|
Author
|
Topic: When to be literal?
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
Message 1 of 66 (677571)
10-30-2012 8:19 AM
|
|
|
How do people who use the Bible as a bases for their Christianity decide what is literal and what is not? Some bits are specifically stated as parables but others (Leviticus, I'm looking at you!) seem to be specific statutes that are either ignored or rebranded and not literal. Is there a useful way to categorise literal verses from metaphorical?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 3 of 66 (677573)
10-30-2012 2:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
10-30-2012 10:19 AM
|
|
Re: Word for word literal or thought for thought?
That would be great, thanks Phat.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 10-30-2012 10:19 AM | | AdminPhat has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 10 of 66 (677631)
10-31-2012 11:00 AM
|
|
|
What confuses me as an atheist is that the only knowledge about Yaweh; his character and his works we have is from the Bible. So either the Bible is accurate about Yaweh or it is not. When he syas to keep his statutes in Leviticus 'or else' is that what he meant or not? If it is just mythology then why believe it more than a Brothers Grimm story? If it is not myth then is it all not myth or just some of it? Edited by Larni, : I turned a statement into a question: all on my own. I'm a big boy, now!
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by jar, posted 10-31-2012 11:26 AM | | Larni has replied | | | Message 13 by GDR, posted 10-31-2012 2:28 PM | | Larni has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 12 of 66 (677660)
10-31-2012 1:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
10-31-2012 11:26 AM
|
|
Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
I have read the Bible (well most of it, not the geneologies). You say the Bible tells us very little about Yaweh: I disagree. 2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." So we see the Bible makes all of the above claims about itself and how it is not to be modified. And it also says: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. - James 2:10 So by ignoring one thing in the Bible, the Bible tells us we have offended Yahweh. So my original question remains and the Bible itself says that you are wrong about the Bible.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by jar, posted 10-31-2012 11:26 AM | | jar has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 15 of 66 (677677)
10-31-2012 2:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by GDR
10-31-2012 2:28 PM
|
|
Essentially we can look into our own hearts with or without the Bible to learn about Yahweh. I disagree. Those verses say that if a non Jew's heart happens to coincide with the Law it's fine. Not that we find Yaweh in our hearts. So if you happen by purest chance to follow his Laws through natural inclination you won't go to Hell.
In the end as Paul points out here it isn’t about what we believe or even what we do that is important, it is all about the condition of our heart. Not so. If we don't believe it does not matter. We go to Hell as abominations. Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." But this is simply verse tennis. How do we know that the resurrection is not a metaphor for the resurgence of the religion after it's originator dies?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by GDR, posted 10-31-2012 2:28 PM | | GDR has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 20 by GDR, posted 10-31-2012 3:17 PM | | Larni has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 16 of 66 (677678)
10-31-2012 2:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Tangle
10-31-2012 2:40 PM
|
|
It seems to me that many Christians are happy to forget the awkward bit in the Bible.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Tangle, posted 10-31-2012 2:40 PM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 18 of 66 (677680)
10-31-2012 3:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by NoNukes
10-31-2012 2:56 PM
|
|
Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
More accurately, some books of Bible records claims made by men about scripture and the Word of God. Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Yup. I wonder if this is metaphorical.
What part of the Bible corresponds to the whole law as mentioned in James 2:10? Not the whole Bible, and certainly not James itself. Did James consider Acts, or any of Paul's letter's to be part of the 'whole law'. Almost certainly not. I had no thought of that: it makes it even hard for me to see how one can tell what is really, really, really cannon and what is metaphor.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2012 2:56 PM | | NoNukes has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 23 of 66 (677880)
11-02-2012 10:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
10-30-2012 4:21 PM
|
|
Re: Linguistic Lollapalooza
Its all about belief But you need a reason to have that belief.
I dont pay too much attention to laws, since I believe that I am under Grace. What makes you think that Grace is not metaphorical: it sounds metaphorical.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 5 by Phat, posted 10-30-2012 4:21 PM | | Phat has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 24 of 66 (677881)
11-02-2012 10:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
10-30-2012 5:31 PM
|
|
Re: Nothing needs to be literal
When looking at the Bible (whichever Canon you choose) the first step is to remember that it is NOT one book or story but rather an anthology of anthologies written by men for men of a particular era. Yeah, I get that, you get that. But I guess I'm addessing my question to people who don't thinhink that way.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by jar, posted 10-30-2012 5:31 PM | | jar has seen this message but not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 25 of 66 (677883)
11-02-2012 10:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
10-31-2012 3:06 PM
|
|
Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
Deuteronomy was again like Leviticus, a fairly recent creation and likely a product of Israel originally that later took shape and was codified in Judah after the exile of the Israelites. I did not know that. wiki says:
However, the tradition is comparatively late (it dates from Josephus, a 1st century AD historian), and scholars are practically unanimous that the book had a long period of growth, that it includes some material of considerable antiquity, and that it reached its present form in the Persian period (538—332 BC). So, aside from telling me that I'm taking verse out of context what do you have to say about telling fact from metaphor?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by jar, posted 10-31-2012 3:06 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by jar, posted 11-02-2012 11:45 AM | | Larni has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 27 of 66 (677897)
11-02-2012 11:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
11-02-2012 11:45 AM
|
|
Re: it's not one story just as the Brothers Grimm is not one story.
It's not a matter of what is factual or metaphor, rather it is a matter of understanding the writings within the context of their creation. That's really interesting and you have definitly taught me something new. It seems to me that you've given a credible rationale, here. Would it be fair to say that this is not the kind of thought process and fundy would go through? I wonder how one of our resident literalists would respond.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by jar, posted 11-02-2012 11:45 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 29 by jar, posted 11-02-2012 12:11 PM | | Larni has not replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Re: Clarification
How are you using the word metaphor and metaphorical? I'm guilty of not being very clear, arn't I?  What I mean is that (presumably) Christians take the ressurection of Jesus as 'actual factual'. Why is this not a metaphor for a religion experiencing a boost when the cult leader dies?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by purpledawn, posted 10-31-2012 7:04 PM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Clarification
Dawn, you can be a real pain in the arse, sometimes. When I say metaphor I mean something that is not literally true. I mean not exactly as described. I mean not literal. What more clarification do you (of all people, need?). But if you just want to play you usual semantic games, I'm not interested.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by purpledawn, posted 11-02-2012 1:07 PM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Re: Clarification
What part of message 28 did you not understand? Abe: No, on second thoughts, don't bother. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by purpledawn, posted 11-03-2012 7:57 PM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
Larni
Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
Re: Book Curses
Psalms 12:6-7 is a song. Songs use literary devices. This song has nothing to do with not modifying the Bible. The them in verse 7 refers to the oppressed in verse 5. None of the verses you've shared support that conclusion. The curses are basically against editing what the writer had written. I disagree. The verse I had in my head was Deuteronomy 4:2. This seems pretty specific. And what is this about my conclusion? I'm asking a question. If you think I'm asking the wrong question that fine. Thanks for the reading material but your tone of condescension makes me wonder why you want to participate in this thread.
So you don't wish to clarify. Sorry for bothering you. What was wrong with message 28? I acknowledge I have been less than clear and clarified my question.
So pardon my confusion, when your discussion flow is not consistent. Pardon me for trying to give you better tools to work with and means to a better understanding. Flounder on! Just what did you hope to achieve from any of that? If you feel that way just press the little x on the window and move on. Edited by Larni, : Complete re write of post. Edited by Larni, : No reason given. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by purpledawn, posted 10-31-2012 6:44 PM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2