"The virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection can
be viewed in an entirely new light...they never were literal
events...nor were they myths, traditional legends, as scholars have often held.
Something really did happen,
and what happened
opens up a whole new understanding of
historical Christianity."
(from the Introduction to "Jesus The Man").

The views of innovative thinkers add value to every society.
Only by questioning traditional beliefs can those beliefs
be either reaffirmed or modified. Of course some find it
difficult, despite meticulous documentation to accept anything
that they view as criticism because what is being examined is
a matter of their faith. And a scholarly hypothesis will
always be rejected even though it deserves serious attention to
anyone interested in the origins of Christianity.

To Foxy.

There's a huge problem with the different attempts to rewrite history, and to be innovative with it. History should be a work simular to a detective solving a crime. You look for clues, testomy, multiple evidence or sources that agree with a certian story or a certian hypothesis. In this case without active witnesses, it would be comparable to a cold case detective work. With that in mind next, I've been told the book "Cold Case Christianity," is a good book to take Christianity from that angle.

As for the bible. It's not just a history record. It's reliable because God is reliable. There's no reason to try to rewrite it and reinvent it in a "non literal way." Either God blessed Mary and gave her Jesus, or He didn't. There's no non literal way to see it except to say it never happened. If it comes to that, then I stand by the bible over the imaginations of people who think they have a new modern day take on ancient history.

A second thing to think on Foxy.

Before you pass off what I've said or rationalize it as small minded, or somehow not thought through, consider this. Would you consider any other form of history in a non literal way?

NNS,

You can't argue with someone who takes the Bible
literally. You pray for them. You may also discuss
Biblical interpretation and the Church's official
stance - which is that every word in the Bible is
true in its proper context. However, we need to
remember that the Lord spoke in parables. He told
stories to make a point. If you think the Bible is
inerrant - that it has no errors - again - are you
talking about the Revised Standard Version, the
Catholic edition? Certainly not. It is just a
translation of a translation of scrolls that
have been lost to history for hundreds of years.

Is the King James version literally true?
Of course not - then we would have to believe all
kinds of nonsense that is demonstrably false and
no one was around back then to back it up.

But God was there. He is still here, talking to
you and me. That message is indeed infallible.

"Judge not ..."

"Love thy neighbour..."

"Treat they neighbour as ..."

And so on.

NNS,

<<Would you consider any other form of history in a non literal way?>>

This is an excellent question! Since I'm an Aussie, how should anyone interpret the historical happenings surrounding Captain Cook's sailing up the eastern coast of what would become Australia in 1770?

What about the events surrounding George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in the USA? Americans would laugh at me if I attempted to read US history allegorically or with a postmodern reader-response.

The same applies to your and Foxy's posts. It would be a strange forum if I was forced to interpret every post other than literally.

Same applies to the Brisbane Courier-Mail newspaper or articles in On Line Opinion. Try reading my article to which you comment here in other than a literal way and I would have every right to accuse you of inaccurate interpretation leading to a strawman fallacy.

When antagonists reject literal interpretation of the Bible, to be consistent they need to reject all other literal interpretations of any narratives - including their posts on this forum.

Non-literal interpretation often involves creating one's own interpretation. Of course Jesus used parables and figures of speech (e.g. I am the door; you are the light of the world). However, these aspects are all part of literal interpretation. I learned that in primary and high schools in Australia.

To Foxy.

You say that you can't argue with someone who holds to a literal interpretation. I ask, why not? There is a lot to discuss even with a literal interpretation. A second question would be, what are you arguing about that needs to be creative when interpreting the bible?

Look at it this way. When testifing at court on the witness stand, is a testimony accepted or rejected based on what they said, or on a non literal take of their testimony? For example if they were questioned, "how many people did you see assault that person?" If the person gives a number, then the court and the lawyers can determine on their own if the answer is true or not. Things like, if it was dark, or if the witness was clear headed and sober, how long ago the event was, or even aspects like if the witness might be lying because they have something against the people being accused. These kinds of questions take the answer given and sifts it for whether it can be trusted or not. The answer though is taken as A literal interpretation of what's said that leads to whether that answer is accepted or challenged and rejected. If this approach is taken on all of the matters the witness testifies about, then a detective, a lawyer, or a judge can say that parts of the testimony is reliable, and other parts are not.

Regarding the bible, you can look at it like you would with someone who doesn't speak English and needs an interpreter to disclose what the witness said to the court and to tell the witness what the court is asking them. even say with the case of the bible, there's multiple interpreters that listen to the witness and based on their knowledge of the witness's language, culture, and idioms can be used to confirm each other's interpretation. Or can challenge each other if they have a discrepancy in interpretations. However either way, they are still taking it at a literal value. This is what the witness said.

(Continued)