40 Reasons The Bible Should Not Be Taken Literally

The Bible is mostly a collection of symbolic, mythological stories and legends passed down from the very first ancient civilizations.
the stories were created in order to give meaning to astrology, human psychology and spiritual phenomena and understanding of human higher consciousness and awareness of a higher power, .
in this video i give reason to believe that to take these stories as literal historical accounts are in error and ignorance of what the stories really meant.
why do people read a spiritual book like they would a news paper?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• bible
• stories
• myths
• and
• legends
• symbolism
• mythology
• noah
• flood

[trubiz4u]

nothing in the bible is original! Every story was borrowed from previous cultures!

[aaugoaa]

@trubiz4u well i don't know about every story in the bible being borrowed from earlier ancient religions, but a lot of them were, or very similar.

[MQ1611]

Your argument: #40 shows up too often, so it must be artificial ("symbolic"), and authors who insert artificial numbers cannot be trusted to tell true stories. Correct?

Yet the first instance of "40" assigned the meaning of "a time of trial" from the 40 days of rain (Gen. 7:4) and thereafter many of the 40's that you found suspicious were discretionary by men aware of the first instance and thus the significance of the number.

Scripture isn't "guilty until proven innocent" but the opposite.

[aaugoaa]

@MQ1611 oh Mack Quigley how are you lol. i know the Christian interpretation of the symbolic number 40 is "a time of trial" and i think they are wrong, but it doesn't really matter because it still puts to question any of these accounts ever meant to be taken literally. and thats without any interpretation.

[Lawborn2]

Could not the Biblical text be regarded as being grounded in "cause and effect". For example, many great civilizations of the past were effectively destroyed when they slid into general decadence and immorality. Look at the Romans. Could the Genesis account be regarded as containing "truth" without being taken as absolutely literal?

[aaugoaa]

@Lawborn2 how would you explain a spiritual experience? how would you explain higher/consciousness, teaching? when you know that through spiritual teaching no one hears or See's God speak in reality, the experiences are dreams, when Jesus appears to Paul in the text was that a physical appearance, or one in deep contemplation/higher/conscious­ness...how does one explain that to people? they use symbols and myths to explain it lawborn...and thats what the bible is for the most part.

[AndreisEntaro]

I personally would, and would suggest that every non-believer do the same, quit the argument on every point in this video if it meant only that you could and would convince your fellow Christians of the same.

So sad that you seem to be in the minority opinion on religious texts.

[ootdega]

Apologetics at their finest.

[gblueslover2]

@MQ1611 If one takes into account how MANY animals and the AMOUNT of FOOD it would take to MAINTAIN all those animals for 40 days & nights, it would be completely impossible for this event to have ever taken place. I talked with people that have answered with " God can do anything ".(as far as making this happen. I always follow up with" Then WHY even go through all of that, if god can do anything" It gets even nuttier after that. That's part of the reason(s) why I'm a atheist..

[aaugoaa]

@Lawborn2 i don't think most of the bible was ever meant to be taken literally, there were flood stories in all religious text, and in reality floods for real, but there was no way any of the ancient flood story could have possibly know if any of the floods were local or world floods, but i don't believe they ever meant the text to be taken literally, i believe they used natural phenomena to explain spiritual phenomena, much like Jesus did with parables.