Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 5:24 AM
47 online now:
Tangle, vimesey (2 members, 45 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,522 Year: 3,559/19,786 Month: 554/1,087 Week: 144/212 Day: 11/49 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   The Bible is literally true, but each detail is not.
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 840 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 16 of 88 (472651)
06-23-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
06-22-2008 1:14 AM


Taz writes:

... the details about covering the highest peaks and wiping out all but a few creatures saved on the ark could be less than literally true.

I agree it is probable that a real event inspired the Flood story and that reminiscence of the event may be less than accurate.

In addition to these premises, please consider the likelihood that Bible translators of the Renaissance (450 years ago), did not understand their own terminology in the same sense we do today.

The King James Version, for example, was published less than 100 years after Copernicus while religionists were still up-in-arms over his 'godless' theory. The Protestants were persecuting Kepler and others. The Catholics had just burned Bruno and were about to arrest Galileo. No self respecting Christian, and certainly no Bible translator, would have committed the heresy of calling Earth a planet. Even less inclined to do so would be the Bronze Age scribes who penned Genesis in the first place. Thus, as it appears in Genesis and throughout the Bible, the word 'earth' is in no case a planetary reference.

There is no evidence that the Bible speaks of planet earth and every evidence to the contrary. Every Bible of the Renaissance was produced by men who did not believe earth is a planet and quoted their own translations of the Bible to prove that it is not a planet. In other words: We moderns don't even understand the most popular English language Bible of all time (last edited in 1769 and still selling like hotcakes). And if we have not yet figured out the simple fact that the Bible translators themselves did not intend to suggest that the biblical word 'Earth' means 'planet,' then we have a long way to go before we can assess what the Bible 'literally' means. i.e. what the original authors intended.

I shall leave the term "mountains" for another time.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 1:14 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 840 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 17 of 88 (472652)
06-23-2008 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2008 2:17 PM


Re: Is it really literal
CatholicScientist writes:

Specifically about the Flud though, doesn't the Bible say that all the creatures that were not on the ark died. Like, it can't be referring to anything but the entire planet.

Please pardon my ignorance in that I am not familiar with your convictions regarding the veracity of the Flood tradition. I must, of course, take issue with the suggestion that the flood was a global event, i.e. planet wide. I am confident that it was not, and my evidences are drawn from textual considerations rather than geological ones (although I am quite impressed with the geological evidence). I suppose we could cop out and say that the flood is metaphorical of harmful nature and the ark a symbol of superior veterinary skill but somehow I expect you would reject that tack (I hope).

So. Shall we discuss it here, or shall we have it out in a separate thread? Or were you being facetious? :D


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 2:17 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 9:46 PM doctrbill has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 18 of 88 (472663)
06-23-2008 9:43 PM


I have just finished reading a talk by N.T. Wright on the authority of scripture. I think it is pertinent to the discussion. Here is one paragraph from the talk.

N.T. Wright writes:

Most heirs of the Reformation, not least evangelicals, take if for granted that we are to give scripture the primary place and that everything else has to be lined up in relation to scripture. There is, indeed, an evangelical assumption, common in some circles, that evangelicals do not have any tradition. We simply open the scripture, read what it says, and take it as applying to ourselves: there the matter ends, and we do not have any ‘tradition’. This is rather like the frequent Anglican assumption (being an Anglican myself I rather cherish this) that Anglicans have no doctrine peculiar to themselves: it is merely that if something is true the Church of England believes it. This, though not itself a refutation of the claim not to have any ‘tradition’, is for the moment sufficient indication of the inherent unlikeliness of the claim’s truth, and I am confident that most people, facing the question explicitly, will not wish that the claim be pressed. But I still find two things to be the case, both of which give me some cause for concern. First, there is an implied, and quite unwarranted, positivism: we imagine that we are ‘reading the text, straight’, and that if somebody disagrees with us it must be because they, unlike we ourselves, are secretly using ‘presuppositions’ of this or that sort. This is simply naïve, and actually astonishingly arrogant and dangerous. It fuels the second point, which is that evangelicals often use the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ when they mean the authority of evangelical, or Protestant, theology, since the assumption is made that we (evangelicals, or Protestants) are the ones who know and believe what the Bible is saying. And, though there is more than a grain of truth in such claims, they are by no means the whole truth, and to imagine that they are is to move from theology to ideology. If we are not careful, the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can, by such routes, come to mean simply ‘the authority of evangelical tradition, as opposed to Catholic or rationalist ones.’

Here is the link to the entire talk. It is fairly lengthy but a worthwhile read for those who really are interested in the subject.

How Can the Bible be Authoritative

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 88 (472665)
06-23-2008 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by doctrbill
06-23-2008 9:06 PM


Re: Is it really literal
Please pardon my ignorance in that I am not familiar with your convictions regarding the veracity of the Flood tradition.

I spelled it 'Flud' for a reason :D

I must, of course, take issue with the suggestion that the flood was a global event, i.e. planet wide. I am confident that it was not, and my evidences are drawn from textual considerations rather than geological ones (although I am quite impressed with the geological evidence).

I read your previous post. I was taught, while studying the KJV, that the word "earth" could mean the ground, like "dirt". And that all the earth being covered could mean that the ground/dirt was covered, not the planet Earth (as you explained).

But, (and I don't have time to look it up right now) I thought there was a verse that says that all the creatures in the whole world died. Do you know what I'm referring too?

I suppose we could cop out and say that the flood is metaphorical of harmful nature and the ark a symbol of superior veterinary skill but somehow I expect you would reject that tack (I hope).

Nah, no argument here. Sorry to disappoint ;)

So. Shall we discuss it here, or shall we have it out in a separate thread? Or were you being facetious? :D

Not necessarily facetious, no. I'm not really sure what it literally says, but I'm sure it could be interpreted to say either way.

I'd like to hear what you know about all the creatures dying, preferably in this thread. I don't think a slight tangent would be a problem if we don't go too far. That is, unless one of us gets Moosed :laugh:


Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by doctrbill, posted 06-23-2008 9:06 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by doctrbill, posted 06-24-2008 12:13 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 840 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 20 of 88 (472679)
06-24-2008 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2008 9:46 PM


Re: Is it really literal
Catholic Scientist writes:

I thought there was a verse that says that all the creatures in the whole world died. Do you know what I'm referring too?

This may be what you are seeking. (Bold emphasis mine)

quote:
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died." Gen 7:21,22

So does the Bible 'literally' say that the whole world was under water? I don't think so. Even though it may seem like it to a casual reader.

Compare the above with the following:

quote:
"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good." Genesis 1:9,10

Thus, in the Flood narrative, we have a reiteration of the biblical definition of 'earth.' Not as direct perhaps but equally clear.

Earth = Dry land.

Then there is this, where "the ground" is apparently substituted for 'the earth' or 'the dry [land],' perhaps in the interest of literary relief.

quote:
"And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark." Genesis 7:23

That there is no mention of aquatic life may indicate that the author considered it a 'no brainer.' Not so however, for a modern biologist who would immediately consider the effect of salt water on the many fresh water life-forms.

Aside from the above considerations: I think it odd that the rationale for this watery destruction was that "all flesh" was corrupted (6:12). Even so, reproductive representatives of all flesh were carefully collected and preserved "... to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth." (Genesis 7:3)

If we are unaware of ancient natural philosophy and its specific terms then we cannot even know what 'literal' means in terms of understanding Genesis; and Genesis is just the tip-of-the-iceberg when it comes to popular misconceptions of biblical terminology; a sad situation best addressed by a well informed and honest clergy; a clergy which values factual truth over lucrative 'truth' so-called.

Thanx for lisning. :)


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2008 9:46 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2008 10:10 AM doctrbill has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 88 (472700)
06-24-2008 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by doctrbill
06-24-2008 12:13 AM


Re: Is it really literal
This may be what you are seeking.

Yeah! That was it. Thanks for digging it up.

So does the Bible 'literally' say that the whole world was under water? I don't think so. Even though it may seem like it to a casual reader.

I don't think it literally says that the whole world was under water. A coupe phrases seem to imply that it was the whole world, but they then don't fit with some other verses. When it says that all the creatures died and the only Noah survived, it could be read to be talking about the enitre world. Also, why the need for the ark at all if only a portion of the life was being killed off?

If we are unaware of ancient natural philosophy and its specific terms then we cannot even know what 'literal' means in terms of understanding Genesis; and Genesis is just the tip-of-the-iceberg when it comes to popular misconceptions of biblical terminology; a sad situation best addressed by a well informed and honest clergy; a clergy which values factual truth over lucrative 'truth' so-called.

Hey, now we're back on topic.

I think its funny too that the Literalists seem to have the least understanding of the "ancient natural philosophy and its specific terms". They're willing to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to twist words and phrases in the Bible so that a "literal" understanding can be acheived.

The thing is, though, in all that twisting they are no longer reading the Bible literally.

What a bunch of bullshit! The literalists are a shame to Christianity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by doctrbill, posted 06-24-2008 12:13 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by doctrbill, posted 06-24-2008 3:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 840 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 22 of 88 (472744)
06-24-2008 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by New Cat's Eye
06-24-2008 10:10 AM


Re: Is it really literal
Catholic Scientist writes:

Also, why the need for the ark at all if only a portion of the life was being killed off?

Same reason an 'ark' is needed in any flood.

I think an analogy may be drawn between Noah's Flood and Katrina's. One might say that "the dry land" was destroyed by Katrina. One might say that "every living thing died" that was on "the dry land;" Or, that everything "on the ground" was destroyed.

How many people, how many cats and dogs were drowned in that disaster? Even so, a man with a boat might save both family and animals. One might say that every pet died which was not in the boat. One might say that were it not for the boat, no one and no pets would have been saved out of that great flood.

There is no need to point out the fact that the area flooded was a small portion of one continent. Everyone in our time is aware of that flood's limitation, even those who were involved (if they thought about it). Even so, from the perspective of those who were there, on the ground, in the water, struggling for their lives, the affected area was devastatingly vast; extending to the horizon and beyond.

There was no hope of escaping the general destruction (drowning, exposure, dehydration, starvation) unless, of course, there was a boat (or a helicopter). I am sure that many of those rescued from that watery death could appreciate a poetic description of the event in terms of water covering the whole world. It did, in fact, cover their whole world.

The literalists are a shame to Christianity.

Indeed. On the other hand one cannot always attribute the text to allegory or metaphor. As with any great puzzle, one must study the pieces individually and collectively. In the case of a great word puzzle, such as the Holy Bible, one must consider each word individually and in its context; and trace the evolution of each word and each idea presented. Short of gruelingly tedious and exhaustive research there can be no understanding of such archaeological artifacts (strange marks on broken tablets, bits of ink on rotting leather, hieroglyphs on moldy papyrus; all of it in dead languages). With more than 100 English language translations available and more than 1000 denominations of Christianity competing for that "One True" interpretation; I think we can agree that if this is "God's Word" then "God" doesn't give a rip whether we understand it or not.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2008 10:10 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2008 4:00 PM doctrbill has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 88 (472758)
06-24-2008 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by doctrbill
06-24-2008 3:15 PM


Re: Is it really literal
Catholic Scientist writes:

Also, why the need for the ark at all if only a portion of the life was being killed off?

Same reason an 'ark' is needed in any flood.

No, no, no. This is a whole different situation.

From Gen 6:

quote:
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

...

11The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

12And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

13And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

14Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

...

17And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.


And Gen 7:

quote:
1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

4For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.


God is punishing ALL of the flesh, like, the whole planet it seems.

Granted ALL could be referring to just the region that Noah lived in, but the way its worded, it really does sound like god is whiping the planet clean and starting over.

Why the need to start over again if its just one small portion of the whole world and not the whole world itself?

Can't you see how it sounds like god is talking about the whole planet?

I think an analogy may be drawn between Noah's Flood and Katrina's. One might say that "the dry land" was destroyed by Katrina. One might say that "every living thing died" that was on "the dry land;" Or, that everything "on the ground" was destroyed.

How many people, how many cats and dogs were drowned in that disaster? Even so, a man with a boat might save both family and animals. One might say that every pet died which was not in the boat. One might say that were it not for the boat, no one and no pets would have been saved out of that great flood.

There is no need to point out the fact that the area flooded was a small portion of one continent. Everyone in our time is aware of that flood's limitation, even those who were involved (if they thought about it). Even so, from the perspective of those who were there, on the ground, in the water, struggling for their lives, the affected area was devastatingly vast; extending to the horizon and beyond.

There was no hope of escaping the general destruction (drowning, exposure, dehydration, starvation) unless, of course, there was a boat (or a helicopter). I am sure that many of those rescued from that watery death could appreciate a poetic description of the event in terms of water covering the whole world. It did, in fact, cover their whole world.

I don't totally disagree with you that the Flud was not global, but I think it could go either way. Its too hard to tell one way from the other.

On the other hand one cannot always attribute the text to allegory or metaphor. As with any great puzzle, one must study the pieces individually and collectively. In the case of a great word puzzle, such as the Holy Bible, one must consider each word individually and in its context; and trace the evolution of each word and each idea presented. Short of gruelingly tedious and exhaustive research there can be no understanding of such archaeological artifacts (strange marks on broken tablets, bits of ink on rotting leather, hieroglyphs on moldy papyrus; all of it in dead languages).

I agree. Its not a simple as reading a few choice versus and saying yeah it was global or not.

With more than 100 English language translations available and more than 1000 denominations of Christianity competing for that "One True" interpretation; I think we can agree that if this is "God's Word" then "God" doesn't give a rip whether we understand it or not.

Word. :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by doctrbill, posted 06-24-2008 3:15 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by doctrbill, posted 06-24-2008 8:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 840 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 24 of 88 (472812)
06-24-2008 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
06-24-2008 4:00 PM


Planet Earth NOT
Catholic Scientist writes:

God is punishing ALL of the flesh, like, the whole planet it seems.
... Why the need to start over again if its just one small portion of the whole world and not the whole world itself?

The operative word here is seems.

All Flesh

It may be bit nitpicky to say but 'literally' speaking, ALL flesh includes every living thing: Noah, his family and creatures of the sea. So, NO. God is NOT punishing ALL flesh. In fact, he is assuring that 'ALL flesh' will NOT be destroyed. He preserves alive a mating pair of every kind of ALL flesh.

Whole Planet

It doesn't say 'whole planet' because no one imagined earth to be a planet at that time. Genesis was written at about the same time as global theory (the idea that 'earth' and sea are wrapped around a huge ball of rock) made its debut (c.500 BC). Even after the Church of Rome adopted global theory as a part of Aristotle's philosophy (c. 300 AD), it refused to consider the possibility of continents other than those already known: Europe, Asia, and Africa. The King James Version uses the word 'planet' only once, and NOT in reference to 'earth.' Both the Roman Church and Protestant Reformers made clear that they did not believe earth is a planet and did not tolerate anyone who did believe it.

Whole World

Even if the author of Genesis had said 'whole world' we could not then assume that he imagined a global reality for we assume he is writing for an audience with pre-global sensibilities. Even in the context of a well established global theory: Saint Luke identifies "all the world" as that territory under the jurisdiction of Rome (Luke 2:1). And the 'whole world' known at that time was delineated by maps of the day, such as this Roman ORBIS TERRARUM (circle of lands) described in about 20 AD.

Starting Over

You may have noticed, as you cruised chapters six through eight looking for material, that there is a lot of repetition. This comes from there being several (at least four) flood traditions represented there. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this here so I will fast forward to my favorite part. According to the story, the Lord God learns a lesson. You have already given us part of it:

quote:
God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5

Now, God had already cursed the ground

... cursed [is] the ground ... Gen 3:17

And when Noah is born, his father predicts that he will bring them relief from having to toil in:

... the ground which the LORD hath cursed. Gen 5:29

Then, with the ground, land, earth already under a curse, the Lord swears to kill everyone because the:

... imagination ... of his heart was ... evil continually Genesis 6:5

So he does it. He kills everybody (almost) and everything (well, sort of) and wipes the slate clean. Then, in the aftermath, when Noah starts the barbecue and lays on a couple of T-bones, the Lord smells it and swears that he will never destroy everything like that again because, says the Lord:

... the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth ...Gen 8:21

In other words. He's Born This Way!!

Well, Gee Whiz Jehovah! You can chalk one up to experience!


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2008 4:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 88 (472820)
06-24-2008 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
06-22-2008 1:14 AM


Taz,

reading is interpreting.


Thanks
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 1:14 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 26 of 88 (472916)
06-25-2008 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
06-22-2008 1:14 AM


Taz,

Both the headlines and the Bible are examples of hyperbole. Hyperbole are not literally true, that is the whole point of a hyperbole. Your question seems to be, does the Bible contain hyperboles, and if it does, does that make the Bible a bad book?

I think of this in a different way, and I think I have a thread about this from a while ago. The Bible is not true, but contains truths (which may sort of be what you're getting at). Some details of the Bible are at best a hyperbole, at worst a flat out falsehood. Take the garden of Eden, did a snake literally talk to Adam and Eve? Like, really, snakes could speak to people back then? Sound a bit like Aesop's fables anyone? Well it should. Aesop's fables is another classic book that contains truth, but it not true. Animals do not literally talk to eat other, but the moral truths behind the stories in aesop's fables are what gives the stories their value. Think about it, if you want to give someone a book of truth (i.e. moral truths) would you rather give them aesop's fables, or a primer of American history? One is literally true and one contains moral truths, which is more valuable?

Does it matter whether a global or local flood even occured? What do you gain by knowing that it is historically true that there was once a flood that killed many things? Absolutely nothing. But whether the flood actually happened or not, the story tells you that God loves you and doesn't want you to sin, that's the moral truth of the flood story. Literalists degrade the value of the Bible by vainly looking for true details and ignoring moral truths.


You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 1:14 AM Taz has not yet responded

    
Evo Diva
Junior Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 27 of 88 (472931)
06-25-2008 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
06-22-2008 1:14 AM


Try as I might, I can't even begin to wrap my brain around the idea of taking the Bible literally and the whole Fundamentalist Movement.
I look at the Old Testament as a Love story between God and his people. The Bible was written by men(not a judgment of whether or not God influenced those men, that is up to the reader) whose audience were the people at that time. The accuracy of the translation matters, as does our knowledge of the customs and history of the people. The more we know the better we can understand the meaning. Taking it all literal means you miss the point big time. It also means you can use the Bible to justify just about anything, such as slavery. I can use it to prove reincartnation, to disprove reincarnation. I could justify murder and war with it or the opposite. Wasting your time with that means you lose the real meaning, the moral story and the message that was written for people at that specific time.

Reading Revelation can be a chore and a turnoff if you were to interpret it literally. When you read Revelation with the knowledge that is a style of writing(apocalyptic) that was popular at the time and that it was written to give hope to the Christians of that day who were being persecuted by Rome and might be tempted to leave Christianity, then all the sudden you can see the beauty in it. It baffles me to see people taking it all literal and talking about a "rapture" and carrying on about "end times". 666 was Nero. Babylon is Rome. Only the Father Knows Jesus's return. The flood is a story about faith and God's grace. It didn't have to happen literally to give the message it intended and to give that message meaning. Messages are so much more meaningful when told in parables and beautiful stories.

If people didn't take the Bible literal then there wouldn't be a silly creationism evolution debate. You wouldn't need to deny a truth to prove a point that doesn't need to be proven. Most christion religions don't take a literal, inerrant spin on the Bible, that is mainly an American Phenomenon that I just don't get. I refuse to believe that my evangelical, mornonic boss is going to heaven and the Dalai Lama is going to hell for being a "non believer". Common sense decries that and it decries Bible Literalism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 1:14 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
grandfather raven
Junior Member (Idle past 3521 days)
Posts: 27
From: Alaska, USA
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 28 of 88 (473055)
06-26-2008 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taz
06-23-2008 2:35 PM


Re: Is it really literal
quote:
It depends on how you use the word "literally".

i only use "literally" literally
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 06-23-2008 2:35 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1673 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 29 of 88 (473998)
07-04-2008 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
06-22-2008 1:14 AM


Library
How about this?

The Bible is a collection of ancient documents representing many different genres, authored and revised by countless individuals for a variety of purposes and exhibiting many different means of expression.

No single interpretive formula exists for an entire library.


Archer O

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 06-22-2008 1:14 AM Taz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-08-2008 9:16 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2304 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 30 of 88 (474495)
07-08-2008 9:13 PM


quote:
If people didn't take the Bible literal then there wouldn't be a silly creationism evolution debate. You wouldn't need to deny a truth to prove a point that doesn't need to be proven. Most christion religions don't take a literal, inerrant spin on the Bible, that is mainly an American Phenomenon that I just don't get. I refuse to believe that my evangelical, mornonic boss is going to heaven and the Dalai Lama is going to hell for being a "non believer". Common sense decries that and it decries Bible Literalism.

great point.

I think it because the European's kicked out all the nut-bag crazy cults, and they had no where else to go but over here across the the Atlantic, which they told themselves was some promised land, and in thier delusions accepted it.

I have not met any literalists, i think it may be a false stereotype (at least i hope it is).


  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019