Did the ancient Israelites take the bible literally?

They did whatever the rabbis told them to do.

>>1682678

To be honest, most ancient Israelites probably couldn't read. The Hebrew word-root קרא

simultaneously means "read" as well as "call" or "shout". The ancient Israelite conception of reading seems to be less "sitting at home with a book" and more "reading to other people".

So probably not. They probably didn't even really have a conception of "the Bible", just a plethora of holy teachings from their holy men, which are drawn from a body of holy books, some of which were generally agreed upon, some of which weren't. Much later, you get the enormous arguments over proper canon you see in the Gemara, but I doubt that those kinds of debates started then.

>>1682678
The ones who take the bible most literally are actually protestants
The more you strive from the original teachings the more literal you take the bible basically

>>1682678
If you read the bible its an account of the Jews fucking up and God punishing them or having to send prophets.

>>1682780
So, until 300 years ago all of Christendom was as far away from the original teachings as the Protestants?

>>1682780
It's hard to find the deeper understandings in quite a few things found in the old testament, at least for me personally. I mean it really forces you to ask questions regarding a small handful of topics.

Now the new testament is filled with parables and teachings that fill in those blank spots that cause serious confusion. And for me anyways, you take the general philosophy of the entire new testament and the old testament begins to make more sense.

So you have this backwards movement taking place, meaning you read the second to the make sense of the first.

At least for me anyway.

>>1682678
It doesn't matter how they degraded as the Pharisaical tradition developed, Jesus clearly interpreted it literally.

>>1682808
wut

>>1682855
300 years ago all Christians interpreted the bible as literally as Protestants

>>1682678

Ancient Israelites didn't have the bible. The bible was compiled and redacted after Judah was destroyed by Babylon.

>>1682854

Except he didn't. Try Mark 2:23-28

>>1682808
The protestant reform was prompted by the Church's corruption (material and spiritual), its hegemony (protestants started promoting people reading the bible for themselves), and the fact they didn't take the Bible literally enough, according to Luther & co

>>1682861
Scripture was considered to have multiple meanings, one of which was literal.

>>1682678
>bible
Torah, you mean. and this >>1682722

>>1682678
well they couldn't since much of the bible didn't exist yet and the parts that did were radically different from how they are today

>>1682861
haha fuck no. here's augustine, from confessions, written 1600 years ago:

>Accordingly when anyone claims, “He meant what I say,” and another retorts, “No, rather what I find there,” I think that I will be answering in a more religious spirit if I say, Why not both, if both are true? And if there is a third possibility, and a fourth, and if someone else sees an entirely different meaning in these words, why should we not think that he was aware of all of them, since it was through him that the one God carefully tempered his sacred writings to meet the minds of many people, who would see different things in them, and all true.

It's was pretty much their constitution, so yes

>>1685357
And despite saying all this he still took the bible more literally than the average modern day YEC.

>>1682678
They did then they didn't then they did then they didn't then the Talmud was written & they all went full retard

The Jews still fought God would protect them physically and shit, that's why the Jewish War was important

>>1682722

God fucking dammit, get a trip you faggot.

>look at me, I'm so speshul, I took a Hebrew class once and now I'm some expert and this is why I'm right about everything.

Assfaggot. Kill yourself.

File: 212.png (54KB, 300x100px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 300x100px

>>1685510
>Someone makes an educated statement
>Throw your computer against a wall in anger
/his/ in a nutshell

>>1685365
Have seen how literally these creationists interpret the Bible? Augustine at least allowed for the possibility of other interpretations. He even says that creation probably wasn't a six day process as these creationists like to think.

>>1685365
>Citation needed

>>1685529
>>1685579
>world is created in 6 days
Augustine: No
Creationists: Yes

>firmament
Augustine: Yes
Creationists: No

>geocentrism
Augustine: Yes
Creationists: No

>flat Earth
Augustine: undecided, but sure at least that there wouldn't be any humans at the antipodes if it were round
Creationists: No

>date of creation based on a literal reading of the Genesis genealogies
Augustine: Yes
Creationists: Yes

>global flood
Augustine: Yes
Creationists: Yes

>Noah's ark
Augustine: Yes
Creationists: Yes

>Tower of Babel
Augustine: Yes
Creationists: Yes