Is the Old Testament to be taken literally?

Des Carter

Just wondering do you believe the Old Testament should be taken literally - was there really a massive flood with Noah and the Arc, real people called Adam and Eve (however I dont want this to turn into a creationist vs evolution debate) and Jonah living in a Whales belly.

Do these not sound a bit ridiculous but at the same time the New Testament is meant to be a fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the law of the Old Testament and If these things never actually happened then the New Testament has no basis.

Thoughts?

antiskeptic

Des Carter wrote: »

Just wondering do you believe the Old Testament should be taken literally - was there really a massive flood with Noah and the Arc, real people called Adam and Eve (however I dont want this to turn into a creationist vs evolution debate) and Jonah living in a Whales belly.

Do these not sound a bit ridiculous but at the same time the New Testament is meant to be a fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the law of the Old Testament and If these things never actually happened then the New Testament has no basis.

Thoughts?

The New Testament contains stories of water being turned into wine & people being raised from the dead. I don't see the particular problem with taking the Old literally on the counts mentioned if able to do the same with the New.

lionmqj

Des Carter wrote: »

Just wondering do you believe the Old Testament should be taken literally - was there really a massive flood with Noah and the Arc, real people called Adam and Eve (however I dont want this to turn into a creationist vs evolution debate) and Jonah living in a Whales belly.

Do these not sound a bit ridiculous but at the same time the New Testament is meant to be a fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the law of the Old Testament and If these things never actually happened then the New Testament has no basis.

Thoughts?

The Old testament is the New testament conceled and the New testament is the Old testament revealed.

66 books written by over 40 different authors and yet it all completly ties together.

Its supernatural and once that is discovered for yourself ..................... well.

lionmqj

Des Carter wrote: »

Just wondering do you believe the Old Testament should be taken literally - was there really a massive flood with Noah and the Arc, real people called Adam and Eve (however I dont want this to turn into a creationist vs evolution debate) and Jonah living in a Whales belly.

Do these not sound a bit ridiculous but at the same time the New Testament is meant to be a fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the law of the Old Testament and If these things never actually happened then the New Testament has no basis.

Thoughts?

Take 2 and a half mins and see below.

lionmqj

lionmqj wrote: »

The Old testament is the New testament conceled and the New testament is the Old testament revealed.

66 books written by over 40 different authors and yet it all completly ties together.

Its supernatural and once that is discovered for yourself ..................... well.

lionmqj

Voodoo_rasher wrote: »

religious mythology bunkum. why yes it shd be taken literally, by you and like-minded people Only

Word to all, do not engage in arguments or backtalk with posters as such above. Lets keep at least one thread where this does not happen.

Build one another up, strenghthen one anothers faith.

Zombrex

Des Carter wrote: »

Just wondering do you believe the Old Testament should be taken literally - was there really a massive flood with Noah and the Arc, real people called Adam and Eve (however I dont want this to turn into a creationist vs evolution debate) and Jonah living in a Whales belly.

Do these not sound a bit ridiculous but at the same time the New Testament is meant to be a fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the law of the Old Testament and If these things never actually happened then the New Testament has no basis.

Thoughts?

It should probably be pointed out, in case Christians are avoiding this thread, that Des Carter is not an atheist agitator but a Christian himself, who on the A&A forum is engaged in a number of discussions where he states that it is not necessary, nor are you supposed to, take the Old Testament literally. It is just a bunch of stories with moral messages, a set of parables so to speak.

The atheists including myself told him that this was not a mainstream Christian position, certainly not that of the Catholic Church, which I think inspired this thread for clarification.

homer911

I have no doubt that the Old Testament, like the new, contains a mixture of literal truths and metaphors. The Holy Spirit helps to guide us in determining which is which. That being said, I wouldn't fall out with someone over a literal vs metaphor interpretation, as long as we can agree to differ

prinz

Short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but IMO parts are, parts are not.

Zombrex

homer911 wrote: »

I have no doubt that the Old Testament, like the new, contains a mixture of literal truths and metaphors. The Holy Spirit helps to guide us in determining which is which. That being said, I wouldn't fall out with someone over a literal vs metaphor interpretation, as long as we can agree to differ

What if the person believed the entire Old Testament was just a story?

homer911

Wicknight wrote: »

What if the person believed the entire Old Testament was just a story?

By that, I'll take it you mean a metaphor, as opposed to a work of fiction.

We interpret the New Testament against the background of the Old Testament. To deny the literal nature (or at least elements) of the Old Testament is to deny the New Testament.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

What if the person believed the entire Old Testament was just a story?

Then you'd have to suppose the New Testament a story too*. Either Moses and Elijah were real people or they didn't appear alongside the tranfigured Jesus


(* or start getting into supposing non-storylike bits of the New Testament were stories too. Which is kind of pulling the plug out of the plughole of your Christianity)

Zombrex

homer911 wrote: »

By that, I'll take it you mean a metaphor, as opposed to a work of fiction.

The way it was described to me was as a parable, like the parables Jesus' used

JimiTime

Des Carter wrote: »

Just wondering do you believe the Old Testament should be taken literally

The error is in the question. There are bits that are literal, other bits that are not. Much like the NT.

- was there really a massive flood with Noah and the Arc, real people called Adam and Eve (however I dont want this to turn into a creationist vs evolution debate) and Jonah living in a Whales belly.

I believe these stories are presented by the authors are literal, so i would say yes.

Do these not sound a bit ridiculous but at the same time the New Testament is meant to be a fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the law of the Old Testament and If these things never actually happened then the New Testament has no basis.

Thoughts?

If these things are ridiculous, then surely a man rising from the dead, turning water to wine, tongus of fire appearing over peoples heads, a man ascending to heaven etc etc are just as ridiculous no? If you have decided to be a naturalist (No, not a naturist:) ), then its all ridiculous. However, if you believe in God, then none of it is ridiculous in the slightest.

Soul Winner

Des Carter wrote: »

Just wondering do you believe the Old Testament should be taken literally

There are parts that are obviously meant to be taken literally and others that are not. The six day creation event can be interpreted literally or metaphorically. If I can believe that a God can create any kind of universe in any amount of time then I have no problem believing that He could do so in six literally 24 hour periods. But saying that I don't actually see the need to take literally this interpretation of the text. For one, we measure days in 24 hour periods, but after 3 days God supposedly created the Sun. So if two days preceded the creation of the Sun then how where these days measured? From our perspective it is pretty difficult, but if one reads the account from the perspective of the Creator then a day to Him is obviously different from what we call a day. So even though God has the ability to do it in six 24 hour periods that is not necessarily what the text is saying.

I think one of the best talks on this subject was done by Hugh Ross in 1994. In the Q&A section of this talk his answer to a question on this subject explains a lot. Click here to hear the whole thing.

Des Carter wrote: »

- was there really a massive flood with Noah and the Arc,

Jesus spoke about the days of Noah so He at least believed the story. If the story isn't true then there is something wrong with Jesus. Is it impossible that Noah could have done what God told him to do? If God exists and created everything, who crafted this earth and this universe by the Word of His mouth, then I don't see the big deal in believing that He could have given the dimensions of the ark to Noah and to help him to do what he did with the animals. If God exists at all then this should not be a problem for Him.

Des Carter wrote: »

real people called Adam and Eve (however I dont want this to turn into a creationist vs evolution debate) and Jonah living in a Whales belly.

Well one the Gospel writers traces the genealogy of Jesus right back to Adam. So if Adam is mythological then so is Jesus. And if Jesus is mythological then He never lived, and if Jesus never lived then He never died, and if Jesus didn't die then He didn't raise from the dead and if Jesus didn't raise from the dead then there is no resurrection of the dead and hence our Christian faith is vain and we are false witnesses of God.

Des Carter wrote: »

Do these not sound a bit ridiculous but at the same time the New Testament is meant to be a fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the law of the Old Testament and If these things never actually happened then the New Testament has no basis.

Absolutely. The best thing to do is to start with the resurrection of Jesus and work back from there. If Jesus was who He claimed to be and was raised from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of the glory of God, then you are on better grounds trusting in what He said than anything else, right? Nobody has proven that Adam didn't exist and nobody has proven that Noah's flood didn't take place but if Jesus was who He claimed to be then Adam was real, Noah's flood did happen and Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish, because Jesus said that an evil generation asks for a sign, but none shall be given to it except the sign of Jonah, for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish, so shall the Son of man (Jesus) be three days and three nights in the belly of the earth.

So start with the resurrection of Jesus and work back from there, because if that didn't happen then all the rest is meaningless anyway, even if they did happen. A Christian's faith should be based on the resurrection of Jesus not on whether Adam existed or whether or not the flood happened, both of which are assumed to be true if Jesus was who He claimed to be.

A good place to start if you want to have some sort of basis for believing in the resurrection of Jesus would be to read this. Then I would recommend the following books:


The trial of the witnesses - Thomas Sherlock
The testimnoy of the evangelists - Prof Simon Greenleaf
Jesus Christ Super nut or Super natural? - Dr Gene Scott
Who moved the stone - Frank Morrison
Reasonable Faith - Dr William Lane Craig
A case for the ressurection of Jesus - Gary Habermas and Michael Licona
The resurrection of the Son of God - N.T. Wright

Some good Youtube links on the subject too, here's just one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYdzUYyIKMM

Des Carter

JimiTime wrote: »

The error is in the question. There are bits that are literal, other bits that are not. Much like the NT.

then how do we know which stories actually happened and which did not?
Can we just pick and choose whichever one suits us and our beliefs? Is that not a cop out
I mean surely it is all metaphorical or it all happened as was described?

JimiTime wrote: »

I believe these stories are presented by the authors are literal, so i would say yes.

But does it not sound unlikely I mean since there is no proof that I know of to suggest Noahs flood occured or a tower of Babel was built? and there is even a solid evolution theory (again want to stay off this topic) that disproves the 7 days story.
On the other hand there is strong evidence that Jesus did exist so the New Testament is a lot more feasible.

JimiTime wrote: »

If these things are ridiculous, then surely a man rising from the dead, turning water to wine, tongus of fire appearing over peoples heads, a man ascending to heaven etc etc are just as ridiculous no? If you have decided to be a naturalist (No, not a naturist:) ), then its all ridiculous. However, if you believe in God, then none of it is ridiculous in the slightest.

True.

antiskeptic

Des Carter wrote: »

then how do we know which stories actually happened and which did not?
Can we just pick and choose whichever one suits us and our beliefs? Is that not a cop out
I mean surely it is all metaphorical or it all happened as was described?

Yet the New Testament isn't all one or the other. Wouldn't you say the gospels are historical (notwithstanding the parables) and Revelation significantly pictorial?

But does it not sound unlikely I mean since there is no proof that I know of to suggest Noahs flood occured or a tower of Babel was built? and there is even a solid evolution theory (again want to stay off this topic) that disproves the 7 days story.
On the other hand there is strong evidence that Jesus did exist so the New Testament is a lot more feasible.

There is an assumption in there: the current findings of science trump what scripture itself says. Now there isn't any particular biblical hint to lead us to conclude the Exodus story untrue and we have Jesus/Paul apparently taking those stories as historical.

Bar for your assumption there is no biblical reason to conclude other than the OT account historical (if once prepared to accept the NT account historical).

riffmongous

Des Carter wrote: »

But does it not sound unlikely I mean since there is no proof that I know of to suggest Noahs flood occured or a tower of Babel was built? and there is even a solid evolution theory (again want to stay off this topic) that disproves the 7 days story.
On the other hand there is strong evidence that Jesus did exist so the New Testament is a lot more feasible.

The Noahs Ark case is pretty interesting since flood myths are common in a lot of cultures, the Epic of Gilgamesh has a character who is the immortal survivor of an ancient flood. And since the Epic was written by the Sumerians who inhabited the Tigris-Euphrates Mesopotamia region where I would think it is quite possible a great flood could have 'wiped out' most of the early civilisation. And isn't Abraham supposed to have originally been from that region?

B9K9

Troll's rant deleted.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

It should probably be pointed out, in case Christians are avoiding this thread, that Des Carter is not an atheist agitator but a Christian himself, who on the A&A forum is engaged in a number of discussions where he states that it is not necessary, nor are you supposed to, take the Old Testament literally. It is just a bunch of stories with moral messages, a set of parables so to speak.

The atheists including myself told him that this was not a mainstream Christian position, certainly not that of the Catholic Church, which I think inspired this thread for clarification.

Thanks for the clarification.

Anyone holding those views of the Bible is not a Christian in any historic sense of the word. Not that it stops them - from Catholic Crazies to Born Again Bonkers.
_________________________________________________________________
2 Timothy 3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Manach

You've forgotten about Orthodox Oddballs ?

CCCP

The old testiment was relevent before the new testiment.

The new testiment revealed everything, in a way overruling the old.

The old is useful as a guide but if contradicted by the new then the new testiment should be given precedence.

Its my opinion but I may be wrong

komodosp

All this talk of the Old Testament being a guide, or a bunch of moral passages or parables is a bit shocking. Have you ever read Exodus? It seems to condone slavery, execution for offences that surely don't warrant it, the literal murder of so-called sorceresses, and totally flies in the face of the message of forgiveness that Jesus gives. I'd be horrified if anyone, especially one calling themselves a Christian took any of it seriously!