The_vagabond7 said:
Some interpretation of course will always be needed because so much of the bible is either abstract, nonsensical or long winded for the ancient uneducated layman, not to mention that it was translated in latin, or kept in greek and other original languages which the lay man wouldn't know. It wasn't until John Wycliff made the first english bible in...what like 1400 or somewheres about there that the common man even had a chance to look at it. When I say literal, I don't mean absent from interpretation. There are so many absurdities, contradictions, or vile acts that need justification that all through time they have attempted to rectify the things that are wrong with the bible. When I say literal, I mean taking the bible as a completely accurate historical and scientific account of our world. And while I understand that ancient christians didn't take the bible 100% literally, neither do today's fundementalists. Very very few are waiting for a scarlet colored wild beast to arrive and devour a harlot as prophesied in Revelations. But in the early days of christianity they definitely believed that the earth was made in seven days, mankind was only six thousand years old, and the flood of noah's day was a literal historical event. They had no reason to think otherwise. They also thought that murdering people or children of other faiths was justified, and that if you disobeyed god he would burn you in eternal torment. But as both our understanding of the world, and the further development of our morality, more and more liberal interpretation is needed. I will concede that yes you are right, at no point in time was there a complete 100% literal acceptance of scripture. But my point still stands that on one hand you have a group that is sticking to their guns no matter how absurd, ignorant and offensive they may be, and on the other hand there is a group cutting up the bible into whatever is convenient for the modern age. And yes, again I concede, that in times past religious leaders have done exactly that. Make the bible say what it is that they need it to say for their time, and their circumstances. But that doesn't somehow make it more intellectually honest for those still doing it, opposed to those that are just taking it for whatever mess it is. |
Like I said. I disagree. There were reasons.
As stated in early christianity there were 20 stories for each situation and they were all different.
For example. Genesis wasn't the only book that talked about god creating the earth. Far from it actually. There was no other way to take them. The bible was cobbled together out of the "Best" stories that they thought made the best christian and roman to make it easier through a narrative tradition so people didn't go "Which creation story?" etc.
