Do you take all the Old Testament stories as literal?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I agree with Zil. It really doesn't matter to me. For me, the value of the scriptures is what. They teach about Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is all about Christ.  Thats where I put my focus. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree with Zil. It really doesn't matter to me. For me, the value of the scriptures is what. They teach about Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is all about Christ.  Thats where I put my focus. 

I'm with you both to a degree. I think we should depend and focus on Christ, but the credibility of the bible is important too. After all, if you can't trust what it teaches on Moses and Noah, how can you trust what it teaches on Christ? The good news is that I think archeology and history back up the bible, which adds to it's credibility overall. I've seen people say (no, not here) that history doesn't matter but that's a naive and sort of ignorant statement. 

[askandanswer]

On 12/27/2016 at 8:50 AM, Zarahemla said:

Adam and Eve in Garden, Noah's Ark and global flood, Tower of Babel, Jonah in the whale. Do you take all the Old Testament stories as literal events or do you think some are just stories with important messages handed down?

(New Testament | 2 Timothy 3:16)
16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
 

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

(New Testament | 2 Timothy 3:16)
16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
 

It's inspired by God, but that doesn't mean it's all literally true, grammatically correct or even interesting. The bible authors don't have the talent of Shakespeare or Marlowe. If that offends you, I'm sorry but it's true. 

There is a famous story of a young,naive divinity student who was translating a book of the gospel and the professor said, "That must be the gospel of Mark, the grammar is terrible". The young student was shocked that a Christian could say that. Well in reality, the grammar of Mark is terrible. That doesn't mean what he said was wrong or false. It just means he was a mortal man.  

If your faith is so fragile and insecure that you can't handle hearing that a gospel writer has bad grammar, you've got bigger problems than scripture analysis. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by MormonGator

[askandanswer]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's inspired by God, but that doesn't mean it's all literally true, grammatically correct or even interesting. The bible authors don't have the talent of Shakespeare or Marlowe. If that offends you, I'm sorry but it's also true. 

There is a famous story of a young,naive divinity student who was translating a book of the gospel and the professor said, "That must be the gospel of Mark, the grammar is terrible". The young student was shocked that a Christian could say that. Well in reality, the grammar of Mark is terrible. That doesn't mean what he said was wrong or false. It just means he was a mortal man.  

If your faith is so fragile and insecure that you can't handle hearing that a gospel writer has bad grammar, you've got bigger problems than scripture analysis. 

My comments were directed more towards the second part of the OP which asks "do you think some are just stories with important messages handed down?" My response to that comment is that the scriptures are more than just stories with important messages handed down, they are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." This applies, whether they are literal or not.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, askandanswer said:

My comments were directed more towards the second part of the OP which asks "do you think some are just stories with important messages handed down?" My response to that comment is that the scriptures are more than just stories with important messages handed down, they are "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." This applies, whether they are literal or not.

Right, I was making more of a general comment. I think your bible quote was a very good one and I think you make some great points. 

[zil]

58 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

(New Testament | 2 Timothy 3:16)
16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
 

Please note the JST version of that verse (in the footnotes).

[Vort]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Well in reality, the grammar of Mark is terrible.

Mark 3, verbatim KJV (except I changed the archaic "saith" to the modern "says"). Note how the tense jumps around from a simple past tense to the present tense:

Quote

And [Jesus] entered again into the synagogue, and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. And he says unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. And he says unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he says unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

Even in Koine Greek, this is not good grammar. The New Testament is rife with this kind of tense confusion, for some reason especially with the word "saith". The example above is the first one I came upon, but I'm sure anyone who cared to look could list hundreds more, probably better than the above.

Yet somehow, even with its manifest (and manifold!) grammatical flaws, the New Testament manages to be a spiritual inspiration and the word of God to hundreds of millions if not billions of people.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yet somehow, even with its manifest (and manifold!) grammatical flaws, the New Testament manages to be a spiritual inspiration and the word of God to hundreds of millions if not billions of people.

Right. The grammar is irrelevant. The meaning of what they were saying doesn't change. God "inspires" He doesn't lift their hands and command them to write word by word. 

People have two reactions to this. They either jump up and down and say "How dare you say anything negative about the bible! You must be an atheist! You horrible person! Burn the heathen! " or say "Well that does it, the bible is useless and shouldn't be trusted." Both answers are foolish.

Edited December 29, 2016 by MormonGator

[ldsister]

If I want to continue to believe in a God of love, then no, I can't take the story about the servant of God who shoved his daughter (or was it his wife?) out of the house, let her be raped to death on the front porch, and then cut her up and mailed her body parts to his allies as a literal story. 

[Vort]

19 minutes ago, ldsister said:

If I want to continue to believe in a God of love, then no, I can't take the story about the servant of God who shoved his daughter (or was it his wife?) out of the house, let her be raped to death on the front porch, and then cut her up and mailed her body parts to his allies as a literal story. 

Hmmmm...yeah, that's not an Old Testament story.

[ldsister]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hmmmm...yeah, that's not an Old Testament story.

Regrettably, it is. Judges 20:5-6. (I double-checked. The woman was a concubine. The daughters situation was Job.)

Edited January 2, 2017 by ldsister

[prisonchaplain]

30 minutes ago, ldsister said:

If I want to continue to believe in a God of love, then no, I can't take the story about the servant of God who shoved his daughter (or was it his wife?) out of the house, let her be raped to death on the front porch, and then cut her up and mailed her body parts to his allies as a literal story. 

I take it as quite literal. That Lot and his wife chose to stay in a place so wicked that they believed they would have to sacrifice their daughter to save God's messengers, and then the next day the wife still looks back with longing, displays so well the levels of depravity that even people with godly heritage can sink, if they allow themselves to be submersed in wicked culture.  BTW, nothing in the story suggests that God approved of the gang rape/murder of the daughter.

[ldsister]

Just now, prisonchaplain said:

I take it as quite literal. That Lot and his wife chose to stay in a place so wicked that they believed they would have to sacrifice their daughter to save God's messengers, and then the next day the wife still looks back with longing, displays so well the levels of depravity that even people with godly heritage can sink, if they allow themselves to be submersed in wicked culture.  BTW, nothing in the story suggests that God approved of the gang rape/murder of the daughter.

I can see your argument that God didn't tell the prophet to allow it. 

What about all the women and children that God told the Israelites to kill? Do you take that literally? 

[zil]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hmmmm...yeah, that's not an Old Testament story.

I assume she's referring to Judges 19.  Her description of events is not accurate (IMO, if you're gonna cite scripture stories, go find them and cite the source).

[prisonchaplain]

1 minute ago, ldsister said:

I can see your argument that God didn't tell the prophet to allow it. 

What about all the women and children that God told the Israelites to kill? Do you take that literally? 

Yes.  Many Canaanite cultures of the OT were so corrupt that sacrificing live babies into the fires of Molech, so they could get more food in next year's harvest, was just another day in the chapel.  It got to the point where the greatest mercy was to spare future generations of even greater depravity, by wiping the people out.  Was the Flood not about the same thing?

[ldsister]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

Yes.  Many Canaanite cultures of the OT were so corrupt that sacrificing live babies into the fires of Molech, so they could get more food in next year's harvest, was just another day in the chapel.  It got to the point where the greatest mercy was to spare future generations of even greater depravity, by wiping the people out.  Was the Flood not about the same thing?

Because adoption wasn't a thing? And what about the cattle? Did the cattle need to be spared from depravity too? What about the small children of the priest who hid the idol? What great good was done by stoning them to death? Nope. I just can't take it literally, or if those things really did happen, they weren't ordered by God. 

[prisonchaplain]

3 minutes ago, ldsister said:

Because adoption wasn't a thing? And what about the cattle? Did the cattle need to be spared from depravity too? What about the small children of the priest who hid the idol? What great good was done by stoning them to death? Nope. I just can't take it literally, or if those things really did happen, they weren't ordered by God. 

There were many bad incidences in the OT that were not ordered of God.  I could give you my view on individual episodes, but you hit upon an important aspect of reading the Old Testament.  So many bizarre happenings were based on the sinful choices of individuals. Another example is Abraham's telling the Egyptians that his wife was his half-sister, repeatedly.

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, ldsister said:

Regrettably, it is. Judges 20:5-6. (I double-checked. The woman was a concubine. The daughters situation was Job.)

I am astounded. Are you seriously and honestly trying to represent this as the righteous actions of a "man of God"? Do you truly have no sense at all for the context of this story and for the consequences, to Israel and to Benjamin, of these horrors?

[ldsister]

1 minute ago, prisonchaplain said:

There were many bad incidences in the OT that were not ordered of God.  I could give you my view on individual episodes, but you hit upon an important aspect of reading the Old Testament.  So many bizarre happenings were based on the sinful choices of individuals. Another example is Abraham's telling the Egyptians that his wife was his half-sister, repeatedly.

Could be, but the Bible specifically says that a lot of those things WERE ordered by God. Those would be the parts that I don't take literally. 

[ldsister]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am astounded. Are you seriously and honestly trying to represent this as the righteous actions of a "man of God"? Do you truly have no sense at all for the context of this story and for the consequences, to Israel and to Benjamin, of these horrors?

No, I'm saying that those wouldn't be the actions of a righteous man of God. I get that there are other interpretations, so I moved on to other instances that are less subjective and that I also can't take literally, like God's commands to kill entire nations. 

And as I said before, I know I'm not going to convince anyone. Just explaining why I don't take the whole OT literally. 

[zil]

5 minutes ago, ldsister said:

No, I'm saying that those wouldn't be the actions of a righteous man of God. I get that there are other interpretations, so I moved on to other instances that are less subjective and that I also can't take literally, like God's commands to kill entire nations. 

And as I said before, I know I'm not going to convince anyone. Just explaining why I don't take the whole OT literally. 

And then there's Jesus Christ (the "I" in the verses below) taking credit for destroying entire cities (men, women, children, animals, insects, and perfectly good property) (see also 3 Nephi 8) (bold, red emphasis mine):

Quote

 3 Behold, that great city Zarahemla have I burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof.

 4 And behold, that great city Moroni have I caused to be sunk in the depths of the sea, and the inhabitants thereof to be drowned.

 5 And behold, that great city Moronihah have I covered with earth, and the inhabitants thereof, to hide their iniquities and their abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come any more unto me against them.

 6 And behold, the city of Gilgal have I caused to be sunk, and the inhabitants thereof to be buried up in the depths of the earth;

 7 Yea, and the city of Onihah and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Mocum and the inhabitants thereof, and the city of Jerusalem and the inhabitants thereof; and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints shall not come up any more unto me against them.

 8 And behold, the city of Gadiandi, and the city of Gadiomnah, and the city of Jacob, and the city of Gimgimno, all these have I caused to be sunk, and made hills and valleys in the places thereof; and the inhabitants thereof have I buried up in the depths of the earth, to hide their wickedness and abominations from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up any more unto me against them.

 9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them.

 10 And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations.

 11 And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.

 12 And many great destructions have I caused to come upon this land, and upon this people, because of their wickedness and their abominations.

...and, upon reading the method of destruction of these places, imagine yourself a poor little 6 year old and what it would have been like for you.  While I respect Dr. Who's¹ right to "deny this reality", I don't think it's a wise course for the rest of us.

IMO, in abstract, this is no different from those who pick and choose which commandments they'll obey, because some are distasteful - either way, it's picking and choosing what to believe, and thereby limiting one's own progression.

¹ The one played by Tom Baker.  Sorry, not geeky enough to provide an episode reference.

[ldsister]

1 hour ago, zil said:

And then there's Jesus Christ (the "I" in the verses below) taking credit for destroying entire cities (men, women, children, animals, insects, and perfectly good property) (see also 3 Nephi 8) (bold, red emphasis mine):

...and, upon reading the method of destruction of these places, imagine yourself a poor little 6 year old and what it would have been like for you.  While I respect Dr. Who's¹ right to "deny this reality", I don't think it's a wise course for the rest of us.

IMO, in abstract, this is no different from those who pick and choose which commandments they'll obey, because some are distasteful - either way, it's picking and choosing what to believe, and thereby limiting one's own progression.

¹ The one played by Tom Baker.  Sorry, not geeky enough to provide an episode reference.

Eh. Earthquakes aren't the same thing as saying, "You guys, go out and kill everyone, including the babies." For one thing, there were survivors, based on their righteousness. For another, natural disasters are tragic. Slaughter is horrific. I can believe in a God that allows and even causes tragedy. I don't believe in a God of horror.

It also kind of sounds like you're trying to shame me out of my opinion by equating me with being a bad, disobedient Mormon if I don't take all aspects of the Bible literally. You might consider that even our own  AoF puts a caveat on the complete literalness of the Bible: "As far as it is translated correctly." Additionally, JS has said that parts of the Apocrypha are true and instructive, so there's  a lot more grey area with the OT than w/ the other standard works. Being aware of that grey area doesn't make me a commandment-picker. 

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2017 by ldsister

[MrShorty]

Regarding some of the "genocide" stories from the OT, I find this blog post from Ben Spackman very interesting food for thought -- about how scripture is recorded, how much of it should be taken as literal history, and that maybe some of it is not literal history: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2014/05/gospel-doctrine-lesson-18-joshua/

Of course, a single, short blog post cannot adequately cover all points of view, nor the entirety of scholarship, nor try to answer all of the questions, but I find some interesting suggestions in there, and links to further discussion.

Edited January 2, 2017 by MrShorty

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ldsister said:

It also kind of sounds like you're trying to shame me out of my opinion by equating me with being a bad, disobedient Mormon if I don't take all aspects of the Bible literally

Stick around a little longer and you'll see that this is not zil's game, at all. This isn't a fair statement. If anyone is coming off as shaming and/or contentious, it's not her.