A couple of things there I'd throw in.
On the 'end of the world', for temple Jerusalem that pretty much came with the sack of Jerusalem and the temple in AD70. That was the end of the era of temple sacrifice. But it was also the start of Rabbinic Judaism which some might say was the start of a more thoughtful and reflective form of Judaism.
On determining what is rhetorical and what is not, some say that is why the Church is necessary, as an authoritative interpreter of scripture. That's probably what I should say. But it's not really what I believe. For me I find access to tradition and the thought of Christians over the centuries really useful and important. But ultimately what matters most to me is how the scriptures challenge me; they are a catalyst. The thinking through, and the praying through, the scriptures is what matters most to me. Some describe this by saying that the scriptures are more about formation than information. Also the more scripture is read the more you get to see what the 'mata-narrative' is and so the more the small bits can be fit into a broader context; that often helps to separate out whether something should be considered more literal or not. There are times though I just don't know what is literal and what is not but, as odd as it sounds, it frequently doesn't seem to matter.
Now, the war narratives are certainly challenging. Or at least I find them challenging. That's probably a large topic on itself but I'm happy to go there if you want. I probably fall foul of my more 'evangelical' brothers and sisters there as I'm open to the idea that what the bible presents may well be what people thought God was saying to them rather than what God was saying to them. So I see the bible as a progressive unfolding of man's understanding of God; and that understanding may not have always been particularly good.
You know, there's a book whose title could almost have been written for you; it is "Reading the Bible Again For the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally" by Marcus Borg. I can't say I agree with all Borg's thoughts (in essence I'm rather more 'orthodox' than he is), but he presents a good case for taking the bible seriously without reading it as a literal or perfect history. Borg certainly breaks down any simple black and white ideas of the bible either being an inerrant account of history or being of no use to man nor beast. He explores some of the area between those poles, and so tends to aggravate both more 'fundamentalist' Christians and firm atheists alike, poor chap.
On the 'end of the world', for temple Jerusalem that pretty much came with the sack of Jerusalem and the temple in AD70. That was the end of the era of temple sacrifice. But it was also the start of Rabbinic Judaism which some might say was the start of a more thoughtful and reflective form of Judaism.
On determining what is rhetorical and what is not, some say that is why the Church is necessary, as an authoritative interpreter of scripture. That's probably what I should say. But it's not really what I believe. For me I find access to tradition and the thought of Christians over the centuries really useful and important. But ultimately what matters most to me is how the scriptures challenge me; they are a catalyst. The thinking through, and the praying through, the scriptures is what matters most to me. Some describe this by saying that the scriptures are more about formation than information. Also the more scripture is read the more you get to see what the 'mata-narrative' is and so the more the small bits can be fit into a broader context; that often helps to separate out whether something should be considered more literal or not. There are times though I just don't know what is literal and what is not but, as odd as it sounds, it frequently doesn't seem to matter.
Now, the war narratives are certainly challenging. Or at least I find them challenging. That's probably a large topic on itself but I'm happy to go there if you want. I probably fall foul of my more 'evangelical' brothers and sisters there as I'm open to the idea that what the bible presents may well be what people thought God was saying to them rather than what God was saying to them. So I see the bible as a progressive unfolding of man's understanding of God; and that understanding may not have always been particularly good.
You know, there's a book whose title could almost have been written for you; it is "Reading the Bible Again For the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally" by Marcus Borg. I can't say I agree with all Borg's thoughts (in essence I'm rather more 'orthodox' than he is), but he presents a good case for taking the bible seriously without reading it as a literal or perfect history. Borg certainly breaks down any simple black and white ideas of the bible either being an inerrant account of history or being of no use to man nor beast. He explores some of the area between those poles, and so tends to aggravate both more 'fundamentalist' Christians and firm atheists alike, poor chap.
