Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

That is absolutely not the story of the Hebrew bible. The story is that G-d liberated Israel from Egypt, G-d gave Israel the law, sometimes Israel sinned, sometimes Israel repented, and G-d makes abundantly clear that She will never give up on the people Israel, but will always love them, and will turn their hears back.

The NT interpretation you present is anything but a literal reading of the Hebrew bible.

You don't care about us. We don't care about you. Fair, no?

1. We can't avoid Christianity. It (still) pervades the culture. Even atheists tend to take the christian view of the "old" testament for granted.

2. The claim to take the bible literally, though not as pervasive, is widespread in the US, and impacts society and politics. Ergo we have a need to discuss what literal actually means

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

That is absolutely not the story of the Hebrew bible. The story is that G-d liberated Israel from Egypt, G-d gave Israel the law, sometimes Israel sinned, sometimes Israel repented, and G-d makes abundantly clear that She will never give up on the people Israel, but will always love them, and will turn their hears back.

The NT interpretation you present is anything but a literal reading of the Hebrew bible.

Well, if you're talking about the Hebrew Bible and what is made abundantly clear, you would know not to refer to God as "She." It's really funny you can't use the "o" but that you would write that.

There is no neutral third person in Hebrew, so the masculine word "hu" does not necessarily imply gender (and G-d is not like us and does not have a human gender) OTOH there is a strong tradition of a feminine aspect to G-d, the shekina. And there is no jewish law about what pronoun to use for G-d.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

That is absolutely not the story of the Hebrew bible. The story is that G-d liberated Israel from Egypt, G-d gave Israel the law, sometimes Israel sinned, sometimes Israel repented, and G-d makes abundantly clear that She will never give up on the people Israel, but will always love them, and will turn their hears back.

The NT interpretation you present is anything but a literal reading of the Hebrew bible.

You don't care about us. We don't care about you. Fair, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.

Absolutely. The book is entirely too inconsistent to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean that we discount the message. On the contrary.

Pray tell, what is the message then? And what other things that are so inconsistent do you take so seriously?

The message is for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, and love thy neighbor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

That is absolutely not the story of the Hebrew bible. The story is that G-d liberated Israel from Egypt, G-d gave Israel the law, sometimes Israel sinned, sometimes Israel repented, and G-d makes abundantly clear that She will never give up on the people Israel, but will always love them, and will turn their hears back.

The NT interpretation you present is anything but a literal reading of the Hebrew bible.

Well, if you're talking about the Hebrew Bible and what is made abundantly clear, you would know not to refer to God as "She." It's really funny you can't use the "o" but that you would write that.

Anonymous wrote: Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

That is absolutely not the story of the Hebrew bible. The story is that G-d liberated Israel from Egypt, G-d gave Israel the law, sometimes Israel sinned, sometimes Israel repented, and G-d makes abundantly clear that She will never give up on the people Israel, but will always love them, and will turn their hears back.

The NT interpretation you present is anything but a literal reading of the Hebrew bible.

Conservative Jew

We are told to read the bible in four different ways

1 P'shat - "directly" This is close to literally but not really. Because it allows for obvious metaphors and figures of speech. Do you really think that that woman's neck was like the tower of David?

2. Remez - allegory. G-d speaks to us about ethical and philosophical things via allegory

3. Drash - "hermeneutics" The bible is divine, right? Ergo every single word, every letter, every punctuation mark (in the Hebrew, obviously), has meaning. If a word is repeated in one sentence it means something different each time. If there as an odd punctuation, that it to tell us something. But how do we know? The rabbis, divinely inspired, and using logic and imagination, compared texts in one part of the bible to texts in another and explained the hidden meanings.

4. Sod - mystical meanings. The bible contains clues to a mystical reality that is not described in the pshat meaning. The essence of this mystical meaning comes to us through the Zohar (whose oldest text is medievial, but is attributed to early rabbin Shimon Bar Yokkai)

The four meanings are different, yet ALL are "true". The acronym for the four approaches happens to be "Pardes" - Paradise, a garden. The point is to enter in and experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.

Absolutely. The book is entirely too inconsistent to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean that we discount the message. On the contrary.

Pray tell, what is the message then? And what other things that are so inconsistent do you take so seriously?

The founding documents of the United States. The love in my heart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.

Absolutely. The book is entirely too inconsistent to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean that we discount the message. On the contrary.

Pray tell, what is the message then? And what other things that are so inconsistent do you take so seriously?

There are a million messages in it "turn in it, turn in it, everything is in it!" Ben Bag Bag, quoted in Pirkei Avot (Sayings of the Fathers)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.

Absolutely. The book is entirely too inconsistent to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean that we discount the message. On the contrary.

Pray tell, what is the message then? And what other things that are so inconsistent do you take so seriously?

The bold.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.

Absolutely. The book is entirely too inconsistent to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean that we discount the message. On the contrary.

Pray tell, what is the message then? And what other things that are so inconsistent do you take so seriously?

Anonymous wrote:I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.

So people who take it literally aren't as serious about it?

Anonymous wrote:I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.

Absolutely. The book is entirely too inconsistent to be taken literally, but that doesn't mean that we discount the message. On the contrary.

Anonymous wrote:I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.

I've heard that response many times. It's a pat answer used by progressive christians to convey that they treasure the Bible, but don't think every word in it is factual, the way fundamentalists do

It makes them sound erudite and like serious Christians, while clouding what they really do think about the Bible - and Fundamentalists approach to it. Maybe that's the intention.

I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.