived was lost. As the new religion "Christianity" evolved it built on members from outside that original community and society, Greeks and Romans and others that did not have that basic mythos and understanding.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Not just filling in gaps but also changing, evolving the mythos of their era, reinterpreting things using their idiom.

There is no such thing as "the original meaning of the Bible", it's a moving target. What we can do is the same thing we do in any other area of understanding and that is study, lots of study and work.It's no different than learning history or culture or any other subject. But it's work, hard work.The answer also depends on how you want to use whatever meaning is found in a Bible.That can be good and bad.Let's return to two sources you mentioned 2 Timmy and Leviticus.

quote:

---

2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

---

Now many (I might even say most) people read that passage as "All of the Bible based on the Canon that my Chapter of Club Christian uses is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".It's only when you research how the word "scripture" would have been used at the time the unknown author of 2 Timmy wrote that that you realize "scripture" meant inspired teachings and not "The Bible" which would not even exist for over two centuries.But today the term "scripture" is used to specifically mean a Christian Bible (usually from the Western Protestant Canon).The Bible is complex and filled with contradictions and a perfect tool for supporting ANY position simply through quote mining. It is equally valuable to theist or atheist and can be used to support either position.The same things can be said about Leviticus, a text intended to prescribe and proscribe behavior of a culture and community that existed well over 2200 years ago. It can be used to justify horrific behaviors or to point to a God that was equally horrific. It is only when you read it within the context of its milieu that you can really relate it to its original purpose.Even something as common as the term "Rabbi" can cause confusion. A Rabbi is NOT a Priest, does not even perform or lead the Jewish sabbath service. The job of a Rabbi is to study, to counsel and to decide disputes.Perhaps another small aside may help.One of the Titles held by the British Monarchy is "Defender of the Faith". It was first bestowed on Henry VIII by the Pope for sending troops to help subjugate the heretical Protestants. But today the English Monarch is the head of the Church of England, a Protestant Chapter of Club Christian.

I not at all sure what you mean "what does this mean for miracles?" Which miracles?

I don't think there is anyway to do that.

Remember that there were no Bibles when 2 Timmy was written. The closest thing would be the Jewish Torah and Nevi'im and they were still considered as independent separate documents (scrolls) as well as the oral tradition and the Talmud.Look at the passage from 2 Timmy again:

quote:

---

2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

---

What the author is saying is that inspired teachings are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" but it is exclusive, not inclusive and while acknowledging what we call the Old Testament, is primarily concerned with Paul's teachings. When you read all of 2 Timmy it is based primarily on personal testimony, and mostly Paul's testimony.In it the term gospel is used but always in the concept of "News" as opposed to the formal Gospels.The issue in both 1 & 2 Timmy boiled down to the End Times and the Second Resurrection and highlights the differences found within Christianity of the time. So the author is trying to define doctrine to exclude what the author saw as heretical teachings, in this case that the Second Coming and Resurrection was NOT imminent, that some teachings are NOT inspired by God.

I'd say that what constituted "scripture" was certainly controversial.I'm also pretty clueless what "God-breathed" would mean.

What "what" meant?At the time 2 Timmy would have been written there were a totally unknown number of writings floating around. Almost all were local, an issue highlighted by the Epistles. Throughout the Epistles there are mentions of other people, other documents, other teachings, ones that were either later lost or later purged.We simply don't know what was available.I'd say that what we do have is far more "politically breathed" than "God breathed".

The early church was certainly political, there was Paul's party and Peter's party and Alexander's party James's party and Mary's party and ...And each had their scriptures and each was trying to create Christianity in their image.