The Bible, what's literal and what's not?

[superstarr]

So many times, I hear of Christian or Catholics stating something "truthful" of the bible, as in that certain part is read literally as in they are right. Take these quotes from the bible for an example:
-"For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you" Matthew 17:20
-"Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." Don't you know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father." John 14:8.

There are more, and as you notice, those things are positive and nice. But whenever I quote something negatively or with a negative connotation, they say things like "That part is not literal" or "You aren't reading it right." Like these for example:
-"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Money." Matthew 6:24
-"If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell." Matthew 18:8-9

And there are more than that, but I don't want to look for them all night. But it's true. Those who praise the bible say that certain things are literal and certain things are not, but if you notice, most if not all of the "literal" verses of the bible are with positive connotation and they'll say things like "yes. What it says is clearly literal" or "of course it's literal. What else could it mean?" Yet if you ask a christian about something like Matthew 18:8-9, they will quickly say that "O, it's a metaphor." Or "That's not literal." Are the positive things the only truthful things or something? It's like they are trying to keep the bible as perfect as they can. What do you all think about this?

[Minimalist]

There is a simple rule of thumb to use.

If they want it to be literal - its literal. If they want it to be symbolic - its symbolic.

You have to give the fundies one thing. No matter how stupid it makes them look at least they cling to the notion that it is all "literal."

The ones who pick and choose are pussies.

[fr0d0]

None of the 'truths' you've quoted there are 'literal' truths. But they are truth's in the sense that they were intended to very clearly convey a point.

1. The mustard seed : humans have very little confidence in their belief
2. Phillip : there is only faith, not proof
3. God & Money : if you don't master your cravings you'll have a hard job nurturing good morality
4. Gouge out your eye : morality involves sacrifice

The Catholic church has publicly stated it's position on literalism : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...574768.ece

And that's the stance of the mainstream church. A few people do cling on to absolute literalism, but I find their arguments to be seriously flawed in very many ways. As Min says, those are very easy to dismiss.

[downbeatplumb]

And the old the old testamnet was symbolic and been superceded, apart from this bit.....

[fr0d0]

And the old the old testamnet was symbolic and been superceded, apart from this bit.....

ergo... the old testament is symbolic and has been superseded??

Jesus interpreted the law correctly, therefore superseding some of the old testament, yes. Symbolic? ...nah I think that's too simplistic.

[annatar]

i wonder that story of job is literal or metaphor. If its a metaphor what it could possibly tell us?

[Minimalist]

If its a metaphor what it could possibly tell us?

That god has the sense of humor of a junior high school boy.

[fr0d0]

i wonder that story of job is literal or metaphor. If its a metaphor what it could possibly tell us?

Why does it matter that it's factually correct? What we're presented with is an example of Godliness not equalling favour. Another fact of life? *shrugs*

[superstarr]

well, many do say that the events in the bible were literal events as in they actually happened, but there's a problem with those literal happenings, because if they did happen (the parts christians/catholics say did happen), they have to be consistant and have to make sense, but if you read carefully, they don't and some even completely contradict. I don't know, but eaach person says something different in terms of literacy, but might not be literal to others. Christianity is all over the place. No wonder it has problems. One says that it's right, and the other says that itt isn't and it means something else.

[fr0d0]

Why does it matter superstarr? The point being made is from the event and isn't the event itself. Surely you realise the contradictions/ conflicting accounts are included realising that??