| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
 Posted: June 18 2009 at 07:11 |
 Deathrabbit wrote:
And don't forget that the earth is only 6000 years old. That's another example of literal interpretation.
|
But how is this bad? I.e., what effect does it have on you?
There's lots of people yakking about how the world will end in 2012 because of a Mayan calendar. It's ridiculous, but it doesn't bother me.
|
|
|
 |
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 07:14 |
|
Well it's just an example of ppl shutting their brain off. And that is always dangerous. And yes it happens a bunch in other venues as well. Doesn't mean I'm gonna give it a pass when I see it.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 07:20 |
Deathrabbit wrote:
Well it's just an example of ppl shutting their brain off. And that is always dangerous. And yes it happens a bunch in other venues as well. Doesn't mean I'm gonna give it a pass when I see it.
|
That's fair enough, but not all scientists agree with "The Big Bang" or the various other theories of how the world came into being (not saying they believe in God, just saying they have their own theories). I wouldn't call that "shutting their brain off."
And then there are scientists who claim to have evidence favoring a 6000 year old world. I like to listen to what everybody has to say to make an informed opinion...
...but I always listen to the Bible first and last. 
|
|
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 07:33 |
Epignosis wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I'd like to ask, if I may, what it means to "take the Bible literally?" I hear that phrase tossed around a lot.
I ask because based on the context of what I've heard (not just here, but in conversation), I suspect people who say the Bible ought not be taken literally actually mean the Bible ought not be taken seriously.
I take the Bible literally when the context of the passage calls for it (most of the time). It's no different than how I treat any other piece of literature. If the Bible says "Bob stopped to feed his camels," then I don't turn that into metaphor unless I have good linguistic or contextual permission to do so.
And I apply scientific scrutiny to my beliefs every chance I get (The Miracles of Exodus is a wonderful book for those wanting a scientific explanation of the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea). I do not believe that God has to bend the laws of nature to get things done- but staying in those confines does not make anything any less of a miracle.
So can someone please give me an example of someone taking the Bible literally and how it's bad?
|
There is an argument that you would be picking and chosing if you deny consistency. Some fundamentalists feel the written word is verbatim, factual, and is not represented in metaphor.
The danger is not taking the Bible literally. How does one truly know when to do so or otherwise?
|
I have a degree in literature. I'm smart enough to know that when I read a book of poetry, it's infused with metaphor (and some literal meaning from time to time). When I read a newspaper, I'm smart enough to know it's mainly literal.
But in either case, I may find figurative language, idiom, and the like in a newspaper column. It's not denying consistency, it's recognizing the author's intent. That's common sense when you read anything.
|
It doesn't matter what your degree is in. Other readers will interpret various sections differently and in their eyes, their own opinion holds more value than yours, especially if you belong to a different branch of Christianity.
Throw in the element of vernacular and translation and you really have a complicated situation.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 07:41 |
StyLaZyn wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I'd like to ask, if I may, what it means to "take the Bible literally?" I hear that phrase tossed around a lot.
I ask because based on the context of what I've heard (not just here, but in conversation), I suspect people who say the Bible ought not be taken literally actually mean the Bible ought not be taken seriously.
I take the Bible literally when the context of the passage calls for it (most of the time). It's no different than how I treat any other piece of literature. If the Bible says "Bob stopped to feed his camels," then I don't turn that into metaphor unless I have good linguistic or contextual permission to do so.
And I apply scientific scrutiny to my beliefs every chance I get (The Miracles of Exodus is a wonderful book for those wanting a scientific explanation of the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea). I do not believe that God has to bend the laws of nature to get things done- but staying in those confines does not make anything any less of a miracle.
So can someone please give me an example of someone taking the Bible literally and how it's bad?
|
There is an argument that you would be picking and chosing if you deny consistency. Some fundamentalists feel the written word is verbatim, factual, and is not represented in metaphor.
The danger is not taking the Bible literally. How does one truly know when to do so or otherwise?
|
I have a degree in literature. I'm smart enough to know that when I read a book of poetry, it's infused with metaphor (and some literal meaning from time to time). When I read a newspaper, I'm smart enough to know it's mainly literal.
But in either case, I may find figurative language, idiom, and the like in a newspaper column. It's not denying consistency, it's recognizing the author's intent. That's common sense when you read anything.
|
It doesn't matter what your degree is in. Other readers will interpret various sections differently and in their eyes, their own opinion holds more value than yours, especially if you belong to a different branch of Christianity.
Throw in the element of vernacular and translation and you really have a complicated situation. |
So what? That's a matter of integrity. I've interpreted the Bible incorrectly many times, been convinced I was wrong, and changed my interpretation based on the new information. That's what any scholar with any integrity does.
Just because different viewpoints exists (and people sincerely believe in them) doesn't make any of them true. It also doesn't rule out that there may be only one correct viewpoint.
My point was this: If someone is new to English, and is reading a newspaper, and comes across this line: "That President Obama really takes the cake!" Does that person take it literally or as an idiom? How is he to know?
Or can he never know because any interpretation of that sentence is valid?
|
|
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 07:48 |
Epignosis wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I'd like to ask, if I may, what it means to "take the Bible literally?" I hear that phrase tossed around a lot.
I ask because based on the context of what I've heard (not just here, but in conversation), I suspect people who say the Bible ought not be taken literally actually mean the Bible ought not be taken seriously.
I take the Bible literally when the context of the passage calls for it (most of the time). It's no different than how I treat any other piece of literature. If the Bible says "Bob stopped to feed his camels," then I don't turn that into metaphor unless I have good linguistic or contextual permission to do so.
And I apply scientific scrutiny to my beliefs every chance I get (The Miracles of Exodus is a wonderful book for those wanting a scientific explanation of the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea). I do not believe that God has to bend the laws of nature to get things done- but staying in those confines does not make anything any less of a miracle.
So can someone please give me an example of someone taking the Bible literally and how it's bad?
|
There is an argument that you would be picking and chosing if you deny consistency. Some fundamentalists feel the written word is verbatim, factual, and is not represented in metaphor.
The danger is not taking the Bible literally. How does one truly know when to do so or otherwise?
|
I have a degree in literature. I'm smart enough to know that when I read a book of poetry, it's infused with metaphor (and some literal meaning from time to time). When I read a newspaper, I'm smart enough to know it's mainly literal.
But in either case, I may find figurative language, idiom, and the like in a newspaper column. It's not denying consistency, it's recognizing the author's intent. That's common sense when you read anything.
|
It doesn't matter what your degree is in. Other readers will interpret various sections differently and in their eyes, their own opinion holds more value than yours, especially if you belong to a different branch of Christianity.
Throw in the element of vernacular and translation and you really have a complicated situation. |
So what? That's a matter of integrity. I've interpreted the Bible incorrectly many times, been convinced I was wrong, and changed my interpretation based on the new information. That's what any scholar with any integrity does.
Just because different viewpoints exists (and people sincerely believe in them) doesn't make any of them true. It also doesn't rule out that there may be only one correct viewpoint.
My point was this: If someone is new to English, and is reading a newspaper, and comes across this line: "That President Obama really takes the cake!" Does that person take it literally or as an idiom? How is he to know?
Or can he never know because any interpretation of that sentence is valid?
|
You have just exhibited why it is dangerous and, partially, why we have different types of Christianity. It also indicates that the Bible was written by man and not God.
Edited by StyLaZyn - June 18 2009 at 07:48
|
|
|
|
progmetalhead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 15 2007
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 2081
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 08:03 |
Thanks for the Scientists link Robert.
No offence intended but the Dinosaur theory is almost as funny as Monty Python's Life Of Brian 
Noah only took the smallest dinosaurs on the Ark PMSL!! .....and the average size of a dinosaur is the size of a sheep!! Oh come on please!! ROFL!!
Obviously those cheating and lying archaeologists b' astards around the world have been fooling us all this time!
dinosaurs must have died after sin entered the world, not before. Dinosaur bones could not be millions of years old because Adam lived only thousands of years ago.
I couldn't make it up myself!
I gave up reading it shortly after I came across the same old situation whereby Believers pick and choose what facts they want to use and what to ignore to suit their own ends.  As per usual, nothing new there I'm afraid.
Honestly it is laughable and just re-inforces my own viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 08:03 |
StyLaZyn wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I'd like to ask, if I may, what it means to "take the Bible literally?" I hear that phrase tossed around a lot.
I ask because based on the context of what I've heard (not just here, but in conversation), I suspect people who say the Bible ought not be taken literally actually mean the Bible ought not be taken seriously.
I take the Bible literally when the context of the passage calls for it (most of the time). It's no different than how I treat any other piece of literature. If the Bible says "Bob stopped to feed his camels," then I don't turn that into metaphor unless I have good linguistic or contextual permission to do so.
And I apply scientific scrutiny to my beliefs every chance I get (The Miracles of Exodus is a wonderful book for those wanting a scientific explanation of the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea). I do not believe that God has to bend the laws of nature to get things done- but staying in those confines does not make anything any less of a miracle.
So can someone please give me an example of someone taking the Bible literally and how it's bad?
|
There is an argument that you would be picking and chosing if you deny consistency. Some fundamentalists feel the written word is verbatim, factual, and is not represented in metaphor.
The danger is not taking the Bible literally. How does one truly know when to do so or otherwise?
|
I have a degree in literature. I'm smart enough to know that when I read a book of poetry, it's infused with metaphor (and some literal meaning from time to time). When I read a newspaper, I'm smart enough to know it's mainly literal.
But in either case, I may find figurative language, idiom, and the like in a newspaper column. It's not denying consistency, it's recognizing the author's intent. That's common sense when you read anything.
|
It doesn't matter what your degree is in. Other readers will interpret various sections differently and in their eyes, their own opinion holds more value than yours, especially if you belong to a different branch of Christianity.
Throw in the element of vernacular and translation and you really have a complicated situation. |
So what? That's a matter of integrity. I've interpreted the Bible incorrectly many times, been convinced I was wrong, and changed my interpretation based on the new information. That's what any scholar with any integrity does.
Just because different viewpoints exists (and people sincerely believe in them) doesn't make any of them true. It also doesn't rule out that there may be only one correct viewpoint.
My point was this: If someone is new to English, and is reading a newspaper, and comes across this line: "That President Obama really takes the cake!" Does that person take it literally or as an idiom? How is he to know?
Or can he never know because any interpretation of that sentence is valid?
|
You have just exhibited why it is dangerous and, partially, why we have different types of Christianity. It also indicates that the Bible was written by man and not God.
|
Just because your assert something is true doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 08:10 |
progmetalhead wrote:
Thanks for the Scientists link Robert.
No offence intended but the Dinosaur theory is almost as funny as Monty Python's Life Of Brian
Noah only took the smallest dinosaurs on the Ark PMSL!! .....and the average size of a dinosaur is the size of a sheep!! Oh come on please!! ROFL!!
Obviously those cheating and lying archaeologists b' astards around the world have been fooling us all this time!
dinosaurs must have died after sin entered the world, not before. Dinosaur bones could not be millions of years old because Adam lived only thousands of years ago.
I couldn't make it up myself!
I gave up reading it shortly after I came across the same old situation whereby Believers pick and choose what facts they want to use and what to ignore to suit their own ends. As per usual, nothing new there I'm afraid.
Honestly it is laughable and just re-inforces my own viewpoint. |
Not saying I agree with them, just pointing them out.
|
|
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 08:18 |
Epignosis wrote:
Just because your assert something is true doesn't make it so.
|
Precisely.
|
|
|
|
progmetalhead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 15 2007
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 2081
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 08:18 |
Epignosis wrote:
progmetalhead wrote:
Thanks for the Scientists link Robert.
No offence intended but the Dinosaur theory is almost as funny as Monty Python's Life Of Brian
Noah only took the smallest dinosaurs on the Ark PMSL!! .....and the average size of a dinosaur is the size of a sheep!! Oh come on please!! ROFL!!
Obviously those cheating and lying archaeologists b' astards around the world have been fooling us all this time!
dinosaurs must have died after sin entered the world, not before. Dinosaur bones could not be millions of years old because Adam lived only thousands of years ago.
I couldn't make it up myself!
I gave up reading it shortly after I came across the same old situation whereby Believers pick and choose what facts they want to use and what to ignore to suit their own ends. As per usual, nothing new there I'm afraid.
Honestly it is laughable and just re-inforces my own viewpoint. |
Not saying I agree with them, just pointing them out.
|
Here we go again:
Believers pick and choose what facts they want to use and what to ignore to suit their own ends. As per usual, nothing new there I'm afraid.
but Robert its a christian website designed purely to help defend your beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 08:23 |
progmetalhead wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
progmetalhead wrote:
Thanks for the Scientists link Robert.
No offence intended but the Dinosaur theory is almost as funny as Monty Python's Life Of Brian
Noah only took the smallest dinosaurs on the Ark PMSL!! .....and the average size of a dinosaur is the size of a sheep!! Oh come on please!! ROFL!!
Obviously those cheating and lying archaeologists b' astards around the world have been fooling us all this time!
dinosaurs must have died after sin entered the world, not before. Dinosaur bones could not be millions of years old because Adam lived only thousands of years ago.
I couldn't make it up myself!
I gave up reading it shortly after I came across the same old situation whereby Believers pick and choose what facts they want to use and what to ignore to suit their own ends. As per usual, nothing new there I'm afraid.
Honestly it is laughable and just re-inforces my own viewpoint. |
Not saying I agree with them, just pointing them out.
|
Here we go again:
Believers pick and choose what facts they want to use and what to ignore to suit their own ends. As per usual, nothing new there I'm afraid.
but Robert its a christian website designed purely to help defend your beliefs.
|
Perhaps I'm being dense. Exactly what facts am I picking and choosing here?
Also, I never use a website to defend my beliefs. I've actually heard Ken Hamm (the head guy from that website) speak on two occasions. Both times, he said things I agreed with, and things I thought was bunk.
|
|
|
|
progmetalhead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 15 2007
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 2081
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 08:45 |
Robert I respect your wish to believe.
Any debate between ourselves will not alter anything.
You will continue to believe, I will not.
I would much rather retain our friendship on the site for music reasons only. I value your reviews immensely.  |
|
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 08:49 |
It's easy to sit and pick holes in the Bible (or any other book of apocryphal tales) but the one thing that is inescapable is that it has to be the word of man rather than the word of any God.
I genuinely mean no offence to believers, I consider them naive, but that is my opinion and worth no more than the opinion of anyone else on this forum or anywhere.
My biblical knowledge doesn't approach Steve's and it never will (basically 'cos I just ain't interested) but I really feel the whole Noah's Ark, rising up of Lazarus, loaves and fishes and the rising from the dead of Jesus just a little too far-fetched for me. Most kiddies are taught these at school (Sunday or mainstream, or both), and as they grow older, any belief in these tales has to die. Looking at the world around them, they don't see dead men walking, or 5,000 people being fed from the contents of a WalMart handbasket.
I am actually slightly jealous of true believers - they have a crutch in llife, something to relate to, even cling to, when I have nothing of the sort. But I am clear in my mind that although I am missing out on the things the believers revere and enjoy, the harsh reality must be that there is nothing for me to revere or enjoy in religion because I am a realist.
Edited by el dingo - June 18 2009 at 08:50
|
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 08:49 |
progmetalhead wrote:
Robert I respect your wish to believe.
Any debate between ourselves will not alter anything.
You will continue to believe, I will not.
I would much rather retain our friendship on the site for music reasons only. I value your reviews immensely. |
Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate that.  Expect several more today.
Edited by Epignosis - June 18 2009 at 08:49
|
|
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 09:02 |
el dingo wrote:
It's easy to sit and pick holes in the Bible (or any
other book of apocryphal tales) but the one thing that is inescapable
is that it has to be the word of man rather than the word of any God.
I genuinely mean no offence to believers, I consider them
naive, but that is my opinion and worth no more than the opinion of
anyone else on this forum or anywhere.
My biblical knowledge doesn't approach Steve's and it never will
(basically 'cos I just ain't interested) but I really feel the whole
Noah's Ark, rising up of Lazarus, loaves and fishes and the rising from
the dead of Jesus just a little too far-fetched for me. Most kiddies
are taught these at school (Sunday or mainstream, or both), and as they
grow older, any belief in these tales has to die. Looking at the world
around them, they don't see dead men walking, or 5,000 people being fed
from the contents of a WalMart handbasket.
I am actually slightly jealous of true believers - they have a
crutch in llife, something to relate to, even cling to, when I have
nothing of the sort. But I am clear in my mind that although I am
missing out on the things the believers revere and enjoy, the harsh
reality must be that there is nothing for me to revere or enjoy in
religion because I am a realist. |
I've already explained that being a believer is just as likely to be a
stone around your neck as it is a crutch from a psychological point of
view. Plenty of people commit suicide b/c they think they can never
measure up to their beliefs.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 10:20 |
Epignosis wrote:
There's lots of people yakking about how the world will end in 2012 because of a Mayan calendar. It's ridiculous, but it doesn't bother me.
|
Could you please explain to me why a jewish book written more than 2 millenium ago is any more believable than a Mayan calendar?
|
|
|
|
StyLaZyn
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 10:27 |
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
There's lots of people yakking about how the world will end in 2012 because of a Mayan calendar. It's ridiculous, but it doesn't bother me.
|
Could you please explain to me why a jewish book written more than 2 millenium ago is any more believable than a Mayan calendar? |
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 10:49 |
StyLaZyn wrote:
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
There's lots of people yakking about how the world will end in 2012 because of a Mayan calendar. It's ridiculous, but it doesn't bother me.
|
Could you please explain to me why a jewish book written more than 2 millenium ago is any more believable than a Mayan calendar? |
|
I'm not implying I believe the Mayan nonsense... but I can't grasp the reason why it is inherently more ridiculous than the book with the parting sea and the whale....
(Besides, all pre-colombine civilizations like the Mayans, the Incas and the Aztecas have been proven to have been quite accurate in terms of rudimentary astrology)
Oh wait! Maybe we shouldn't take the Mayans literally!  (if they had left us any texts, that is...)
Funny how no woman has even questioned how do you interpret "unliterally" the "fact" that they're supposed to have come from the rib of a man... From page 1 (or 3, whatever), women are just a mere off-shot of men.... What's the non-literal translation of this?
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: June 18 2009 at 10:57 |
el dingo wrote:
[
Give me the boy at the age of seven and I will give you the man.
Scary IMO, very scary.
|
This could only scare a person who doesn't want to understand what he said.
It's common to listen sports trainers or teachers say they rather teach small chidren, because when they receive teen agers, many of them are already full of bad habits and vices.
That's what Saint Ignatius said, only if he teaches a pupil since he's very young, he can be sure he's clean and ready to learn.
That's why Jesuits teach children only if they start with them in kindergarten, because some of the older teens are already corrupt, and that's something easy to prove.
BTW: Whoever thinks the Earth has only 6,000 years is trying to understand a metaphore literally, the word days (as we have said before) can be understood in many different ways, it was only used so the man of the Bronze age and before could understand that God created the universe in a determined period of time , but used the term days so it could be comprehended.
Hey, Christ taught at least 2 Millenniums later and still he used paraboles to be sure people understood him, how can you expect scientific terms in bromze age'
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 18 2009 at 15:52
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
