Is the Bible the Literal Word of God?

andyt2k wrote: Don't take it so litterally, it's only the Bible

It's not like it's the word of God

Hee hee hee.

I wouldn't say its the literal words of god. I think it was just a group of men over centuries who believed that they knew what god wanted and what He believes. It is fact that man wrote the bible, so human error is sure to be there. Whether the words are god's is up for discussion. Maybe they are stories that are meant for guidance more than anything, like Aesops fables. Not meant to be taken literally, but more about the message. I of course could be 100% wrong, but that's part of lifes journey.

Define "God" first. Depending on the definition, the answer may turn out different.

It was practically written and and bound together by little more than primates, I doubt the sanity of anyone who reads from the Bible as a literal translation of the "word of god."

I think it truly is a matter of opinion. It can be viewed as God's word, God's word being recorded by apostles and writers of the various books of the Bible itself, or it can be viewed as human interpretation of divine messages and/or conduct.

Is the Koran not also a book of the word of God? Are religious experiences such as Joan of Arc's visions truly divine?

I think that this is indeed a matter of your faith and ideals. So long as you believe what you will, you are welcome to express said views however you wish. This being said, I grew up Christian and have had changing views on the Bible of the years....therefore taking into account that no interpretation is finite and subject to change is essential.

I believe that the Bible, Koran, Torrah and all other religious texts are written works of God's will and word, yet these works are produced by human working with God in their quest to spread the word.

Perhaps a documentary or essay has already gone into greater depths on this topic?

~Lorian~

And of course, all texts are open to interpretation. ..so, Zenchi's words stand very true in this matter

On the note of defining God, there are generalities associated with him/her, yet you define God according to your own understanding of words and messages throughout the years. The word of God has very much been shaped by humans over the years, so I doubt that religious texts are his/her words in their truest sense.

I have a PowerPoint presentation that I recently created for an English project that touches on this....Would anyone like for me to post the script and perhaps the presentation itself? (With a list of sources, of course ;p)

Are any words not literal ?

It isn't the 'literal' that comes under question, it's the 'of God' ...

Wouldn't literal words of Man also be literal words of God ? Aren't lies and dirty jokes also ? One may find more morality in the Bible than in Madame Bovary, but not less subjective moralising ...

:dry:

This is how the Bible was put together from the Catholic Perspective:

1. The Disciples were given the power to preach and exercise miracles by Jesus because Jesus knew he was gonna die. So, they were also told to go make disciples of all nations.
2. Paul became the first "pope", but that is not too much an important fact.
3. Wayyy later (about 50-60 years after Christ's death, and the end of Paul's reign from his crucifixion), things started to be written down. Paul's letters were recovered, and the various gospels were written.
4. At some point, later, there was a Church "meeting", in layman's terms, and the descendents and students of the "disciples" gathered to decide what would be considered Canon and what wouldn't.

In the end, the Scripture was considered to be God-breathed. "In the beginning was the Word."

The Christian Church decided, in order to convert many people, to tell the story the way that would suit them best, so they put the books together following the Old Testament prophecies, accepting the Old Testament as true but also knowing that Jesus' word overrode some of the older cultural practices.

They also took other religion's practices (this is where all the references to Paganism come from) and inputted them into the scripture and into the Canon Law of the Church.

So.... in short: The Bible was inspired by God, but written to promote the Church's standpoint and also written to encourage conversion for political (and maybe spiritual) reasons.

What does this mean for us? It means whatever you'd like it to... but that the Word of God must be found "inside" the text. Between the lines... rather than in the actual words themselves.

That's why I'm so fond of musical settings of the Bible. You can feel God in the words in the music beyond the word itself.

As I am reading 'dialogue with a christian proselytizer' for my apprentice studies on this very topic, I'm gonna go with a strong 'no'.

Desolous wrote: As I am reading 'dialogue with a christian proselytizer' for my apprentice studies on this very topic, I'm gonna go with a strong 'no'.

I'm not reading that book (nor would I want to), but the "no" was the first answer which came to mind before considering the semantics. Des was wise enough just to stick to a simple "no" ...

... I wasn't.