When to be literal?

Dawn, you can be a real pain in the arse, sometimes.When I say metaphor I mean something that is not literally true. I mean not exactly as described. I mean not literal.What more clarification do you (of all people, need?).But if you just want to play you usual semantic games, I'm not interested.

Where you and i would disagree perhaps would be the source of the inspiration.

quote:

---

Dawn, you can be a real pain in the arse, sometimes.

---

As can people who use words incorrectly. BTW, my name is purpledawn or PD.

quote:

---

When I say metaphor I mean something that is not literally true. I mean not exactly as described. I mean not literal.

​

What more clarification do you (of all people, need?).

---

I've seen members chastised on the science side because they don't use terms correctly or seem to have their own meaning for terms.It is difficult to have a debate with someone who doesn't use the right terms or uses them incorrectly.Notice that metaphor does not fall under the antonyms or even near antonyms for literal. Notice the synonym for metaphor is metaphor. No antonyms listed. Here is why equating metaphors with fiction or nonfactual can cause problems.The following sentence can be part of a factual story or a fictional story. The metaphor does not tell us whether the person was real or not or whether the battle was real or not. If Henry fought valiantly and bravely on the battle field, the statement is true even if it isn't literally true.

quote:

---

But if you just want to play you usual semantic games, I'm not interested.

---

I'm amazed you didn't get the hint that you were using the word incorrectly just from jar's posts and mine.After Message 18, maybe you need to pay a little attention to the meaning. Maybe that one should go in my signature block. When one can't tell what is canon and what is metaphor, it is time to address meaning.If you don't want to learn, that's up to you.

Larni may not be using language correctly, but he seems to be asking whether the story of Jesus' resurrection might well be an allegory for Christianity continuing after Jesus' death. So the metaphor would be that Christ's 'returning to life' actually represents Christianity becoming the dominant religion.

Very unlikely. Again, at the time the Gospels were written Christianity as a separate religion was at most still just a thought. The Gospels, unlike Leviticus or Deuteronomy or Genesis was not the product of a mythos evolving over millennia, rather they are an almost contemporary account of what a small group actually believed.

What part of message 28 did you not understand?Abe: No, on second thoughts, don't bother.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What part of message 28 did you not understand?

---

I understood what you asked in Message 28, but it wasn't an answer to my question. It also wasn't consistent with your opening post. Quite frankly since you supposedly understood what jar was saying in Message 26, I was surprised that you even asked that question. It showed me you still didn't understand.You also don't seem to understand the literal Biblical method of interpretation. This obviously doesn't include people who just "do their own thing" as you are. Biblical LiteralismThere are two types of literal interpretation: Letterism and the historical-grammatical method. As jar pointed out in Message 35, Christianity didn't really get a boost after Jesus died.Until after the destruction of the temple, Christianity was still a sect of Judaism.Reading if you're interested:
Early Christian Writings
The Spread of Christianity
Spread of Christianity
Rome and ChristianityNeedless to say your question in Message 28, is not based on the Biblical text. According to your opening post, you want to look at the text. So pardon my confusion, when your discussion flow is not consistent.
Pardon me for trying to give you better tools to work with and means to a better understanding.Flounder on!

I disagree. The verse I had in my head was Deuteronomy 4:2. This seems pretty specific.And what is this about my conclusion? I'm asking a question. If you think I'm asking the wrong question that fine.Thanks for the reading material but your tone of condescension makes me wonder why you want to participate in this thread. What was wrong with message 28? I acknowledge I have been less than clear and clarified my question. Just what did you hope to achieve from any of that?If you feel that way just press the little x on the window and move on.Edited by Larni, : Complete re write of post.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

A short aside.Let me return yet again to the concept that the Bible is NOT one book or story but rather an anthology of anthologies.An anthology is a collection of works (they could be stories or histories or poems or UNIX commands or ...) selected by the compiler. Bibles as we commonly think about them are one step further, they are collections of collections selected by different compilers. We call those compilers "Committee of Canon" and different committees have drawn up different lists of what should be included, what order they should follow and how they are divided.These anthologies evolved over time. For example, at the time of Jesus even the Jewish Canon was different than today; it most likely included the Torah and Nevi'im only, commonly called "The Law and the Prophets" in most Christian translations. The third part of the Jewish Tanakh, the Ketuvim (Writings) was likely not canonized until about 70-125 years after Jesus death.The common translation of Torah and Nevi'im into "The Law and the Prophets" also creates some misunderstandings.When we look at Old Testament found in a Bible the Torah would include the first five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but to a Jew the Torah is actually much more and includes an oral history and also the Talmud (collections of rabbinical discourse and discussion of the written and oral histories as well as rabbinical decisions based on those discussions).As you can see, the Torah is far more than just "Law" and is better translated and understood as "Instruction".When the Christian Canons were created lots of context and material that would have been common knowledge in the community and society at the time Jesus lived was lost. As the new religion "Christianity" evolved it built on members from outside that original community and society, Greeks and Romans and others that did not have that basic mythos and understanding.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

Is that to say the Greeks and Romans were 'filling in the gaps' made by that lost knowledge?

Not just filling in gaps but also changing, evolving the mythos of their era, reinterpreting things using their idiom.

So (and this is not a flippant question) how can we know the original meaning of the Bible?

There is no such thing as "the original meaning of the Bible", it's a moving target. What we can do is the same thing we do in any other area of understanding and that is study, lots of study and work.It's no different than learning history or culture or any other subject. But it's work, hard work.The answer also depends on how you want to use whatever meaning is found in a Bible.That can be good and bad.Let's return to two sources you mentioned 2 Timmy and Leviticus.

quote:

---

2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

---

Now many (I might even say most) people read that passage as "All of the Bible based on the Canon that my Chapter of Club Christian uses is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness".It's only when you research how the word "scripture" would have been used at the time the unknown author of 2 Timmy wrote that that you realize "scripture" meant inspired teachings and not "The Bible" which would not even exist for over two centuries.But today the term "scripture" is used to specifically mean a Christian Bible (usually from the Western Protestant Canon).The Bible is complex and filled with contradictions and a perfect tool for supporting ANY position simply through quote mining. It is equally valuable to theist or atheist and can be used to support either position.The same things can be said about Leviticus, a text intended to prescribe and proscribe behavior of a culture and community that existed well over 2200 years ago. It can be used to justify horrific behaviors or to point to a God that was equally horrific. It is only when you read it within the context of its milieu that you can really relate it to its original purpose.Even something as common as the term "Rabbi" can cause confusion. A Rabbi is NOT a Priest, does not even perform or lead the Jewish sabbath service. The job of a Rabbi is to study, to counsel and to decide disputes.Perhaps another small aside may help.One of the Titles held by the British Monarchy is "Defender of the Faith". It was first bestowed on Henry VIII by the Pope for sending troops to help subjugate the heretical Protestants. But today the English Monarch is the head of the Church of England, a Protestant Chapter of Club Christian.

If you would keep going I would be fascinated.I can see a question on the horizon, though and I don't want you to think I'm playing 'gotcha': what does this mean for miracles?

quote:

---

I disagree. The verse I had in my head was Deuteronomy 4:2. This seems pretty specific.

---

You disagree with what?Yes, Deuteronomy 4:2 is specific, but it doesn't speak for other writings in the Bible. Not sure why you brought this back up considering you agreed with the comment jar made in Message 7 and now he's restated it in Message 39. Most of what I'm saying falls under that idea.