should we take the Bible Literally?

[Techfinder]

---

We can only arrive at a SOUND EXEGESIS if we shall EXAMINE closely the scriptures using Hermeneutics and of course by THE GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

[prince_cold]

There are parts and verses in the bible that are old enough to be obsolete,meaning there are words and phrases that are not applicable in the present time that is whty i will advised you to use your common sense in reading the bible and also ask god through prayer for enlightenment, since the bible is the word of god then only god can give you answers,,

[aztina888]

ahahaha one day rako wala nag online naa nay nag lalis... worst ang nag lalis is non-believer vs believer.

here il be straight to the point. tokidok shut your pie hole pls lang. you have the nerve to argue with people here in the first place you dont even believe the holy book, your putting bunch of crap in my thread. make your own thread and gather all non-believer. well i should edit the title and put "FOR BELIEVERS ONLY" pun intended....

@techfinder. pls respect what he thinks but no need to shove it up his arss.... you have your own opinion he has his own lets keep it that way..

[Hellblazer 2.1]

that's rather harsh, aztina. the last time i checked, it's a free country. everyone may post as they see fit. and the answer to the topic is NO. we should not take the bible literally. only the Bible Man, rcruman, should take the bible literally.

[tokidoki_v2.0]

kurek ka dyan hellblazer. daghan ra mga tao magbuot. if you don't like the answer then SHUT your pie hole as well. Ana gyud na you only prefer answers YOU LIKE. Awa nang usa. I mentioned a line na ang nag discredit ni Jesus questionable wala nangayo ug sources. pero kung gidudahan mangayo ug sources. Haha... Again, you guys only prefer answers that are in favor of YOUR beliefs. Sigh. Nya ako pa palabason dautan? LOLZ. I really don't care.

And before pa obvious kaayo nangita ka ug bikil to make it seem kaya ko nimo. tan-awa kinsay nagsugod sa crap. don't be to quick to find faults pre. You'll only look desperate. Simple test ra na. Non-believer ko? Pakiquote please? so far wala pai nakatubag ana because most of you who don't like me only ASSUME i said it except that no one can provide one quote for it. Mahilig ra mo manangayo ug "evidence" if mo duda pero ang mo tuo dili pangayuan ug evidence. *rolls eyes*

[Hellblazer 2.1]

what's with people and evidences? why are they so adamant about evidences when they don't even know what an "evidence" looks like? they think the bible is the sole "evidence"? the bible is just a book. nothing more, nothing less. though it's full of nice bedtime stories, but they shouldn't be taken literally. they're just stories. it's the lesson from the stories that one can get that is important.

if a biblical scholar would tell them that the bible is inaccurate, what would they do?

[tokidoki_v2.0]

OT: the concept is simple pre. if you don't go along with the "christians" they demand evidence na ngano wala ka nitubay nila. Hence, bullying. No, you DON'T have a right to be different. A common trait of christians since time immemorial. But Try saying something in their favor and you won't hear one word from them no matter preposterous it may sound. And this is supposed to be a from a bunch of people who demand for evidence, which gives me the false impression that they are objective than they actually are.

Back on topic: The bible contains prophecies as most of the people who read it claim. When you define prophecy, again, I repeat this because it is commonly mistaken: "It is a teaching, if not followed, will result in an inevitable outcome." Prophets are often mistaken as seers of the future, which is a common misconception. They are actually teaching us something.

Usa nalang ka example that even Jesus admitted is not even literal. His parables that he likes to share with listeners. Of course, later in those stories he would tell you the meanings. Grabe nasad siguro nimo kabugits na imo nang iliteral na si JEsus mismo ni ingon na dili. ahihihi...

If sections of the bible does not contain the author's personal experience but rather a narration of something in the past or future I would consider it symbolic. Parts I consider literal are like accounts of the disciples and their experiences with Jesus.

[aztina888]

that's rather harsh, aztina. the last time i checked, it's a free country. everyone may post as they see fit. and the answer to the topic is NO. we should not take the bible literally. only the Bible Man, rcruman, should take the bible literally.

thats the point to be harsh. hello respetoha ta. yes its a free country, but your way off topic. and besides why would you waste your time here when in fact you dont even believe in the subject. so please kung naa moy ika ambit sa thread at least relevant.

[chad_tukes]

well if you ask me, then NO we shouldn't take the BIBLE literally.

unsaon na lang. daghana na siguro patay karon sah.

[tokidoki_v2.0]

it's a little narrow minded pud if we choose only one side to represent it. so let me be the very first to say it is BOTH literal and symbolic.