The Bible

[Undeceived]

If you interpret some of the Bible literally and some of it as metaphor, you're cherry-picking, and historians will laugh at you for making a judgment of what happened / didn't happen according to guesswork rather than evidence.

Christians can determine what is metaphor and what is not by using historical context and seeing where else the phrase comes up in the Bible. We know Jesus literally claimed to be God because he said "I AM" or "YHWH," which led to the sort of reaction you'd expect from the pharisees (try to kill him). We know the bride and the beast with seven horns in Revelation is probably metaphor because the bride is used symbolically by Jesus and Paul refers to Satan as the beast. In the NT, Jesus tells his disciples when he's telling a parable and says "I tell you the truth" when he's not. The missionary trips described of Paul are told with such detail as to not be assumed metaphor. The same goes for the Exodus. So the critical points of Christianity--law and gospel--are undeniably literal. A Christian knows more than enough to obtain salvation--Jesus spells it out in John 3:16. You bring up the Creation story. There is some controversy over that even among Christians, but one thing is clear--God displayed his power by creating the heavens and earth and every living thing. It doesn't even leave a metaphorical door open for evolution. As a Christian, it doesn't help spiritually to imagine the Bible as metaphor; it might as well be literal. Using historical context and knowledge of Hebrew narrative form, 99% of the Bible is probably literal, most of the 1% being descriptions of the end times (which cannot be described concretely anyway). The Psalms and Proverbs are not literal stories, but they are real art used by David to describe his true feelings about God. Metaphorical stories (such as Jesus' parables) are known to be very concise to get the point across in as little scroll space as possible. To make a larger story like Sodom and Gomorrah metaphor would be to use massive space on a very small moral lesson. In short, why create an entire story with the appearance of truth if you intended it only to instruct? You, being some kind of believing Jew, would not want to mislead later generations, yet you wrote it with details you would only include if you intended to fool somebody--and only somebody in the future. Today, Christian authorities spend years studying Biblical history to determine the best ways to interpret every verse. The validity of scripture is important to them. That makes them more trustworthy than a cherry-picking atheist who assumes the Bible is myth and changes his stance on how it could be wrong. The historical documents called the Gospels literally say Jesus died, resurrected, and fulfilled OT prophecies. Where is the metaphor in that?

The fact that there are 30,000+ flavors of christianity each with it's own interpretation as to what is and isn't metaphor belies your claim here. Two people who have spent the same amount of time and effort studying your holy book can come to radically different interpretations. Besides if your deity is so all-knowing, why didn't he just write a book that didn't need so much study to be interpreted 'correctly' by his little minions?

99.9% of those "30,000+ flavors" agree on the most basic parts of Christianity--that salvation is obtained through belief in Jesus Christ, love, repentance and baptism. Some groups interpret the Bible according to what they want to hear, as opposed to basing it on context. Does that render every one else's (and the vast majority's) wrong? There are several different levels of "interpretation." The first is literal events, such as Christ's death and resurrection, which I don't think anybody disputes. If they did dispute them they wouldn't be Christian. The second level is what the events mean, such as what Christ's resurrection means to us--resurrection of our own bodies in heaven. If you don't believe in his resurrection, you have no reason to be a Christian. If you don't believe Jesus Christ is the way, you aren't a "Christ"-ian at all. The most radical groups like Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't real Christians because they don't believe in the divinity or grace of Jesus. They can call themselves Christians all they want, but so can anybody. A Big Lots store can call itself a Walmart, but that doesn't make it a Walmart. The pivotal points in scripture are plain as day. People make their own faulty branches to tap into the power it has, just like any system/institution. Wherever there is truth in the world, people corrupt it for their own benefit.

So I'd like you to be more specific what you mean by "own interpretation." How would you interpret John 3:16? Do most people agree with you? Jehovah's Witnesses view Jesus as "a son" rather than the "only begotten Son," essentially ignoring John 3:16. Mormons create a new interpretation by adding entire new doctrines, saying Jesus was the son of God, but they are only two of many gods, and Mormons will become gods just like them someday. They also point to verses like James 2:17 "Faith without works is dead" to add say that John 3:16 just left out the part about working. In doing this, however, they overlook other verses such as Ephesians 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast." A true Christian would not filter their interpretations through what they want (like wanting to earn their salvation), and instead base interpretations of verses on each other. James 2:17 would then be explained as meaning, "Christ changes you inside. If you aren't changed enough to want to do things for him you probably don't have faith. Therefore your faith is dead." How would you interpret this verse? My bet is like a normal Christian would. Bible critics often spout accusations like "There are so many interpretations! God wouldn't do it this way." But when you ask them for their opinion on whose interpretation is right, they usually say mainstream Christianity's. By "interpretation" I mean the author's intention, not what anyone believes is a conspiracy behind it. Think "What does Luke/John/Paul want me to get out of this?" and that will lead you almost always to the correct interpretation. If you still think God could have made it more obvious, consider our purpose and our free will. We were put here to love God in return for the love he gave us. If he shoved the truth down our throats, we would not love Jesus for his sacrifice, we would grudgingly say sorry for sins without meaning it just to get in to heaven. Coincidentally, not meaning it means we wouldn't be allowed in heaven anyway--therefore being more obvious produces no more believers.