Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When to be literal?
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 16 of 66 (677678)
10-31-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tangle
10-31-2012 2:40 PM


It seems to me that many Christians are happy to forget the awkward bit in the Bible.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tangle, posted 10-31-2012 2:40 PM Tangle has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 66 (677679)
10-31-2012 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Larni
10-31-2012 1:02 PM


Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
So we see the Bible makes all of the above claims about itself and how it is not to be modified.
More accurately, some books of Bible records claims made by men about scripture and the Word of God.
But the Bible as you have read it did not even exists at the time any of the claims were made. It is not a trivial matter to say which text of which Bible books the quotes you reference even refer to.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. - James 2:10
What part of the Bible corresponds to the whole law as mentioned in James 2:10? Not the whole Bible, and certainly not James itself. Did James consider Acts, or any of Paul's letter's to be part of the 'whole law'. Almost certainly not.
You seem to have grabbed ahold of the fundamentalist's view of the Bible. Namely that the Bible is a monolithic tome that has existed through all of history. That view is clearly wrong. I don't feel any particular need to defend such a view.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 10-31-2012 1:02 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 10-31-2012 3:03 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 18 of 66 (677680)
10-31-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NoNukes
10-31-2012 2:56 PM


Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
More accurately, some books of Bible records claims made by men about scripture and the Word of God.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Yup. I wonder if this is metaphorical.
What part of the Bible corresponds to the whole law as mentioned in James 2:10? Not the whole Bible, and certainly not James itself. Did James consider Acts, or any of Paul's letter's to be part of the 'whole law'. Almost certainly not.
I had no thought of that: it makes it even hard for me to see how one can tell what is really, really, really cannon and what is metaphor.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2012 2:56 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 10-31-2012 7:04 PM Larni has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 66 (677681)
10-31-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Larni
10-31-2012 1:02 PM


Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
There you go doing the same thing the fundies do, quote mining and leaving your brain at the door.
Let's start with 2 Timmy.
First, it is NOT referring to the Bible, the very concept of a Bible had not been created yet. "Scripture" refers to inspired writing and includes any writings that can teach you instruction of righteousness.
Deuteronomy was again like Leviticus, a fairly recent creation and likely a product of Israel originally that later took shape and was codified in Judah after the exile of the Israelites.
Again, in your quote mine from Revelation the Book mentioned is NOT the Bible. The very concept of a Bible had not been created when that was written.
Psalm 12 also has NOTHING to do with a Bible.
In each of these examples what you have done is take a verse out of context.
Further, none of the really tell us anything about Yahweh and each one is an example of adding to, rewriting, changing, rewording, editing and expounding scripture, dogma and doctrine.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 10-31-2012 1:02 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Larni, posted 11-02-2012 10:50 AM jar has replied
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 11-03-2012 7:39 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 20 of 66 (677683)
10-31-2012 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Larni
10-31-2012 2:46 PM


Larni writes:
I disagree. Those verses say that if a non Jew's heart happens to coincide with the Law it's fine. Not that we find Yaweh in our hearts. So if you happen by purest chance to follow his Laws through natural inclination you won't go to Hell.
I contend that the implication is there . Further on in Romans Paul says this.
From Romans 5:
quote:
And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
It is God's love that is in our hearts and so when we respond to that we are responding to, and knowing God in our hearts.
GDR writes:
In the end as Paul points out here it isn’t about what we believe or even what we do that is important, it is all about the condition of our heart.
Larni writes:
Not so. If we don't believe it does not matter. We go to Hell as abominations.
This is from Matthew 7.
quote:
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
This is from 1 Cor 4:5
quote:
Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
It is all about our hearts and Christ's message is that our hearts can be changed.
Larni writes:
But this is simply verse tennis.
Sure but I am not claiming that my views are inerrant. I am only saying that this is how I understand the Bible, and you asked in the OP how we come to our conclusions of how we sort out our understanding of the Bible.
In order for us to be able to love we have to be able to choose it freely and without coercion, which means IMHO, that the ambiguity in the meaning and purpose of our lives is necessary in order to give us the ability to freely choose to love unselfishly, and even sacrificially.
Larni writes:
How do we know that the resurrection is not a metaphor for the resurgence of the religion after it's originator dies?
We don't. In the end it's about faith. I own and have read these two books where Christian scholars argue that position from both sides. N T Wright debates for the Historical reality of the resurrection whereas Crossan and Borg argue for it being a metaphor.
Crossan and Wright
Borg and Wright
I find Wright's argument far more compelling if one starts reading with an open mind to the possibility of Jesus' resurrection. Crossan and Borg start off with the idea that there has to be some other explanation and frankly I don't find that any of their theories come close to explaining how the early Christian church could grow and take the form that it did.
But as I said we will all come to our own conclusions with none of us having absolute certainty.
Edited by GDR, : typos

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Larni, posted 10-31-2012 2:46 PM Larni has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 21 of 66 (677689)
10-31-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Larni
10-31-2012 1:02 PM


Book Curses
quote:
So we see the Bible makes all of the above claims about itself and how it is not to be modified.
Book curses and document curses were not uncommon in ancient days.
The curses deal with the specific writing, not the entire Bible.
Psalms 12:6-7 is a song. Songs use literary devices. This song has nothing to do with not modifying the Bible. The them in verse 7 refers to the oppressed in verse 5.
quote:
So by ignoring one thing in the Bible, the Bible tells us we have offended Yahweh.
None of the verses you've shared support that conclusion. The curses are basically against editing what the writer had written.
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Larni, posted 10-31-2012 1:02 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Larni, posted 11-04-2012 9:47 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 22 of 66 (677690)
10-31-2012 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Larni
10-31-2012 3:03 PM


Clarification
quote:
I had no thought of that: it makes it even hard for me to see how one can tell what is really, really, really cannon and what is metaphor.
How are you using the word metaphor and metaphorical?
A canon is nothing more than an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture.
Metaphor is a literary device.
Bible literalism is a type of interpretation.
Several literary techniques were employed by the Bible writers.
Several types of interpretation techniques are used by Christians to understand the Bible.
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Larni, posted 10-31-2012 3:03 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Larni, posted 11-02-2012 11:56 AM purpledawn has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 23 of 66 (677880)
11-02-2012 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
10-30-2012 4:21 PM


Re: Linguistic Lollapalooza
Its all about belief
But you need a reason to have that belief.
I dont pay too much attention to laws, since I believe that I am under Grace.
What makes you think that Grace is not metaphorical: it sounds metaphorical.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 10-30-2012 4:21 PM Phat has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 24 of 66 (677881)
11-02-2012 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
10-30-2012 5:31 PM


Re: Nothing needs to be literal
When looking at the Bible (whichever Canon you choose) the first step is to remember that it is NOT one book or story but rather an anthology of anthologies written by men for men of a particular era.
Yeah, I get that, you get that. But I guess I'm addessing my question to people who don't thinhink that way.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 10-30-2012 5:31 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 25 of 66 (677883)
11-02-2012 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
10-31-2012 3:06 PM


Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
Deuteronomy was again like Leviticus, a fairly recent creation and likely a product of Israel originally that later took shape and was codified in Judah after the exile of the Israelites.
I did not know that. wiki says:
However, the tradition is comparatively late (it dates from Josephus, a 1st century AD historian), and scholars are practically unanimous that the book had a long period of growth, that it includes some material of considerable antiquity, and that it reached its present form in the Persian period (538—332 BC).
So, aside from telling me that I'm taking verse out of context what do you have to say about telling fact from metaphor?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 10-31-2012 3:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 11-02-2012 11:45 AM Larni has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 66 (677894)
11-02-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Larni
11-02-2012 10:50 AM


Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
You need to understand that the different "books" of the Bible were written for different purposes and for the contemporary audience and you need to understand that contemporary audience.
Look at Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They are both reactionary texts.
Understand that Israel and Judah were separate nations and that the tribes really were their own political, cultural and religious entities far more like the United States during the very early days where the states were separate and individual and aligned only in a weak Confederacy. Tribes changed allegiances between the two larger states and even religious positions and dogma varied. Even under the short lived Davidic unified state it was more like England and Scotland under James I and VI than one state.
Israel suffered cultural destruction by exile of the whole political, economic and religious leadership. Judah remained and under Assyria kept some identity.
But then came Persia, and they were an even greater threat because they were tolerant. They accepted those from Israel or Judah and what was happening was the people were rapidly being assimilated, becoming "Persian".
As I mentioned above, Leviticus and Deuteronomy were reactionary works meant to stop assimilation and restore an identity of a people.
Leviticus is basically a listing of the laws that they should follow as Hebrews, as the people "Israel" (not the state Israel) and has two main parts, the duties of the Levites (remember that is a tribe and the tribe that priests were drawn from) and the laity or people. They were laws and meant to be taken literally by the people "Israel" during that period. But it's important to remember that Leviticus is meant for just the people "Israel".
Deuteronomy has a slightly different purpose. It has three basic parts and goals. First it recounts the mythos, the history, of the creation of the people "Israel". Next it describes the basics of that identity, that the people "Israel" belong to the God "Yahweh" exclusively and exhorts obedience to his laws. The last part says that even if bad things happen, if you stick to your identity in the end all will turn out right.
Both are reactionary responses to the overall trend of day, of people becoming somewhat sophisticated Persians rather than Benjamites, or Israelis or Judean.
It's not a matter of what is factual or metaphor, rather it is a matter of understanding the writings within the context of their creation.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Larni, posted 11-02-2012 10:50 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 11-02-2012 11:53 AM jar has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 27 of 66 (677897)
11-02-2012 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
11-02-2012 11:45 AM


Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
It's not a matter of what is factual or metaphor, rather it is a matter of understanding the writings within the context of their creation.
That's really interesting and you have definitly taught me something new. It seems to me that you've given a credible rationale, here.
Would it be fair to say that this is not the kind of thought process and fundy would go through?
I wonder how one of our resident literalists would respond.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 11-02-2012 11:45 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 11-02-2012 12:11 PM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 28 of 66 (677898)
11-02-2012 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by purpledawn
10-31-2012 7:04 PM


Re: Clarification
How are you using the word metaphor and metaphorical?
I'm guilty of not being very clear, arn't I?
What I mean is that (presumably) Christians take the ressurection of Jesus as 'actual factual'.
Why is this not a metaphor for a religion experiencing a boost when the cult leader dies?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 10-31-2012 7:04 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by purpledawn, posted 11-02-2012 1:07 PM Larni has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 29 of 66 (677901)
11-02-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Larni
11-02-2012 11:53 AM


Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
Would it be fair to say that this is not the kind of thought process and fundy would go through?
Possibly but I really can only address my experiences. Remember I am a product of a Christian education that was in the CoE, Anglican, Episcopal tradition. It was a tradition that encouraged questioning and in depth research and understanding, where bumper stickers and sloganism were constantly challenged.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Larni, posted 11-02-2012 11:53 AM Larni has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 30 of 66 (677902)
11-02-2012 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Larni
11-02-2012 11:56 AM


Re: Clarification
quote:
What I mean is that (presumably) Christians take the ressurection of Jesus as 'actual factual'.
Why is this not a metaphor for a religion experiencing a boost when the cult leader dies?
So you don't wish to clarify. Sorry for bothering you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Larni, posted 11-02-2012 11:56 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 11-02-2012 8:30 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024