Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is a literal reading of the Bible an insult to its authors?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 1 of 187 (476137)
07-21-2008 1:01 PM


There have been one or two literalists hanging around EvC lately who quite unequivocally state that if we cannot take the biblical texts at face value then we cannot trust anything that is in it.
Having studied the Bible, and in particular the Old Testament, for a lot of years, I feel that anyone taking a literal approach to the text is really missing out on so much. This one dimensional view means that one misses out on some wonderful allegories, some very funny puns, and other literary devices that make the Bible a very complex collection of ancient texts.
Readers of the Bible who fail to notice the literary devices used by many of its authors really are doing its authors a disservice as they are failing to discover the deeper meanings of many of the texts.
We can also learn a lot about the faith, politics, sociology, and the psychology of its authors by having a more open approach to the Bible. As much of the history in the Bible, taken at face value, has been disproved, perhaps we can learn a lot about its authors by asking ourselves why so much of the history has been either exaggerated, or simply just made up.
Perhaps a good example from the Bible that includes a real mix of the areas I have pointed out is the Book of Jonah, and if we have a quick look at some of the verses in that book maybe we can conclude that taking the text at face value is insulting the book's authors.
Firstly, if we look at the alleged historical events in the book we can only conclude that most, maybe even all of them, are historically inaccurate. If we look at some of these, in no particular order, we can see that the authors were not intent on recording an accurate version of Jonah's adventures.
To begin with, there are at least 4 major problems regarding the City of Nineveh.
1. There was no such person as "The King of Nineveh", Nineveh was not a kingdom.
2. There is no evidence whatsoever of a mass conversion by all of its inhabitants to Yahwism.
3. The size of the city is greatly exaggerated. The Bible claims that it would take three days to go from one side of Nineveh to the other side, but archaeological evidence informs us that the city's entire circumference is just less than 8 miles.
4. The population of Nineveh is hinted at when we are told that there was 120 000 children in the city, which would mean when we added adults we could have over half a million people living there, a figure that is clearly unrealistic.
We then have the problems of the miraculous.
We have to accept that a man could live unscathed for three days inside the belly of a "great fish" (the author of Matthew has Jesus wrongly identify the creature as a whale), that a raging storm halted when Jonah was thrown overboard, the miraculous growth of a plant, and the plant-killing worm.
There is also much in the Book of Jonah that is simply not plausible. We are asked to accept that a stranger just walked into Nineveh and everyone, including the king, simply said "okay, we will convert to your faith", this doesn't sound at all reasonable. Was Jonah multilingual, or did he have a translator with him to discuss his faith with the Ninevites? Is it reasonable to accept that while inside the fish this man had the calmness to compose a psalm to God?
With all these clues to suggest that the authors of the Book of Jonah were not recording an historical event at all, this should encourage us to look at other possibilities. Personally, I think the best way to look at the book is as an allegorical text.
The authors' decision to call the hero 'Jonah' is quite clever, and a very strong clue that we should not take the text at face value. The name Jonah means 'dove', and in several places in the Bible the dove is symbolic of Israel.
Hosea 11:11
They will come trembling
like birds from Egypt,
like doves from Assyria.
I will settle them in their homes,"
declares the LORD.
Psalm 74:19
Do not hand over the life of your dove to wild beasts;
do not forget the lives of your afflicted people forever.
So, if we conclude that when the authors refer to 'Jonah' they are actually referring to Israel, and this allegory carries on strongly throughout the entire book. Jonah's reluctance to preach to the Gentiles mirrors perfectly the nation of Israel's refusal to do the same. Throughout the entire Old Testament we are constantly reminded that it is Israel who is God's chosen one, Israel has a unique relationship with Yahweh, and the OT writers are very keen to remind us of that.
The great fish that swallowed Jonah doesn't need to be a sea creature or any other creature at all, Jonah's captivity inside the fish is allegorical to Israel's exile in Babylon.
I don't want to make the OP too long, and these ideas can be expanded on throughout the discussion.
So, even this very superficial look at the Book of Jonah informs us that the inaccurate historical information, the miraculous, and implausible scenarios should urge us to look at the text in as many different ways as we can. I am not claiming that the book was definitely written as allegory, we will never know for sure what the intention of its authors were (the book may equally be written as a parable), but taking it as allegory certainly solves a lot of problems.
To me, looking at all the Biblical texts in as many different ways as we can gives us more of a chance of discovering the intentions of its authors. Taking the one dimensional literalist approach means that these people are disregarding the literary skills of the authors, and are missing out on how wonderful the Old Testament texts really are.
Therefore, are people who take a literalist approach to the biblical texts insulting its authors?
Bible study, what does the Bible really mean, please Admin.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by iano, posted 07-21-2008 2:05 PM Brian has replied
 Message 4 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2008 9:36 PM Brian has replied
 Message 5 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2008 10:14 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 152 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-05-2008 12:16 AM Brian has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 187 (476140)
07-21-2008 1:06 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 3 of 187 (476144)
07-21-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-21-2008 1:01 PM


Brian writes:
This one dimensional view means that one misses out on some wonderful allegories, some very funny puns, and other literary devices that make the Bible a very complex collection of ancient texts
I wouldn't see anything one dimensional about it, rather I find myself enjoying Gods utilisation of actual history events as a (literal) literary device - similar to how a storyteller would operate when constructing fiction.
Take the Exodus for example. You'll be aware of the parallels to be drawn between OT and NT blood covering. God issues the instruction to the Israelites in order to constuct the NT parallel? What's to stop him so constructing the tapestry of the total story.
For if nothing to stop him, then your argument relies on:
a) A denial of the miraculous (the acceptance of which is not peculiar to the literalists you are attempting to take to task)
b) The historical case you make. But your historical take generally doubts Jesus existance - or if so, his having done as he is reported to have done - which means your argument, again, is not peculiar to the literalist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 07-21-2008 1:01 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 07-22-2008 6:03 AM iano has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 4 of 187 (476194)
07-21-2008 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-21-2008 1:01 PM


Re Nineveh
Brian writes:
To begin with, there are at least 4 major problems regarding the City of Nineveh.
Why no documentation?
Brian writes:
1. There was no such person as "The King of Nineveh", Nineveh was not a kingdom.
Are you sure?
I thought that Nineveh was the capital of Assyria during the time of Jonah. If it was the capital then the King would live in one of the many palaces archaeological evidence informs us of.
Brian writes:
3. The size of the city is greatly exaggerated. The Bible claims that it would take three days to go from one side of Nineveh to the other side, but archaeological evidence informs us that the city's entire circumference is just less than 8 miles.
The walled of part of the city was less than 8 miles in circumference. Do you think they could cram everybody inside the walls.
Since Assur was the old capital and was about 60 miles away, why would it and everything in-between not be part of the city?
Before you say that can't be let me introduce you to Jacksonville, Florida.
You can find lots of information Here
Duval county is over 840 square miles! This massive size of the county had given Jacksonville the distinction of being the largest city in the US in land mass. In population, Jacksonville Florida reportedly ranks 14 in city size.
That would be a little more than 3 days journey by foot.
Brian writes:
4. The population of Nineveh is hinted at when we are told that there was 120 000 children in the city, which would mean when we added adults we could have over half a million people living there, a figure that is clearly unrealistic.
Where do you get your information from?
Jonah 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more then sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?
Persons not children.
Sixscore - 120.
Sixscore thousand = 120,000 persons.
It says more than but not how many more.
Brian writes:
We then have the problems of the miraculous.
What is wrong with a miracle?
Brian writes:
We have to accept that a man could live unscathed for three days inside the belly of a "great fish"
You don't have to accept anything.
Who said he was unscathed. It would have more convincing if he was white as a sheet. Since the Assyrians had a fish god they worshiped. That would explain why all the city repented. If after three days the people on the boat that threw Jonah overboard happened to be on shore when the fish deposited Jonah on land. They would tell everybody what they saw and Jonah would have become a god like the half man half fish items show the Assyrians worshiped.
Brian writes:
(the author of Matthew has Jesus wrongly identify the creature as a whale),
Kh'to transliterated ketos = Sea monster, huge fish, whale.
So what is wrong about it? This word is used one time in the bible.
There is no need for me to bother with the miracles as you don't believe in them.
Brian writes:
There is also much in the Book of Jonah that is simply not plausible. We are asked to accept that a stranger just walked into Nineveh and everyone, including the king, simply said "okay, we will convert to your faith",
As pointed out above their accepting Jonah as god should have been no problem for them.
Nowhere does it say anything about them CONVERTING to his faith. They were told they had to repent or destruction was coming in 40 days.
Brian writes:
Was Jonah multilingual, or did he have a translator with him to discuss his faith with the Ninevites?
Since Jonah had spent his entire life under Assyrian rule it is very plausible that he spoke the language.
Brian writes:
Is it reasonable to accept that while inside the fish this man had the calmness to compose a psalm to God?
I understood he offered up a prayer. You don't have to be comfortable to do that.
Brian writes:
The authors' decision to call the hero 'Jonah' is quite clever, and a very strong clue that we should not take the text at face value. The name Jonah means 'dove',
Ah yes God send's His pure sweet love on the wings of a dove.
John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
Brian writes:
So, if we conclude that when the authors refer to 'Jonah' they are actually referring to Israel, and this allegory carries on strongly throughout the entire book. Jonah's reluctance to preach to the Gentiles mirrors perfectly the nation of Israel's refusal to do the same. Throughout the entire Old Testament we are constantly reminded that it is Israel who is God's chosen one, Israel has a unique relationship with Yahweh, and the OT writers are very keen to remind us of that.
Do you have anything other than the imagination of your mind to suggest why I should conclude what you did.
Brian writes:
but taking it as allegory certainly solves a lot of problems.
It creates a much larger problem than it fixes.
To call it an allegory is to call Jesus a liar.
Brian writes:
Therefore, are people who take a literalist approach to the biblical texts insulting its authors?
You can call insult Jesus and call Him a liar if you want to.
I am going to take Him at His Word for He said:
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 07-21-2008 1:01 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2008 5:19 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 07-24-2008 5:01 AM ICANT has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 187 (476200)
07-21-2008 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
07-21-2008 1:01 PM


Middle of the road
Therefore, are people who take a literalist approach to the biblical texts insulting its authors?
Strict literalists, in the face of obvious allegory? I would say that it isn't a good thing, but I'm not sure insulting is quite the adjective that I would use.
I suppose it goes both ways. You have certain literalists, that literally (pun intended) take everything the Bible says as absolutely true. Then you have the super critics who pretty much dismiss almost everything as being a fantasy. The truth, as they say, tends to be usually somewhere in the middle.
At the end of the day, much of the Bible cannot be corroborated or debunked so easily. Those who attempt to rescue it from inconsistency sometimes make themselves look unreasonable in the process. Those who set out to debunk it as an elaborate myth are often shut up when archaeology corroborates it.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 07-21-2008 1:01 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 187 (476220)
07-22-2008 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by iano
07-21-2008 2:05 PM


I wouldn't see anything one dimensional about it, rather I find myself enjoying Gods utilisation of actual history events as a (literal) literary device - similar to how a storyteller would operate when constructing fiction.
Except that God isn’t utilising ”actual historical events’, this is the whole point. It is because many of the ”historical events’ in the OT have been shown to be untrue that this should compel us to read the text in some other way.
Take the Exodus for example. You'll be aware of the parallels to be drawn between OT and NT blood covering. God issues the instruction to the Israelites in order to constuct the NT parallel? What's to stop him so constructing the tapestry of the total story.
The Exodus is a good example of a false history, since almost every ”historical’ event in it has been shown to be untrue. But I’d rather see the NT parallels to be human constructions rather than God’s. As we know, the authors of the Gospels went out of their way to mutilate the OT texts to fit Jesus, so a little invention a NT blood covering isn’t beyond them.
For if nothing to stop him,
Ah but you have just included a non-verifiable factor to support an historical event(s). We have no good reason to attribute anything that happened in the past to Yahweh, Baal, Chemosh, or any other non-verifiable entity in the celestial zoo of gods.
then your argument relies on:
a) A denial of the miraculous (the acceptance of which is not peculiar to the literalists you are attempting to take to task)
Tell me then, how can a historian possibly provide evidence of the miraculous?
Miracles are beyond the realm of historical research, you would be as well saying ”we don’t know how it happened’.
Can you imagine handing in an essay to a history department and your supporting arguments are that God did it all? How do you think you would get on?
b) The historical case you make. But your historical take generally doubts Jesus existance - or if so, his having done as he is reported to have done -
This is because many of the things He is said to have done are not historically verifiable, and because the accounts we have of His life give conflicting details, and the authors take much of the OT out of context. The only records of His life that we have are simply unreliable, thus we have no real choice but to have serious doubts that anything in the Gospels can be taken with any degree of reliability.
which means your argument, again, is not peculiar to the literalist
But it is the literalist that I wish to discuss on this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by iano, posted 07-21-2008 2:05 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jaywill, posted 07-22-2008 8:36 AM Brian has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 7 of 187 (476245)
07-22-2008 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brian
07-22-2008 6:03 AM


Brian,
Tell me then, how can a historian possibly provide evidence of the miraculous?
Miracles are beyond the realm of historical research, you would be as well saying ”we don’t know how it happened’.
If the historian decides before hand that no miracle in history is possible then he will not even try.
Are you in that catagory?
Are you saying that a miracle in history is difficult to confirm? Or are you legislating beforehand that no miracles in history are possible?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 07-22-2008 6:03 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 07-22-2008 8:55 AM jaywill has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 8 of 187 (476246)
07-22-2008 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jaywill
07-22-2008 8:36 AM


I am saying that miracles are beyond the realms of historical research.
How can the historian provide support that an event was a miracle?
If the academic discipline of history allows the use of an entity that may or may not exist to explain historical events then it means that any historian when faced by a stumbling block to their hypothesis just needs to invoke the 'it was a miracle' clause, then everyone's hypotheses are acceptable.
Historical hypotheses are the same as scientific hypotheses, they need to be falsifiable, since God is not falsifiable, then God has no place in historical research.
The God that the Bible claims interacted so many times in human history has never been proven to exist, so how can that entity be used as an explanation for anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jaywill, posted 07-22-2008 8:36 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by jaywill, posted 07-22-2008 9:17 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 10 by jaywill, posted 07-22-2008 10:06 AM Brian has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 9 of 187 (476251)
07-22-2008 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Brian
07-22-2008 8:55 AM


Brian,
Thanks for a reply but I still would like to pen you down a little more specifically.
Have you legislated beforehand that a miracle COULD NEVER HAPPEN anyway? Or are you saying a miracle may have occured but we cannot do any meaningful historical confirmation of one?
Two attitudes there. Which better discribes your attitude?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 07-22-2008 8:55 AM Brian has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 10 of 187 (476252)
07-22-2008 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Brian
07-22-2008 8:55 AM


Brian:
Historical hypotheses are the same as scientific hypotheses, they need to be falsifiable ...
An excerpt From N. Giesler:
"History, contrary to scientific hypothesis, does not depend on the universal and repeatable. Rather it stands on the sufficiency of good testimony for particular and unrepeatable events. Were this not so, then nothing could be learned from history.
It is clearly a mistake to import uniformitarian methods from scientific experimentation into historical research. Repeatablility and generality are needed to establish a scientific law or general pattern (of which miracles would be particular exceptions). But this method does not work at all in history. What is needed to establish historical events is credibile testimony that these particular events did indeed occur. So it is with miracles. It is an unjustifiable mistake n historical methodology to assume that no unusual and particular event can be believed no matter how great the evidence for it. ... The honest historian must be open to the possibility of unique and particular events of the past whether they are miraculous or not. He must not exclude a priori the possibility of establishing events like the resurrection of Christ without a careful examination of the testimony and evidence concerning them."
[ Christian Apologetics, Norm Giesler, chapter - Objectivity in History, Section - Philosophical Objections: Miracles Are Historically Unknowable, page 303, Baker Book House ]
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Brian, posted 07-22-2008 8:55 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 07-22-2008 10:54 AM jaywill has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 11 of 187 (476258)
07-22-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by jaywill
07-22-2008 10:06 AM


"History, contrary to scientific hypothesis, does not depend on the universal and repeatable. Rather it stands on the sufficiency of good testimony for particular and unrepeatable events.
The thing here is 'good testimony', how do we test for good testimony?
Is Giesler saying that if we can trust the testimony then we should accept everything it says regardless of how impossible it appears to be?
Were this not so, then nothing could be learned from history.
Essentially Giesler is saying that historical events do not need to be supported by external evidence, this will always bring us back to circular reasoning.
If the historical claim is unreasonable, or highly implausible, then why should we accept it without question?
If the historian wishes any peer to take their historical hypothesis seriously then they need to make that hypothesis falsifiable.
It is clearly a mistake to import uniformitarian methods from scientific experimentation into historical research.
But it doesn't need to be repeatable, it has to be plausible and possible, and have supporting evidence.
Take the 3 million in the Exodus group, this is an implausible amount of people to be produced from an intial 70 in 430 years, and it is impossible that an event of this magnitude did not leave any evidence.
You do not need to repeat the event, you can look at the eye-witness accounts provided by archaeology.
Repeatablility and generality are needed to establish a scientific law or general pattern (of which miracles would be particular exceptions).
So Geisler is agreeing with me, that miracles are beyond the realm of historical investigation.
Giesler also seems unaware that historians do sometimes recreate the past to see how plausible a claim is.
But this method does not work at all in history. What is needed to establish historical events is credibile testimony that these particular events did indeed occur. So it is with miracles.
I'm afraid that it works very well indeed in history, and with the support from archaeology and other sciences, we are buildong up a much stronger picture of the past, especially of the Ancient Near East.
We need external evidence because human testimony is not always reliable, people get confused about what they have seen, some people simply lie, and others have a particlaur agenda which requires them to create false accounts or partly false accounts.
So, it is very poor practice to take any historical text at face value, you always need external evidence.
It is an unjustifiable mistake n historical methodology to assume that no unusual and particular event can be believed no matter how great the evidence for it. ...
But according to Giesler the only evidence we need is the testimony of the authors! So Giesler doesn't actually need ANY evidence, which certainly informs me that he doesn't have any.
The honest historian must be open to the possibility of unique and particular events of the past whether they are miraculous or not.
Why, because Giesler says so?
I bet he is open to the possibility that Gabriel did indeed pass on the Qur'an to Muhammad.
But, seriously, I don't think he realises just what a can of worms this would open, we really wouldn't be able to dismiss ANY historical claims because the proposer would just play the miracle card.
I could say that Jesus was a terrible child who murdered another little boy and I wouldn't even have to justify this with any evidence.
He must not exclude a priori the possibility of establishing events like the resurrection of Christ without a careful examination of the testimony and evidence concerning them.
Oh gender specific language would get his essays marked down in unis nowadays. Are women not allowed to be historians?
The thing about the testimony of the resurrection is that we do not have any eye-witness accounts, the gospels are all anonymous, contradictory, and all written long after the resurrection was said to have happened. So even the testimonies are unreliable.
I'm afraid that Giesler's approach to history is severly flawed, it may impress people who are keen for the Bible stories to be true, but it really doesn't resemble an academic approach.
[ Christian Apologetics, Norm Giesler, chapter - Objectivity in History, Section - Philosophical Objections: Miracles Are Historically Unknowable, page 303, Baker Book House ]
This certainly explains his total lack of understanding regarding what history is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jaywill, posted 07-22-2008 10:06 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jaywill, posted 07-22-2008 11:26 AM Brian has replied
 Message 13 by jaywill, posted 07-22-2008 12:06 PM Brian has not replied
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2008 11:29 PM Brian has replied
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-23-2008 11:29 PM Brian has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 12 of 187 (476261)
07-22-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brian
07-22-2008 10:54 AM


This certainly explains his total lack of understanding regarding what history is.
Let's see if you know what you're talking about in the title of this discussion.
The implication, to take certain writings as litural in the Bible is to insult the author. Let's test this out with the Gospel of John. You tell me where the insult is if I believe John's testimony.
First, we know that the Gospel of John contains a few miracles done by Jesus. John calls them "signs". Which take to mean miracles - yes, but with some special spiritual teaching purpose.
Now we examine John's own statments about what he wrote:
"Moreover indeed many other signs also Jesus did before His disciples, which are no written in this book. But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)
Because of the selected signs and teachings which John did include in his gospel, I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. And I also testify that I have obtained the life of God in His name. This is the purpose for which John says that he wrote.
Where then is the "insult" commited by me because I have accepted the underlying theme of John's Gospel ?
Please pinpoint exactly how and where I have insulted the writer.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 07-22-2008 10:54 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Brian, posted 07-22-2008 12:11 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 13 of 187 (476266)
07-22-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brian
07-22-2008 10:54 AM


The thing here is 'good testimony', how do we test for good testimony?
I didn't notice statement saying all testimony was good testimony.
Is Giesler saying that if we can trust the testimony then we should accept everything it says regardless of how impossible it appears to be?
I think he is saying that we can use trustworthy testimony as evidence. I think he is talking on a case by case basis. And I think he is including not only miracles but also highly unusual events.
He uses to certain aspects of the Napoleonic adventures which were improbable and highly unusual, however they are history credibily attested to. Any a priori attitude that "things just do not happen that way, so they didn't happen" would be a mistake.
He is arguing with the attitude "The Resurrection didn't happen because people just don't rise from the dead" as faulty historical research.
Do you have an instance of an event in history which you would suggest should not be believed no matter what?
Essentially Giesler is saying that historical events do not need to be supported by external evidence, this will always bring us back to circular reasoning.
I don't see him saying that at all.
If the historical claim is unreasonable, or highly implausible, then why should we accept it without question?
I don't think he is saying you should have no questions.
I still have questions about the Resurrection of Jesus. But I believe the testimony to it.
If the historian wishes any peer to take their historical hypothesis seriously then they need to make that hypothesis falsifiable.
I'll think about that. I think Luke is a "serious" historian.
Is the historical belief that dinosaurs are the distant ancesters of birds falsifiable? Remember that is a statement about history.
In the past birds are the creatures that are offspring of dinosaurs - historical event. Is that falsifiable?
It is clearly a mistake to import uniformitarian methods from scientific experimentation into historical research.
But it doesn't need to be repeatable, it has to be plausible and possible, and have supporting evidence.
Take the 3 million in the Exodus group, this is an implausible amount of people to be produced from an intial 70 in 430 years, and it is impossible that an event of this magnitude did not leave any evidence.
No comment right now. Where are the references to 3 million people in the Bible ?
You do not need to repeat the event, you can look at the eye-witness accounts provided by archaeology.
What eyewitness account from archaeology are you refering to?
Repeatablility and generality are needed to establish a scientific law or general pattern (of which miracles would be particular exceptions).
So Geisler is agreeing with me, that miracles are beyond the realm of historical investigation.
No.
I used the quote in anticipation of something I could not get you to specifically admit to. That is do you have a methodological approach which rules out a supernatural event as being possible in history.
Gielser is saying that that is a faulty methdological approach to the study of history. He was rebutting the philosophies of Hume and Troeltsch.
Giesler also seems unaware that historians do sometimes recreate the past to see how plausible a claim is.
Based on a section of paragraph quotation of a 390 page book I would not jump to that conclusion that he is "unaware" of this or that.
But this method does not work at all in history. What is needed to establish historical events is credibile testimony that these particular events did indeed occur. So it is with miracles.
I'm afraid that it works very well indeed in history, and with the support from archaeology and other sciences, we are buildong up a much stronger picture of the past, especially of the Ancient Near East.
No particular response right now. Except that years ago some skeptics said Luke's Gospel was in error because there was no pavement for Jesus to be judged on in Pilate's court. Latter archeology discovered the pavement.
Some of those skeptic probably died before they saw the vindication of Luke's account of the trial of Jesus before Pilate.
We need external evidence because human testimony is not always reliable,
I think it would be naive for anyone to assume that human testimony WAS always reliable.
I think Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are reliable.
Paul alluded to 500 people who were still alive to either confirm or dispute his claims that Christ had risen. In his letter to the Corinthians Paul said most of those 500 people who together witnessed the resurrected Jesus were still alive.
Finding a document by one of them saying that Paul was mistaken would be really important to falsifying Paul's testimony.
Lack of the existence of one does not mean that none was ever written. However, the evidence for the resurrection seen in Paul's Corinthian reference to 500 witnesses is still there to be reckoned with.
people get confused about what they have seen, some people simply lie, and others have a particlaur agenda which requires them to create false accounts or partly false accounts.
True.
Judges look for evidence of corroboration to see if testimony has been falsly created in a kind of collective scheme.
I think it was the Horace Greely an expert on legal Evidence who by studying the evidence for the resurrection decided that it would stand up in any modern court. He came to believe the veracity of the testimony of Christ's resurrection.
Have to discontinue here.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 07-22-2008 10:54 AM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 14 of 187 (476267)
07-22-2008 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jaywill
07-22-2008 11:26 AM


I didn't say that the question applied to every single verse in the Bible.
What I said is that taking the Bible literally means that someone applying this approach MAY be missing out on what the author was actually doing.
What I am suggesting is that when the claim made is contrary to the evidence, or beyond plausibility, then perhaps we should look at other ways in which the words could have been meant.
So, I am not saying that taking ALL of the Bible at face value insults all authors, I am saying that taking it at face value could be insulting to some of its authors.
For example, assuming that whoever wrote Genesis meant that Adam lived for literally 930 years should compel us to look at the text in some other way as every shred of evidence that we have suggests that for someone to live for almost one thousand years is not a reasonable claim.
As far as 'John's' Gospel is concerned he clearly states the purpose of his writing, to convince his audience that Jesus is their saviour, so his testimony is hardly likely to be reliable, so you are more likely insulting your own intelligence if your believe every single word he wrote.
gJohn is propaganda, it is a persuasive piece of writing, so its authir is going to be very selective with the information given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jaywill, posted 07-22-2008 11:26 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jaywill, posted 07-22-2008 3:40 PM Brian has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 15 of 187 (476291)
07-22-2008 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Brian
07-22-2008 12:11 PM


What I said is that taking the Bible literally means that someone applying this approach MAY be missing out on what the author was actually doing.
Well the title question is in essence "Is A Literal Reading of the Bible and Insult to its Authors"
I simply chose an example since the Bible is a collection of a lot of different kinds of writing.
What I am suggesting is that when the claim made is contrary to the evidence, or beyond plausibility, then perhaps we should look at other ways in which the words could have been meant.
When then WHO do you refer to by Literalists? Do you mean that some Bible readers out there think that Jesus is a little four footed animal because He is called the Lamb of God?
I don't know many Bible readers who cannot at some point realize that something read is to be taken as symbolic or allegorical.
So we have the problem of defining these "Literalists".
Yes, I am a Literalist if you are speaking of the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Perhaps some modernist somewhere would say that I shouldn't take that so literally.
If your saying "Your missing something by taking the Resurrection as a historical fact. YOu could be getting all this other benefit you see, from the Bible. But you are hindered from deriving all this other benefit because of you taking liturally that Jesus rose on the third day after He was crucified."
If that is your position, I don't think I am deriving anything as benefit by changing my "Literal" understanding to now adopt a belief that there was NO resurrection of Christ.
So, I am not saying that taking ALL of the Bible at face value insults all authors, I am saying that taking it at face value could be insulting to some of its authors.
Here again, who takes "all of the Bible at face value" in the sense you seem to mean?
Where to understand the Bible liturally and where to understand it allegorically is a skill to be learned with patience and time and experience. And sometimes there are things which are both historical and allegorical in meaning.
Some things I did not initially want to accept as history, eventually I decided that they must be history. At first I didn't believe that there could be a first man and a first woman. Though I was a Bible reader I was influenced by modern evolutionary theories.
However in time I came to realize that there must have been a first man Adam or the rest of the Bible would not make sense.
Take the matter of a flood of Noah. Some argue whether the whole planet was flooded or whether it was a local flood. That may be an argument as to what was liturally meant.
Arguing over it may be a distraction. Judged is judged. Wiped out is wiped out. How much difference does it make.
I mean there was a hurricane some years ago. The news person was interviewing the farmer who lost all of his crops. The news persons was asking whether the farmer thought the wind was 50 miles per hour or more.
The farmer in frustration said. "It doesn't make any difference whether it was 50 miles per hour or 80 miles per hour. Flat is flat ! I lost it all. That's what I care about."
Flat crops is just flap crops. And in the same way. I have no real heart to argue over the litural meaning of a flood over all the world. Judged is judged, that's all. Everyone but 8 people died. And they started the human race all over again.
That's the point of benefit that I get from the Noah story.
For example, assuming that whoever wrote Genesis meant that Adam lived for literally 930 years should compel us to look at the text in some other way as every shred of evidence that we have suggests that for someone to live for almost one thousand years is not a reasonable claim.
I would suggest that you think about what are the more important matters to decide if you want to believe them or not.
Some things require vital decisions. I think one should kind of put priorities in order.
I didn't start with Genesis in my serious reading of the Bible. I started with the four gospels. When I developed a solid trust in Christ and His teachings, that then compeled me to consider reading other parts of the Bible and deciding how I felt about them.
That worked for me. Maybe that doesn't work for others.
As far as 'John's' Gospel is concerned he clearly states the purpose of his writing, to convince his audience that Jesus is their saviour, so his testimony is hardly likely to be reliable, so you are more likely insulting your own intelligence if your believe every single word he wrote.
Yes. But the issue raised was about whether the author was being insulted. So that is what I asked about.
gJohn is propaganda, it is a persuasive piece of writing, so its authir is going to be very selective with the information given.
Well, I agree that John is indeed propoganda.
Now I think there is true propoganda and there is false propoganda.
One month my daughter had to do a report on the Jewish Holocost. We went to the library and borrowed some historical videos on the subject. That became a Holocost weekend for us.
All those videos were "propoganda". I believe that they were propoganda of the true time. The Holocost did happen.
I believe likewise that the propoganda that the Apostle John wrote was of the true type.
Now I would ask YOU to consider. Something big happens. Something really significant. Something that is so significant that you feel the world to come for generations should know about it. You decide to write about it. You write propoganda.
Could that not be TRUE propoganda ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Brian, posted 07-22-2008 12:11 PM Brian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024