quote:Originally posted by Vox:quote:Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
The Helio Biblio 'contradicts' itself because it is myth that is not supposed to be taken literally.
Oshun, I have to disagree with you here, at least for now. The studying I've been doing of the Bible over the past year is leading me to the conclusion that the writers and the compilers did indeed mean for the Bible to be taken as the literal word of God. I come to that conclusion because older passages that couldn't possibly be literally true are referred to by later books in the Bible in terms that make it clear that the writer of the later believed in the literal truth of the earlier text. I don't have cites handy, but New Testament books refer to Adam and Eve, for example.
I have a long way to go, but from what it's starting to look like to me, the idea that this stuff wasn't meant to be taken literally sounds like it evolved in response to science and enlightenment, as a way for the church to retain its relevance.
This is one reason I have rejected the Bible, and Christianity (though certainly not Jesus) along with it.
I stand corrected (somewhat)
The 'writers' of the Bible, or rather the 're-writers' of the compliled myths of previous cultures now known as the Bible, probably re-wrote the texts to sound literal out of a lack of understanding of the original cotexts of said 'myths' since they were 'borrowed' in the first place...or... They re-wroote them (and re-interpreted them under a patriarchial culture) as literal history to attempt to make them look less 'borrowed'. But The priests knew that they were myths...It's the masses that are fooled into being literalists.
Remember almost all of the stories in the Bible are based on the Mythos of previous nearby cultures...hence at some point 'they' meaning the plagerizers, HAD to know they weren't dealing with anything literal.
I hope that makes sense...