Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 1:28:13 GMT
A lot of what is scripture is taken too literally. How did you determine what should be taken literally, and what should not? Depends on which genre you're reading and what the context is. Again, the Bible isn't a singular book that fell out of the sky. Most people understand that it's a library of various literary works (written by a lot of authors at different points in time and for different purposes). The difference between believers and nonbelievers (as it relates to the Bible) is that believers think these texts were divinely inspired. And divine inspiration doesn't always mean that it was inspired to show you what you would have seen if you had a video camera recording the events. That's not what ancient people were primarily concerned with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 1:30:10 GMT
How did you determine what should be taken literally, and what should not? Depends on which genre you're reading and what the context is. Again, the Bible isn't a singular book that fell out of the sky. Most people understand that it's a library of various literary works. The difference between believers on nonbelievers (related to the Bible) is that the believers think these texts were divinely inspired. And divine inspiration doesn't always mean that it was inspired to show you what you would have seen if you had a video camera recording the events. That's not what ancient people were primarily concerned with. So you read it, and you make a judgment? Your judgment isn't infallible, right? So how do you know you're making the correct judgments and it all means what you think it means?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 1:35:11 GMT
Depends on which genre you're reading and what the context is. Again, the Bible isn't a singular book that fell out of the sky. Most people understand that it's a library of various literary works. The difference between believers on nonbelievers (related to the Bible) is that the believers think these texts were divinely inspired. And divine inspiration doesn't always mean that it was inspired to show you what you would have seen if you had a video camera recording the events. That's not what ancient people were primarily concerned with. So you read it, and you make a judgment? Your judgment isn't infallible, right? So how do you know you're making the correct judgments and it all means what you think it means? There are resources out there that explain what the scoop is with each book. Personal judgment isn't really necessary.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 19, 2018 1:38:32 GMT
tpfkar Both fundamentalists and militant atheists alike tend to forget this simple fact. Also, a lot of what was written down came from earlier oral traditions. It is presented as a coherent work. And nearly all of it is pretty absurd unless you've got a throbbing need going in. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eiusBull shit. It is presented as a coherent work in the same way that the collection of shakespeares work in one volume is coherent, no real studier of the bible thinks the books are to be interpreted in the same way or treated in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 19, 2018 1:51:07 GMT
So you read it, and you make a judgment? Your judgment isn't infallible, right? So how do you know you're making the correct judgments and it all means what you think it means? There are resources out there that explain what the scoop is with each book. Personal judgment isn't really necessary. Touble is different groups have different ideas. Wars have been fought. Arian controversy, anyone?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 1:55:29 GMT
There are resources out there that explain what the scoop is with each book. Personal judgment isn't really necessary. Touble is different groups have different ideas. Wars have been fought. Arian controversy, anyone? There's pretty reliable scholarship out there. It's not hard to figure out. Most people just don't care enough to do it.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 19, 2018 1:59:17 GMT
tpfkar Bull shit. It is presented as a coherent work in the same way that the collection of shakespeares work in one volume is coherent, no real studier of the bible thinks the books are to be interpreted in the same way or treated in the same way. Bull chutney. The Bible has always mostly been presented as "The Word" by the vast majority of the faithful, for the most part inviolate, and both the glaring contradictions and gross immoralities chanted away with howls of "context". But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 2:24:53 GMT
So you read it, and you make a judgment? Your judgment isn't infallible, right? So how do you know you're making the correct judgments and it all means what you think it means? There are resources out there that explain what the scoop is with each book. Personal judgment isn't really necessary. Those resources were created by other people who used their personal judgment, were they not?
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Jan 19, 2018 2:32:28 GMT
Yea yea yea, blah blah blah...let's get back to the important thing. What's the update to the situation between you and your roommate Smith? Also, you never answered my question: is Smith hot?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 2:49:40 GMT
There are resources out there that explain what the scoop is with each book. Personal judgment isn't really necessary. Those resources were created by other people who used their personal judgment, were they not? No. Scholarly stuff you can use. By people who've done the research and shit. People who actually understand ancient documents (and I'm not just talking about people who are believers either).
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jan 19, 2018 3:17:04 GMT
By people who've done the research and shit. Well that settles it! How could anyone argue with "people who’ve done the research and shit?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 3:22:39 GMT
By people who've done the research and shit. Well that settles it! How could anyone argue with "people who’ve done the research and shit?" You're free to argue with the historical scholars who actually understand ancient documents, guy on IMDb v2.0. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jan 19, 2018 3:28:15 GMT
Well that settles it! How could anyone argue with "people who’ve done the research and shit?" You're free to argue with the historical scholars who actually understand ancient documents, guy on IMDb v2.0. Good luck. It still comes down to human interpretation...................and shit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2018 3:29:34 GMT
Those resources were created by other people who used their personal judgment, were they not? No. Scholarly stuff you can use. By people who've done the research and shit. People who actually understand ancient documents (and I'm not just talking about people who are believers either). Wow, and these people weren't using their judgment of what this stuff meant? That's kind of weird.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 19, 2018 15:43:55 GMT
Touble is different groups have different ideas. Wars have been fought. Arian controversy, anyone? There's pretty reliable scholarship out there. It's not hard to figure out. Most people just don't care enough to do it. Good to know. So which religion/branch/denomination has the clearest picture of God?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 20, 2018 6:42:19 GMT
Just to jump in here for a bit, I think gadreel/@zackbop and @graham/ general313/ cupcakes are talking past each other a bit. There's a difference between the perspectives of Biblical scholars (many of which are atheists and are essentially just historians and/or Lit majors focusing on The Bible) who are primarily interested in the minutiae of historical context/facts or the nuances of the original language and the various denominations and what they preach/focus on. The latter isn't necessarily--perhaps even rarely--informed by the former to any serious degree, but is formed more out of their own feelings about Biblical matters, and they're more likely to get factual matters dead wrong (Biblical literalism, eg). It's like the difference between film scholars VS critics VS viewers. Viewers and critics are typically more concerned with qualitative judgments while scholars are more concerned with context, history, technique, etc. I don't know if scholars can say for certain what parts of The Bible were meant literally VS metaphorically, but they're more informed about when it was written, by whom, for what purpose, and to make comparisons with similar works of the time in order to make highly educated guesses as to what's going on. I doubt many scholars think Genesis was meant literally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 18:22:09 GMT
Just to jump in here for a bit, I think gadreel /@zackbop and @graham / general313 / cupcakes are talking past each other a bit. There's a difference between the perspectives of Biblical scholars (many of which are atheists and are essentially just historians and/or Lit majors focusing on The Bible) who are primarily interested in the minutiae of historical context/facts or the nuances of the original language and the various denominations and what they preach/focus on. The latter isn't necessarily--perhaps even rarely--informed by the former to any serious degree, but is formed more out of their own feelings about Biblical matters, and they're more likely to get factual matters dead wrong (Biblical literalism, eg). It's like the difference between film scholars VS critics VS viewers. Viewers and critics are typically more concerned with qualitative judgments while scholars are more concerned with context, history, technique, etc. I don't know if scholars can say for certain what parts of The Bible were meant literally VS metaphorically, but they're more informed about when it was written, by whom, for what purpose, and to make comparisons with similar works of the time in order to make highly educated guesses as to what's going on. I doubt many scholars think Genesis was meant literally. That's essentially what I've been saying. It's not particularly hard to look at similar literary works of the time and figure out which genre to categorize the texts into. Ancient people had a VERY different view of history than modern people do. They weren't particularly interested in capturing exactly what you would have seen had you been there. They were more interested in capturing the big ideas that explain stuff that's happening in the present. So if you're someone who happens to believe that these texts are divinely inspired, then you need not believe that what's inspired about them is their ability to portray "actual history" with 100% accuracy. What would be inspired about them is the narrative that they present. The basic "story" is what's inspired (God created man in his image, man fell, God called up a certain people group to be his ministers to the world, etc.). The only people who take everything in the Bible to be 100% literal are the extremists on both ends. Religious fundamentalists and militant atheists are reading the Bible in the same way, and they're both wrong. When you approach the text with a sense of genre and context, it's much easier to take away the right lessons from it.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 20, 2018 19:52:10 GMT
Just to jump in here for a bit, I think gadreel /@zackbop and @graham / general313 / cupcakes are talking past each other a bit. There's a difference between the perspectives of Biblical scholars (many of which are atheists and are essentially just historians and/or Lit majors focusing on The Bible) who are primarily interested in the minutiae of historical context/facts or the nuances of the original language and the various denominations and what they preach/focus on. The latter isn't necessarily--perhaps even rarely--informed by the former to any serious degree, but is formed more out of their own feelings about Biblical matters, and they're more likely to get factual matters dead wrong (Biblical literalism, eg). It's like the difference between film scholars VS critics VS viewers. Viewers and critics are typically more concerned with qualitative judgments while scholars are more concerned with context, history, technique, etc. I don't know if scholars can say for certain what parts of The Bible were meant literally VS metaphorically, but they're more informed about when it was written, by whom, for what purpose, and to make comparisons with similar works of the time in order to make highly educated guesses as to what's going on. I doubt many scholars think Genesis was meant literally. So in the context of the OP, which group should be referred to to answer the question of which parts of scripture are taken too literally?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 21, 2018 1:57:24 GMT
Just to jump in here for a bit, I think gadreel /@zackbop and @graham / general313 / cupcakes are talking past each other a bit. There's a difference between the perspectives of Biblical scholars (many of which are atheists and are essentially just historians and/or Lit majors focusing on The Bible) who are primarily interested in the minutiae of historical context/facts or the nuances of the original language and the various denominations and what they preach/focus on. The latter isn't necessarily--perhaps even rarely--informed by the former to any serious degree, but is formed more out of their own feelings about Biblical matters, and they're more likely to get factual matters dead wrong (Biblical literalism, eg). It's like the difference between film scholars VS critics VS viewers. Viewers and critics are typically more concerned with qualitative judgments while scholars are more concerned with context, history, technique, etc. I don't know if scholars can say for certain what parts of The Bible were meant literally VS metaphorically, but they're more informed about when it was written, by whom, for what purpose, and to make comparisons with similar works of the time in order to make highly educated guesses as to what's going on. I doubt many scholars think Genesis was meant literally. So in the context of the OP, which group should be referred to to answer the question of which parts of scripture are taken too literally? Scholars would be the best group to consult on any factual matters related to The Bible.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 21, 2018 2:09:37 GMT
Bull shit. It is presented as a coherent work in the same way that the collection of shakespeares work in one volume is coherent, no real studier of the bible thinks the books are to be interpreted in the same way or treated in the same way. What abut the 'inspired by God' bit? Isn't that a circular argument? The Bible says it is inspired by God so it is inspired by God?
|
|