The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible

I assume this book has been discussed before but I don't see anything searching for it in this forum.

Anyone read this? Ceebs this seems perfect for you.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743291476?ie=UTF8&tag=offsitoftimfe-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0743291476

This is why I hate the literal interpretation Christians. They're so deeply in the minority, and yet this guy probably wrote this with the subversive intention of "getting at" those nutty Christians through his ingenious study. Sounds stupid. And I'm sure people will read this book and somehow get at the, "well, if Moses once told his people to jerk off their goats, your religion is nullified because you wouldn't do that now" line of thinking... and allow themselves to be lead on to new and ridiculous heights of ignorance.

But I haven't read it, so all that is obviously conjecture at this point.

is that zach galifianakis?

hey, it has a good review on amazon and believers and atheists get to review shit there, no?

If it wasn't for the the reviews, I wouldn't have even bothered posting on it.

340 Reviews
5 star: (199)
4 star: (93)
3 star: (33)
2 star: (7)
1 star: (8)

That's pretty amazing.

not quite.

i've heard very good things about it. i've had then intention of picking it up but haven't brought myself to yet. i'm not sure why. one of these days. i think it'd be very interesting.

what's wrong?

So its not the inerrant word of God?

This is the same guy who read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica.

who? ceebs or the author?

My mom has a Ph.D in this stuff, so I hear a lot about it (whether I want to or not) around the dinner table when I go home. There is a very real distinction between evangelicals/new wave Christians and those who believe that every single word of the Bible is meant to be accepted as completely literal doctrine. There are a lot of the former. The latter? Not so much. Not anymore. "Inherit the Wind" situations are dwindling. Even Ted Haggard wouldn't subscribe to it because he'd have lost half his congregation. His "literal interpretation" is selective. It's not all-inclusive like the guy who wrote this book is seemingly trying to discount.

Judging by the reviews, it seems the author made a genuine effort to avoid playing into one group more than the other and writes in a fairly even-handed manner. In that regard, it's more of a light entertainment book than anything of weighty religious merit. Which is fine, just so long as people aren't reading this thinking how he's "sticking it to the Christians."

Eh, I'm just uncomfortable with taking a majority of the Bible literally. I know it's more entertainment than education, but still. It seems like a pretty weird shtick.

shouldn't have god made it clear that his book that it wasn't to be taken literally? perhaps some sort of warning? a preface? so much for the world's best book.

with that distinction made, i would agree. thank you for clarifying.

Just out of curiosity, what would people say is the point of the Bible, if it's not meant to be taken literally?

Is it either the work of some early flim-flam artist or inspired by a God who feels that lying to his flock is a reasonable thing to do to keep them docile.

I've always been taught that the bible should be understood in historical-critical perspective. That is, that it should be read in the context it was written. In the case of ancient texts like the Old Testament and the different backgrounds of the authors of the New Testament, It seems to me that this is what was going on. Teaching in ways that the people of the time could understand the clearest. I think that when advances in scientific theory are made, it becomes clearer and clearer that the bible shouldn't be taken literally. Mankind is constantly being enlightened. I think that people take it a step too far and forget the essence of the books or the impetus for that enlightenment. That is, God the Creator.

But, God the Creator, knows the truth. What purpose does it serve the people of the era to believe that it is possible to build a tower to heaven, that the sun revolves around the earth, or that plants are a sacrifice unworthy of God?

And what of the miracles in the New Testament? Should we believe that Jesus could turn water into wine, cure leprosy or that he could raise the dead?

I've read the Bible pretty carefully. It's hard for me to understand, even in an unenlightened population, what purpose some of the stories hold. The stories are very entertaining, but what is being taught?

You're asking the wrong person, SLH. I've stuck with my Catholic faith precisely so I wouldn't have to worry about scripture

In all seriousness, though, I am only half joking. It seems like the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura has lead, and will continue to lead to a heap of trouble. You can see it in the hundreds of different christian churches and their different doctrines. I don't know all of the mysteries of scripture, but I really feel comfortable with the Church and Tradition teaching me. In this case that scripture is primarily written as allegory to illustrate the love/hate relationship man has with God, as well as the mysterious love God has for man.

Does this mean that you've considered other possibilities and rejected them? Or were you satisfied from an early age?

GimmeSomeSkin once wrote that he became a Catholic only in the last three years because part of what gave him peace and comfort was the tradition of the Church and the fact that there was no need to answer difficult questions alone.