|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where does literalism end and interpretation begin? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith writes: someone who reads the Bible as it presents itself, literal where it presents itself as literal, parable where it presents as parable, metaphor where metaphor and so on -- according to what its writers intended. There is really very little controversy about how the Bible presents itself. quote: Because we understand the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament, and the NT tells us that those laws no longer apply to us. They served their purpose for the Israelites and all were representations of the Messiah Jesus, who has come. For the rest of your post, I don't understand how my remarks about the early chapters of Genesis and the book of Jonah being dismissed as literal got you to the question about the meaning of "heart" but I think I'll leave that to you and robinrohan who is saying more or less what I would say anyway. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 11:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So for instance, the first chapters of Genesis and the book of Jonah are treated as parables or metaphors, not because there is any clue in the Bible itself that anything other than literal history was intended, but just because the critic can't accept what it actually says.
No, that's absurd. The Adam & Eve story, the Noah story, the Jonah story all read as fables. If there were neon lights saying "fable" it wouldn't any clearer than it already is. If they were to read such stories in anything other than the Bible, people would have no difficulty in recognizing these as fables. On a plain straightforward reading of the Bible, these stories would be accepted as fables, not as literal history. This merely proves what I said. It is because of the CONTENT of the stories that you reject them as literal historical accounts. You just can't abide talking snakes as a possible reality, or a huge fish swallowing a man, or -- actually what's so fabulous about a man building a gigantic ship and taking animals aboard? Whatever, as I said, you just can't accept what it actually says and therefore to you it MUST be a fable. In fact, most of us believers do read it as history. Once you accept that it is God's word, such things are no longer determined by our own limited imaginations but become keys to an entirely new world our imaginations can't encompass.
The reason that some people take these stories as literal, is that they have been indoctrinated into the non-biblical theology of original sin, and they find it difficult to make a case for original sin if the stories are fables. Funny how willing people are to psychoanalyze people they don't understand. No, this is NOT the reason people take the stories as literal. And there are a lot of us. At the very least you have it backwards. You can't get to the idea of original sin UNLESS you take them as literal, but that just means that the people who don't take them as literal don't get to the idea of original sin. No indoctrination in my case anyway. I got my beliefs from reading many books, before I belonged to any church. No, I believed the Bible was God's word early on because I believe in the supernatural power of God. That's how most of us believe in it. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 11:43 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Funny how the deep many-layered meanings of the literal text are always so disappointingly reduced to something trite and boring by the anti-literalist. jar said "So in the case of the Creation myths found in Genesis, if you accept what the Bible says, it is obvision[sic, should have been obvious] that the Creation myths are meant to teach lessons about man's relationship with GOD, GOD's relationship with what is created, why snakes don't have legs, why women suffer during childbirth, why we have a seven day week with a day off and why man has to till the soil and work for a living." I am surprised that you consider GOD's relationsip with man and man's relationship with GOD to be trite and boring.
The preconceived notion is that it's not God's word, so therefore you don't have to take any pains to understand what He meant, you are free to believe it means something as boringly trite as you apparently believe. I don't know where you got that idea. Perhaps you can point out where I began with a preconceived notion. In fact, it is just the opposite. My position, and it is one held by many if not most Christian Churches, was derived from long study of the Bible and of the record GOD actually left us, the world we live in. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
faith writes:
Where does it say this?
NT tells us that those laws no longer apply to us. faith writes:
they didnt, it was in my opening post. I don't understand how my remarks about the early chapters of Genesis and the book of Jonah being dismissed as literal got you to the question about the meaning of "heart" This message has been edited by Creavolution, 03-08-2006 11:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
robin writes:
'You' decide.... in the case of 'Heart' we can probobly agree to the intended meaning. but it is not so clear cut in other areas. In the case of "heart," you decide what best fits the contextWho decides then? who is right? robin writes:
Literal with repect to modern understanding of the word or literal with respect to ancient understnding of the word?
We can as well call it literal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
faith writes: NT tells us that those laws no longer apply to us. ====== Where does it say this? Many places, mostly a cumulative understanding of the whole in context. It says it for one example where God shows Peter that the Old Testament food requirements no longer apply; it says it in all Paul's discussions of freedom from the Law; it says it wherever it discusses Old Testament "types" of the Messiah; it says it in Jesus' affirmation that He came to fulfill the Law, in the overall context.
faith writes: I don't understand how my remarks about the early chapters of Genesis and the book of Jonah being dismissed as literal got you to the question about the meaning of "heart" ============ they didnt, it was in my opening post. Well, you put it in your post to me where one would normally expect an answer to those remarks to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
faith writes:
So Paul has authority to override God in respect to the Law? it says it in all Paul's discussions of freedom from the Law; it says it wherever it discusses Old Testament "types" of the Messiah; it says it in Jesus' affirmation that He came to fulfill the Law, in the overall context. Could you point me towards passages/verses? I am genuinely interested to read where levitical laws are rendered obsolete. Does this mean that levitican teaching with regard to homosexuality is also overidden? "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Lev 18:22 faith writes:
I was simply continuing the thread on topic wrt the opening post.
Well, you put it in your post to me where one would normally expect an answer to those remarks to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Paul is God's representative in the writing of what I believe to be God's inspired word. Nothing is overridden. It all has meaning in its proper place.
You can read the threads that have already dealt with the question you raise about the Law. There have been many. The moral law (the ten commandments which include condemnation of sexual sin including homosexual sin) are not abrogated as the ceremonial laws are (the sacrifices, priestly conduct, food laws, feasts and fasts and other observances, etc), but they are also fulfilled in Christ, fulfilled so that all of our moral sins, including homosexual sin, are forgiven and not held against us at the Judgment, but ONLY if we have given ourselves to him. The moral law continues to judge those outside of Christ. This message has been edited by Faith, 03-08-2006 02:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Uhm... it means "Stop" no confusion there. You can of course read the highway code to find out what to do after you stop.. it's quite clear and unequivocal Does it mean "always stop" or "stop under normal circumstances"? If the latter, what constitutes abnormal circumstances? If we turn to the highway code, we will find that we have to interpret the explanations. There is no end to this. You can never cover all your bases. So your question "Where does literalism end and interpretation begin?"is misleading. All reading is interpretation. That's why lawyers are always finding loopholes in carefully written contracts which require "interpretation." But "literalism" and "interpretation" are not opposed, as your question suggests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
Ok... I concede my choice of words could possibly have been better...
But semantics aside, do you at least get the point of the question? Do you understand what it is I am trying to find out here? Where is the cutoff point at which the word begins to lose it's original meaning, (if such a thing can be known), and begins to reflect more, the personality of the reader/interpreter?
robin writes:
So, You are saying a biblical literalist must interpret what is written in the bible? to what extent? All reading is interpretation what sets an allegorical tale apart from a supposed truth?there are certainly different people who interpret the bible differently, and have differing views on what is metaphor and what is truth. Simply saying "once upon a time" does not necessarily mark a story as a fable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
robin writes:
How do you interpret a 'stop' sign? If we turn to the highway code, we will find that we have to interpret the explanations I believe the highway code is very clear on how to behave on the road. so as to avoid precisely the mis-interpretation we see with the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1312 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
faith writes:
I'm not aware the ten commandments have anything to say about homosexuality
the ten commandments which include condemnation of sexual sin including homosexual sin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
creavolution writes: Sure it does that bit about, thou shall not covet thy neighbors ass nor his wife. I'm not aware the ten commandments have anything to say about homosexuality This message has been edited by 1.61803, 03-08-2006 04:45 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
This merely proves what I said. It is because of the CONTENT of the stories that you reject them as literal historical accounts.
Lets see:
You just can't abide talking snakes as a possible reality, ...
As history, it makes no sense whatsoever. As a fable it makes perfect sense (a "Just So" story on the human condition and what distinguishes us from other animals). Faith's idea of God: a liar and incompetent bungling fool.My idea of God: one who gave us brains and intended us to use them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
So, You are saying a biblical literalist must interpret what is written in the bible? To read is to interpret. What interpretation involves is a judgement about the meaning based on certain assumptions and whatever evidence there is. The assumptions are necessary because all the bases are never covered. The unbeliever may dismiss any part of the Bible that suggests some supernatural event. But then, so may a believer such as Thomas Jefferson the Deist. But suppose we are not prepared to dismiss any part only on the view that the supernatural cannot be. Suppose we are or may be willing to accept supernatural events. If we are in this position, one way to decide is by noting if there are certain phrases that say that something is like something else--i.e., a parable.
Simply saying "once upon a time" does not necessarily mark a story as a fable. "once upon a time" suggests an unidentified time and place. That is a stylistic feature of myth. There may be other features, but I'm not sure what they are. Identifying these myth-like features could be another way to try to distinguish between myth and history if one was not willing to dismiss a story just because it contained supernatural elements. This myth-like feature--"once upon a time"--is missing from the New Testament but may be present in some of the Old Testament books.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024