posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:55 AM
I learned a long time ago that one cannot take everything in the Bible literally, nor can they believe everything in the Bible. While truly miraculous
and unexplainable, in today's terms, things did happen, much of what is written was not eyewitness testimony. There was quite a bit of eyewitness
testimony, but much more was 2nd hand or later. This does not immediately mean it is false, but it must be realized that people, even the apostles,
were still people who were capable of not only making mistakes, but of misunderstanding and misinterpreting things.
The Bible even mentions on more than one occasion that the apostles themselves were not very good at understanding and grasping the points Jesus was
intending to make, and I think it is highly likely that they themselves still held misguided views after the death of Jesus. So why should we believe
them regarding anything at all? Because firsthand testimony, and a bit of logic, tell us that something truly special must have been going on here,
considering these 12 men gave up everything they had to follow Jesus, and many were willing, and subsequently did, die for what they believed. That is
pretty powerful. Many points, including this one, could be argued much more deeply, but I am digressing from the point of the thread.
The point I would like to make is that understanding human tendencies can be very helpful when interpreting written materials, and therefore without
repetitive claims by many different sources, it is a bit easier to speculate that one person may have gotten it a bit wrong. I think that many
portions of the Bible, the most obvious of which in my own opinion, is the book of Revelation, were not written to be interpreted literally. In those
times it was not uncommon to mask writings in various ways for different reasons, one of which was the political climate of the time. And also
heretical views from traditional Judaism were not to be tolerated either, which probably played more of a role than fear of angering the Romans.
But the portion about the dead rising does not really apply to that, as I think it was simply meant metaphorically. The dead rising did not literally
mean there would be zombies walking around, which would be the literal interpretation. It could mean one of two things. First, that every soul will be
restored to a healthy body in a new kingdom on earth, or it could be referring simply to the afterlife. I think the latter is more likely, although
the former cannot be ruled out entirely. I think way too many religious practitioners of today interpret what they read in the Bible too literally,
which is a mistake that has led to much strife and heartache, divisions and infighting in the church...not just now, but throughout the last 2000