|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When to be literal? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So we see the Bible makes all of the above claims about itself and how it is not to be modified. More accurately, some books of Bible records claims made by men about scripture and the Word of God. But the Bible as you have read it did not even exists at the time any of the claims were made. It is not a trivial matter to say which text of which Bible books the quotes you reference even refer to.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. - James 2:10 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. You seem to have grabbed ahold of the fundamentalist's view of the Bible. Namely that the Bible is a monolithic tome that has existed through all of history. That view is clearly wrong. I don't feel any particular need to defend such a view.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There you go doing the same thing the fundies do, quote mining and leaving your brain at the door.
Let's start with 2 Timmy. First, it is NOT referring to the Bible, the very concept of a Bible had not been created yet. "Scripture" refers to inspired writing and includes any writings that can teach you instruction of righteousness. 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. Again, in your quote mine from Revelation the Book mentioned is NOT the Bible. The very concept of a Bible had not been created when that was written. Psalm 12 also has NOTHING to do with a Bible. In each of these examples what you have done is take a verse out of context. Further, none of the really tell us anything about Yahweh and each one is an example of adding to, rewriting, changing, rewording, editing and expounding scripture, dogma and doctrine.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Larni writes: 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. I contend that the implication is there . Further on in Romans Paul says this. From Romans 5: quote:It is God's love that is in our hearts and so when we respond to that we are responding to, and knowing God in our hearts. GDR writes: 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.Larni writes: Not so. If we don't believe it does not matter. We go to Hell as abominations. This is from Matthew 7. quote: This is from 1 Cor 4:5 quote: It is all about our hearts and Christ's message is that our hearts can be changed.
Larni writes: Sure but I am not claiming that my views are inerrant. I am only saying that this is how I understand the Bible, and you asked in the OP how we come to our conclusions of how we sort out our understanding of the Bible. But this is simply verse tennis. In order for us to be able to love we have to be able to choose it freely and without coercion, which means IMHO, that the ambiguity in the meaning and purpose of our lives is necessary in order to give us the ability to freely choose to love unselfishly, and even sacrificially.
Larni writes: How do we know that the resurrection is not a metaphor for the resurgence of the religion after it's originator dies? We don't. In the end it's about faith. I own and have read these two books where Christian scholars argue that position from both sides. N T Wright debates for the Historical reality of the resurrection whereas Crossan and Borg argue for it being a metaphor.
Crossan and Wright Borg and Wright I find Wright's argument far more compelling if one starts reading with an open mind to the possibility of Jesus' resurrection. Crossan and Borg start off with the idea that there has to be some other explanation and frankly I don't find that any of their theories come close to explaining how the early Christian church could grow and take the form that it did. But as I said we will all come to our own conclusions with none of us having absolute certainty. Edited by GDR, : typosHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3480 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Book curses and document curses were not uncommon in ancient days. The curses deal with the specific writing, not the entire Bible. 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.
quote:None of the verses you've shared support that conclusion. The curses are basically against editing what the writer had written. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3480 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:How are you using the word metaphor and metaphorical? A canon is nothing more than an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture.Metaphor is a literary device. Bible literalism is a type of interpretation. Several literary techniques were employed by the Bible writers.Several types of interpretation techniques are used by Christians to understand the Bible. Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You need to understand that the different "books" of the Bible were written for different purposes and for the contemporary audience and you need to understand that contemporary audience.
Look at Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They are both reactionary texts. Understand that Israel and Judah were separate nations and that the tribes really were their own political, cultural and religious entities far more like the United States during the very early days where the states were separate and individual and aligned only in a weak Confederacy. Tribes changed allegiances between the two larger states and even religious positions and dogma varied. Even under the short lived Davidic unified state it was more like England and Scotland under James I and VI than one state. Israel suffered cultural destruction by exile of the whole political, economic and religious leadership. Judah remained and under Assyria kept some identity. But then came Persia, and they were an even greater threat because they were tolerant. They accepted those from Israel or Judah and what was happening was the people were rapidly being assimilated, becoming "Persian". As I mentioned above, Leviticus and Deuteronomy were reactionary works meant to stop assimilation and restore an identity of a people. Leviticus is basically a listing of the laws that they should follow as Hebrews, as the people "Israel" (not the state Israel) and has two main parts, the duties of the Levites (remember that is a tribe and the tribe that priests were drawn from) and the laity or people. They were laws and meant to be taken literally by the people "Israel" during that period. But it's important to remember that Leviticus is meant for just the people "Israel". Deuteronomy has a slightly different purpose. It has three basic parts and goals. First it recounts the mythos, the history, of the creation of the people "Israel". Next it describes the basics of that identity, that the people "Israel" belong to the God "Yahweh" exclusively and exhorts obedience to his laws. The last part says that even if bad things happen, if you stick to your identity in the end all will turn out right. Both are reactionary responses to the overall trend of day, of people becoming somewhat sophisticated Persians rather than Benjamites, or Israelis or Judean. 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.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Would it be fair to say that this is not the kind of thought process and fundy would go through? Possibly but I really can only address my experiences. Remember I am a product of a Christian education that was in the CoE, Anglican, Episcopal tradition. It was a tradition that encouraged questioning and in depth research and understanding, where bumper stickers and sloganism were constantly challenged.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3480 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:So you don't wish to clarify. Sorry for bothering you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024