|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is a literal reading of the Bible an insult to its authors? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Archer writes: Read that post again. My point centred not on what a preacher might do, but on what the Assyrians would do. quote: Martyrdom takes care of what an Israelite might sanely do. That the Assyrians didn't do as you would expect them to do is down to a least these options: a) the story is not history b) the Assyrians normal actions were restrained/altered by intervention of God - his intervening light is hardly hidden under a bushel in the Bible. Your line of reasoning is similar to someone arguing against Jesus turning water into wine by stating that, in the normal course of events, water doesn't turn into wine. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Your line of reasoning is similar to someone arguing against Jesus turning water into wine by stating that, in the normal course of events, water doesn't turn into wine. Not at all. My line of reasoning is based on the realities of literary genre and human history. The book of Jonah has nothing in it to suggest it is history and quite a bit to suggest it isn't. So what genre is it? To find out, you have to let the story speak to you on its own terms and keep an open mind to all the possibilities. We know quite a bit about Assyria and its kings. Nineveh was home to a vast library. We have its art. Assyria's kings were not shy about recording their deeds for posterity. Surrounding societies recordede quite a bit about them as well. This includes the ancient Hebrews. The Assyrians portrayed in the book of Jonah are an idealized, anonymous, childlike lot. Read Nahum or the Kings for a very different--and realistic--picture. As the story's genre is not history, neither is it a 'miracle story' like those recorded in the Gospels. At no point does Jonah's storyteller suggest that YHWH has suspended the laws of nature. No importance attaches to the audience thinking YHWH did. Rather, the story presents a world where fantastic, far-fetched events are simply part of the way things normally work. We know this world. It is the world of fantasy. Fantastic elements are clues to literary genre. Here is a story that wears its fantastic elements on its sleeve. Storytellers who do this mean for us to get a clue. The message: 'This world is a fantasy world. I am working with symbols here. Go with me, and I will show you something interesting.' The Jonah story shows us something interesting about mercy. The people who got the point faster than anyone? Those who were most aware of the difference between fantasy and reality when it came to Assyria. ____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
As the story's genre is not history, neither is it a 'miracle story' like those recorded in the Gospels. At no point does Jonah's storyteller suggest that YHWH has suspended the laws of nature. No importance attaches to the audience thinking YHWH did. Rather, the story presents a world where fantastic, far-fetched events are simply part of the way things normally work. We know this world. It is the world of fantasy. Fantastic elements are clues to literary genre. Here is a story that wears its fantastic elements on its sleeve. Storytellers who do this mean for us to get a clue. The message: 'This world is a fantasy world. I am working with symbols here. Go with me, and I will show you something interesting.' Disbelief of the Bible comes in all shapes and sizes. In your case your escape hatch into disbelief is always "literary genre". Apparently, a little more educated sounding or sophisticated than some cruder rejections. But a rejection of God's word just the same. I read your attempts to still salvage some grand artistic importance from what you read as perhaps just a way to bribe your conscience by getting something else, just not God's speaking. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jaywill writes: Disbelief of the Bible comes in all shapes and sizes. In your case your escape hatch into disbelief is always "literary genre". Disrespect of the Bible comes in all shapes and sizes. In your case your escape hatch into disrespect is always "cheap grace." Under the concept of cheap grace, it is you who claims to share infallibility with God, therefore your interpretations are also infallible and not allowed to be questioned.
Apparently, a little more educated sounding or sophisticated than some cruder rejections. But a rejection of God's word just the same. I would argue it is you who rejects the true meaning of the Bible by forcing it to be read as a newspaper report under all circumstances, thereby opening it up to endless contradictions both within itself and with the reality your god supposedly created. Then the Bible becomes a tool to support any and all preconceived human motivations, such as Right Wing Authoritarianism. In fact according to this work, the combination of cheap grace and right wing authoritarianism has led to 42% of all evangelicals professing to be above all laws, be they from God or man, as they are already 'saved.' Only a strict literalist could turn a book about morals into a doctrine of amorality.
quote:William Shakespeare I read your attempts to still salvage some grand artistic importance from what you read as perhaps just a way to bribe your conscience by getting something else, just not God's speaking. As the self-proclaimed co-equal authority that claims to speak for God you obviously seek to pass judgment in his absence. What was that first commandment and how did you manage to read the opposite? Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
============================================= Disrespect of the Bible comes in all shapes and sizes. In your case your escape hatch into disrespect is always "cheap grace." Under the concept of cheap grace, it is you who claims to share infallibility with God, therefore your interpretations are also infallible and not allowed to be questioned. ================================================ As I understand the expression "cheap grace" please quote me where I refered to a concept of "cheap grace".
=========================================== I would argue it is you who rejects the true meaning of the Bible by forcing it to be read as a newspaper report under all circumstances, ============================================= I do not force it to read as a newspaper under all circumstances. However even a newspaper may have some poetry in it. I recognize that Job is poetry and that Psalms and Proverbs are like poetry. Take Job for example. I believe that the events took place. Whether the speakers spoke originally in such a poetic fashion may not have been the case. Perhaps not. However, I have no choice but to allow the writer to report the events in the form in which he did, somewhat like a poetic drama. This does not require me to state that the events of Job never occured. I allow the history to be told to me as the writer was inspired by the Spirit of God to do so.
thereby opening it up to endless contradictions both within itself and with the reality your god supposedly created.
I think I am more bothered by the contradictions of your godlessness. Contradictions in the Bible I usually regard as paradoxes. Most of the ones which skeptics point out can be shown not really to be contradictions. Some notable American author said "Consistency is the hobgoblins of little minds." It doesn't bother me that there are some "apparent" contradictions in a profoundly deep book like the Bible written covering over 1600 years of human life. God's eternal love and God's eternal righteousness two aspects of His being. How He coordinates these two attributes in ways which may seem "contradictory" to us sometimes. If you don't have an example of one of these apparent contradictions that I stated, propose one if you have one. That is if you are interested in how I would view your problem.
Then the Bible becomes a tool to support any and all preconceived human motivations, such as Right Wing Authoritarianism.
I think there may be a political forum somewhere at this site. This is Bible Study. By the way, just for the record I tend to vote left leaning on a number of issues for what it is worth to you.
In fact according to this work, the combination of cheap grace and right wing authoritarianism has led to 42% of all evangelicals professing to be above all laws, be they from God or man, as they are already 'saved.'
Right Wing Authoritarianism I will let you hash out on some poitical forum. I still await, if you have not yet done so, give me examples of where I talked about cheap grace. You need to have a specimen from me before you start debating on it. Where is your example?
Only a strict literalist could turn a book about morals into a doctrine of amorality.
Huh? What does this mean? The Bible is about God dispensing His life and His Spirit into man that man and God might unite to be one organic incorporated expression. God in man and man in God - is the goal of the Bible's teaching. In other words God wants to mass produce God-men like Jesus. That is that Jesus Christ (God incarnate as a man) might be the Firstborn among many brothers. The main obstacles to God accomplishing this is the death that is in man and the sin that is in man. Both of these problems Christ is more than able to overcome. He conquers death of all kinds and imparts Himself as eternal life. And abolishes sin and sins completely. I don't know what you mean by turning a moral book into a doctrine of amorality.
As the self-proclaimed co-equal authority that claims to speak for God you obviously seek to pass judgment in his absence. What was that first commandment and how did you manage to read the opposite?
I don't think God is absent. I expressed my opinion. I think the poster has a refined and cultured way of dismissing parts of the Bible. Now if that makes me a Republican I don't know how that works. I am not looking for Congress to establish the Sermon on the Mount as an amendment to the Constitution. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
As I understand the expression "cheap grace" please quote me where I refered to a concept of "cheap grace". You didn't refer to it explicity, but right here:
quote: You have made youself the arbiter on what is and is not God's word. So like anglagard said:
quote: I do not force it to read as a newspaper under all circumstances. However even a newspaper may have some poetry in it. I recognize that Job is poetry and that Psalms and Proverbs are like poetry. You're not a literalist nor an inerrantist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
You didn't refer to it explicity, but right here: Apparently, a little more educated sounding or sophisticated than some cruder rejections. But a rejection of God's word just the same.
While this above sentence may be objectionable, you or someone will have to show me its connection to "cheap grace". I understand the expression "cheap grace" essentially to mean, a person is saved eternally only to have license to live the rest of their life in sins. As if they are secure because they have their "ticket" as it were. How they live does not matter anymore because they have their "ticket" to Paradise or Heaven in the future. Now to make a long story short, the poster put forth the Gospels as fictional. I don't have to accept that. I reject it. He can "question" it all day long. I don't accept it and think the evidence does not argue in his or her favor. While the poster is busy teaching people how to disbelieve the Gospels I am into teaching people how to believe the Gospels. In my opinion the poster wants to cloak his or her rejection of that Gospel with a device of assigning it into a "liturary genre" in which it is pre-determined that fiction is being put forth. If refusing that sounds arrogant or authoritative than I'll just have to sound arrogant and authoritative. Is his grande pronouncment less so ?
You have made youself the arbiter on what is and is not God's word.
I believe the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus is truth and fact. If that makes me an arbiter I'll just have to be an arbiter. I have my reasons. I think they are better reasons for belief than the poster's grandstanding that the Gospels are fiction. How come my belief is arrogant but the other posters are not? We both have a right to say the other doesn't have the truth on thier side. Does that poster NOT claim to be an authority ?
So like anglagard said: Under the concept of cheap grace, it is you who claims to share infallibility with God, therefore your interpretations are also infallible and not allowed to be questioned.
I don't claim to have infallity in myself. I make plenty of bloopers. That does not mean I am going to swallow hook, line, and sinker someone's grandiose pronoucement that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is "useful" fiction. If I drive down highway at 100 miles an hour and ignore the sign that says "Speed Limit 65" will the state police giving me a ticket accept this excuse? "Well officer, I took that sign to be a attractive piece of poetry or maybe some nice neighberhood artwork." Likewise, taking the Gospels as some useful fictional genre is likewise a clever excuse to not repent for the kingdom of God.
You're not a literalist nor an inerrantist?
Well, sometimes theological jargan is not my strong suite. I would have to see what those definitions mean. By literalist I do not mean that in the book of Revelation the Lamb of God means that Jesus is a little four legged creature. Nor do I "liturally" think that Godzilla will arise out of the mediteranian sea in the end times. Symbol, allegory, poetry have thier place in the Bible. I think that on a case by case basis one determmines what is to be taken as literal and what is to be taken as allegorical or symbolic and what has a little bit of each at play. I also think this takes time. I mean it could take years. And it helps to have fellowship with those of some more advanced spiritual maturity. Someone with ancient language skills may be very helpful. But this may also not be the case. Someone may be versitle in ancient Hebrew and Greek but have basically hostile intentions towards the message of God. I have said it before. Some people go to theological seminary to find God. Others go to seminary to get away from God. I think they reason that if they can get away from God in Theology School or Bible College then they can get away from God anywhere. Likewise, some people study the Bible to find God. Some other people study the Bible in order to lose God and get away from God. Boy does that sound arrogant. Could be true just the same. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Anglagard,
Catholic Scientist did a good attempt of answering on your behalf. Are you going to just go along with what CS wrote or do you have your own ideas of where I displayed "cheap grace"? If so, please show me. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jaywill writes: Anglagard, Catholic Scientist did a good attempt of answering on your behalf. Are you going to just go along with what CS wrote or do you have your own ideas of where I displayed "cheap grace"? If so, please show me. CS has an excellent grasp on what I meant, unfortunately I have reasons to doubt you ever will. As an example see Message 117 where you wrote:
quote: Now when archer does that you respond Message 168:
quote: It is "cheap grace" to insist your statement above only applies to your interpretation and no one else's. Apparently you believe that a difference with any of your interpretations is a rejection of "God's word just the same." Did you die on a cross 2000 years ago? Were you the one resurrected? If not then how do you justify the claim that your interpretation is infallible and all others are "godless"? To me it seems unearned. Did it ever occur to you that the Bible may have been written for everyone and not just you and the people who agree with you? Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jaywill writes: I believe the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus is truth and fact. If that makes me an arbiter I'll just have to be an arbiter. I have my reasons. I think they are better reasons for belief than the poster's grandstanding that the Gospels are fiction. Can you show me where archer said the gospels were fiction? Are you sure you did not somehow read into his posts that because parts of the gospels may not be flawless newspaper reporting that he was insisting that the entirety of its contents were false or not based on actual events? Edited by anglagard, : improved wording Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jaywill,
I am having some trouble figuring out exactly what your position is regarding any infallibility of the Bible.
Message 120 you wrote:
quote: Which of the many versions of the Bible are you referring to as being adequately infallible? Which is the most and least infallible? And what do you mean by "adequately?"
Message 127 you wrote:
quote: Is that what you mean by "adequately?" Infallible except for the copyist errors?
Message 92 you wrote:
quote: Do you mean the pure word before or after the copyist errors are taken into account? And once again which version of the Bible is the "pure word?" I have four versions in my house and around 20 where I work. Also, when you state all of the Bible, does that include all of those laws in Leviticus? Are we commanded to go to the gravel pit, pick up a truckload of rocks, and stone all those Saturday (or is it Sunday?) Wal-Mart shoppers to death?
Message 125 you wrote:
quote: Considering the way you attack anyone as "godless" who does not toe the line to your somewhat confusing stance on Biblical infallibility, do you actually believe this or did you write it because it makes you look good to yourself? Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
test
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Can you show me where archer said the gospels were fiction? Are you sure you did not somehow read into his posts that because parts of the gospels may not be flawless newspaper reporting that he was insisting that the entirety of its contents were false or not based on actual events? S/he did not say the NT was fiction where I thought it was said. In this particular discussion the post that influenced me to state that s/he regarded the Gospels as fiction was misread by me. I looked at it again and saw that I made a mistake. I have had long exchanges with the poster previously, and I would have to research where I could find such an explicit quote. The shortcut way would be to simply ask him/her is s/he beleives that Jesus was God incarnate, died for our sins, rose from the dead, and can be known today as Lord and Savior and is exalted at the right hand of God and/or heaven. All these things are what the New Testament teach and record as actual facts to be believed. If Opterix says something like "Oh yes! I believe that" then I stand corrected in saying s/he regarded the NT as fiction. If s/he begins to do the liturary genra dance, it is probably safe to assume that s/he regards the Gospel as fiction or whatever other fine tuned designation s/he would like to apply meaning that an essentially non-factual document is telling untrue things about what Jesus was and did. But you are right. My misread of the post in this particular discussion cannot prove s/he said the NT was fiction. Sorry for that mistake. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
S/he did not say the NT was fiction where I thought it was said. In this particular discussion the post that influenced me to state that s/he regarded the Gospels as fiction was misread by me. I'm sure you don't need me (a mere lurker in these threads) to remind you that the Gospels do not equal the NT. Hence, I must ask why the extensive equivocation in your post? As a mixture of historical narratives, epistles, and a mystical vision, does it not seem rather bizarre to talk about the fictional state (or not) of the whole of the NT?
The shortcut way would be to simply ask him/her is s/he beleives that Jesus was God incarnate, died for our sins, rose from the dead, and can be known today as Lord and Savior and is exalted at the right hand of God and/or heaven. All these things are what the New Testament teach and record as actual facts to be believed. What does any of this have to do with the potential fictional state of the Gospels? One can accept every word of the Gospels as historical fact, and not believe any of that. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
What does any of this have to do with the potential fictional state of the Gospels? One can accept every word of the Gospels as historical fact, and not believe any of that. How does that work? I mean every word would include these words: "And the angel answered and said to the women, Do not be afraid, for I know that you are seeking Jesus, the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised, even as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying." (Matt. 28:5,6) How does one accept "every word" of that passage as histrical fact, (among others), and not believe any of it" Or how does one accept every word of this as historical fact: "And He said to them, Thus it is written, that Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day, and that repentence and forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the mations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send forth the promise of My Father upon you; but as for you, stay in the city until you put on power from on high." (Luke 24:49) How does it work that one accepts this as historical fact yet does not believe any of it? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024