The 15 billion yrs of cosmos & 6 dys of creation r same.

Post Reply New Topic

No? Really? ...

I'm fully aware of that fact. The problem lies in how to decide which parts are supposed to be read in which way. I would say that many of the "historical" tales suffer from a very mythological nature, and vice versa. There is always argument about which parts are literal, which are not. Hence the splintering of the original christian faith into various denominations, each with their own interpretation, and their own idea of "heresy." And it still doesnt change the fact that the rest of the book is in normal time. Whether it is a single text or a thousand texts slapped together at random, the problem remains the same. (I'm not even going to get into the various versions and judicious editing which skew the whole thing even further from any original truth.)

Oh, and I meant the originally posted theory was b*llocks, not the whole book. (Though I am naturally dubious of all religious texts. If some of these people were a bit more straightforward and a bit less figurative then maybe we wouldnt have all the problems we do.

And again, not necessarily. Taking Genesis as a work in its own right.. man coming after animals fits just as well, and works well in a "dramatic" sense. Like the final trick in a magicians repertoire, or the epic climax to any number of films. "Save the best til last, and always leave em wanting more..."

Symbolism is not literal, not even a dot on a map, that is what makes it symbolic or figurative not literal. People often express themselves symbolically especially in literature to convey a message that they believe to be true, but the truth of the message, even if the message can be expressed literally, does not make the story or symbolism itself literally true.

For example, I believe in the truth of the story of the Garden of Eden, but I do not believe that those events literally took place. I believe that the story symbolically describes the way in which people fell away from obedience to God accurately. This truth can be described literally, but the story itself is not literally true, or do you believe in talking serpents?

Obviously the Bible is composed of many different genres of literature; mythology, history, poetry, prophesy, biography, and correspondence to name a few. To take mythology, poetry, or prophesy as literally true would be to miss the point of those writings completely, but that isn't to say that they don't express something true through their symbolism.

If you mean by saying that you take the Bible to be literally true to mean that once you've expressed everything figurative in literal terms then it is all true, then I guess I would agree with you. However, to take the Bible literally, meaning to take every word as it is as the literal truth no interpretation required, I cannot agree with.

I would also suggest that even the parts of the Bible that are meant to be taken literally still need qualification in terms of their cultural context because, culture is a system of symbols. So even if you do extract the literal meaning of a scripture meant to be taken figuratively, the cultural context still applies to that literal meaning because in effect the literal meaning is still symbolic because it is within a specific cultural system of symbols.

Perhaps. But the apostles are a completely different
matter. Here we have men who were founding a new
faith. While they MIGHT have been telling their subjective
truths (and how could it be otherwise - given the contradictions),
there were clear reasons why they would be likely to embellish.

So then, the question comes to - do we believe what these
men have written, or do we treat these writings, made LONG
after the facts, as something akin to urban legends, subject
to intense scrutiny, rejecting what seems unlikely?

It is literal.

If you replace "the first thing that pops into your head" by "the most obvious interpretation of the exact words", that is closer to the common interpretation of "literally" than yours. Even after your explanation, I find it hard to apply your definition and make it fit with what I would normally consider literal. Let's take two examples.

According to Genesis, humans were the last species to be created and Eve was made from Adam's rib. Does your definition of literal imply that there can't be any species that has originated more recently than humans? If so, do you mean anatomically modern humans? How do homo erectus or Neanderthals fit into Genesis? How would Genesis fit with speciation observed or reproduced in the lab within the last 60 years? What is the literal (by your definition) interpretation of Eve being made from Adam's rib? How does it fit with your previous statement that you would not rule out theistic evolution?

The other example is the story of Onan, whose sin was to "waste his seed". I read that the context was that Onan's brother died without an heir. The tradition in such cases was that the brother of the dead man would sleep with the widow to produce a child that would be considered the dead man's child. Onan must have liked either sexual variety, his sister in law, or both, because he extended opportunity for sex by practising coitus interruptus. He was punished for that.

From the context, I would say Onan's sin was to abuse the custom so he could have more sex with his brother's widow than was necessary to produce a baby. What I would take for a literal interpretation depends on the exact wording, whether it is "wasting seed" or "spilling seed onto the ground". If the sin is wasting, then the obvious interpretation is that sperm is sacred and must only be released when there is a chance of producing a baby. That interpretation would forbid any kind of birth control, including the rhythm method. If the sin is spilling seed onto the ground, that could mean only penetrative sex is allowed, if "ground" is meant to stand for any place outside a vagina. Or it could mean that very specifically spilling onto the ground is a problem, not spilling as such.

You can try to take a poll to see whether the context-based interpretation or one of the word-focussed interpretations would be considered literal by most people. If it is a word-focussed one, then your use of the word literal is more technical than the common use.

Gromit

I don't know if you're playing word games, or if you still don't understand what I said. Symbolism is symbolism, even when it expresses a literal meaning. There -- that's the shortest possible way I can explain it.

Correct!

Ah, here's where you and I differ. I believe the story took place, because the Bible gives no indication -- nor is one implicit -- that it is making up a story, rather than telling actual events. The story of the Garden of Eden is not surreal, like John's visions in Revelation are. And neither is it announced as a parable, like Jesus often announced his stories were.

So those are my two main citeria for determining parable versus literal:

1. Is the story surreal?

or

2. Is the story announced as a parable?


So a talking snake makes the entire story false? That is too hard to believe happened? How about Balaam's mule, in Numbers 22:28: "Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?"
Also, do you believe in angels -- literally? Do you believe in God -- literally? These are much more difficult things to believe in than a talking snake, so if a talking snake is too difficult to believe, you must not believe in a literal God. And that's the danger I'm indictating.


The difference between your view and mine is that I believe that the truths expressed in the poetry are definite, literal truths. Whereas, you believe we can attribute to them whatever truths and meanings we wish. Such would be to imply that the poetry of the Bible appears nonsensical, which is of course not the case.

Read the Psalms of David -- they convey quite literal concepts ("My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet"), even though they are lyrics to songs he wrote. You can see that not every word in that quotation is literal, yet the meaning is literal, and quite clear. He's using figures of speech in poetry -- such does not open his writings to wider interpretation. When parts of the Bible are labeled "Poetry", that does not meaning random poems. It means dictinct truths expressed in some peotic terms. As such, perhaps the English word "Poetry" is not best used, since many people equate it with fiction.


Jeanne, obviously, one doesn't take EVERY WORD of anything they read literally, for it was not meant to be taken as a robot would interpret it. Expressions, figures of speech are thrown into everything of any real length which is written or spoken, all while these communications remain crystal-clear in their meanings. So, the Bible is no different in this respect from a letter you'd write to your friend: Not every word is going to be dictionary-definition #1, even though the letter is clearly understood by your friend -- because your friend knows you, as we know God through the Spirit of Christ within us, and through his Holy Spirit which guides us as we read His Word.


This is true of ALL non-modern and/or non-local documents, not just of the Bible. But you're still injecting doubt where it does not belong: in God's Word. You believe error crept in -- unknown to and unprevented by God -- and that we have to be VERY skeptical when we read the Bible. Nope, not at all. We simply need to study it, realizing that it is true, even while our understanding of its truth needs help from God.

The Bible is perfect. Our understanding of it is not.

Here's a less problematic phrasing of the issue: "I believe the Bible is literal", versus the more vague "I take the Bible literally".

The first one addresses the Bible itself, while the second addresses the reader's reading of the Bible -- which could be anything based on the particular reader.

So, would you say: "I believe the Bible is literal" ? You'd answer no. I'd answer yes. That means you believe there is an intrinsic problem with the Bible, in which case you're choosing a different religion than Christianity. Scripture is authoritative, which is an essential Christian concept you reject.

Last edited by Ragtime on 29 Jul 2007, 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Which Bible?

Almost every edition
has some sort of agenda
behind it - reflecting beliefs
which the editors/compilers
have. Even mere matters of
word choice can be fairly significant,
as to the impression given.

what basis do you have for assuming that it is not on the same scale? such things certainly were not considered whilst making the bible or they would have had a disclaimer

i dont think ragtime believes in the fossil record... which leads you to the trickster god argument......

and there are whole books which have been left out of the bible... not because the bible has a word limit... but because there were stories written of jesus and other types of things that were not conducive to portraying this streamlined system of beliefs...

was bad enough jesus was hanging with hookers and such and they had to make a parable (or w/e) out of it (aka-the stoning story)...

too much processing for my spirituality... i prefer to mainline

Um... How 'bout science? You of all people should know that. The evidence shows a lot of time has passed since the universe came into being. It would be illogical to dismiss that.


Scripture is God-breathed, which means that it was dictated. God told men concepts to write down, sometimes word-for-word, but both ways, they were instructed by God to write down what He gave them, even when they didn't understand it, as Peter mentions in his first epistle. So, yes, it's easily possible that God told Moses to write the six-day account, without Moses knowing of time dilation.

What's the difference?
First, show me some neanderthals. Complete skeletons.


I haven't been in the lab for the last sixty years, so you'd have to enlighten me.

Well, Adam's rib evolved, of course, and then Eve was "cloned-with-modifications" from that rib.

He did not "go in unto her". He jacked off.

You've started from the incorrect supposition that he had sex with his brother's widow.

you cannot pick what science you want to apply to literal interpretations of the bible...

if you want to interpret literally AND apply science... i dont think you're gonna have many followers.


they didnt even know the world was round... let alone being able to fathom that there may be leeway to the parameters of time

so this is a case where i would believe a literal translation... though not that it has any great foresight hidden within the omnipotent knowledge of god

edit: and i meant to say "what basis FROM THE BIBLE do you have for assuming that it is not on the same scale?" and clearly, they didnt have enough comprehension to consider such thoughts... and if god knew... well he certainly kept his thoughts to himself

what kind of trickery is this? i didnt say any of that!! !!

i am now forced to reconsider anything you've ever quoted in any arguments previously... as well as your scripture quoting