At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2014, 05:55 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(15-06-2014 05:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 05:35 PM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  It's all literal until someone discovers a flaw. Then it's a parable.

I personally do not hold that view which is obviously a strawman of the position apologists have regarding biblical interpretation.

To be honest, hermeneutics, specifically regarding the Bible is not something that is to taken lightly or flippantly by those who believe it to be the Word of God because those who believe it to be so will also believe that they will be personally held accountable for how they interpret it and how they teach it.

Awww. That must be a terrible burden for you.

The color of Arrogant Martyr really doesn't suit you. May I suggest something in the line of Vamoose?

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thinkerbelle's post
15-06-2014, 05:56 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(15-06-2014 05:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Funnily enough, it is a distinct minority of global Christians who claim a Bible of sixty six books.

But I guess your personal subjective feels are good enough reason to disagree with their equally fervent personal subjective experiences?

Because we all know that's compelling.

I have good reasons for asserting that the literature found in the apocrypha is not inspired by God and therefore not canonical.

Of course that is immaterial to the subject of this thread and thus would be a red herring which I will not bother to address unless you would like to start a separate thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 05:57 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(15-06-2014 05:55 PM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 05:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I personally do not hold that view which is obviously a strawman of the position apologists have regarding biblical interpretation.

To be honest, hermeneutics, specifically regarding the Bible is not something that is to taken lightly or flippantly by those who believe it to be the Word of God because those who believe it to be so will also believe that they will be personally held accountable for how they interpret it and how they teach it.

Awww. That must be a terrible burden for you.

The color of Arrogant Martyr really doesn't suit you. May I suggest something in the line of Vamoose?

Not terrible at all. A burden? Yes. But I do not bear it alone but rather do so joyfully with Christ's guidance and strength.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 06:18 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(15-06-2014 05:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 05:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Funnily enough, it is a distinct minority of global Christians who claim a Bible of sixty six books.

But I guess your personal subjective feels are good enough reason to disagree with their equally fervent personal subjective experiences?

Because we all know that's compelling.

I have good reasons for asserting that the literature found in the apocrypha is not inspired by God and therefore not canonical.

And many millions of people have good reasons for asserting the contrary.

It's a feels-off, and your particular breed of delusion is anything but any more compelling than theirs.

(15-06-2014 05:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Of course that is immaterial to the subject of this thread and thus would be a red herring which I will not bother to address unless you would like to start a separate thread.

"What parts of the Bible should be taken literally?" leads inevitably to the question of "what are the parts of the Bible?"; it's cute that you think you know what 'red herring' means, but it's anything but.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
15-06-2014, 06:22 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2014 06:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
Germey (AKA "The Clown") Wanker has demonstrated over and over he knows next to nothing about the Bible. What he knows comes ONLY from Fundies, and STILL provides no references. None.

In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 13 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period (1850's -1950's) and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each other's names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars.

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they cannot be accepted in detail as they stand."

He then continues by discussing the details of what a "faith document" is and how it differs from what we would consider an historical text today. The next chapter, authored by Dr. Arthur Jeffrey, Professor of Semitic Languages at Columbia, deals with the formation of the Old Testament canon. He wrote what is seen as the fundamental insight in modern Biblical Study and summarized the central academic position of every mainline, respected, and credible center of Biblical scholarship in the world today :

"Historians can merely state that a canon of scripture is not something given, but something humanly devised. From the historical point of view, the canon is the result of human decision as to which among the religious writing existing in a community are those in which it recognizes the authentic voice of religious authority speaking to man."


From : http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-Look

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-06-2014, 06:27 PM
RE:
As far as I know, the Catholic Church has never taken it literally.

That's why they kept it locked away from the public for so long. The priests just parroted church doctrine and were like "Don't worry, we'll tell you what God says. Trust us..." Evil_monster

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Can_of_Beans's post
15-06-2014, 06:41 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2014 07:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(15-06-2014 06:18 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 05:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have good reasons for asserting that the literature found in the apocrypha is not inspired by God and therefore not canonical.

And many millions of people have good reasons for asserting the contrary.

It's a feels-off, and your particular breed of delusion is anything but any more compelling than theirs.

(15-06-2014 05:56 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Of course that is immaterial to the subject of this thread and thus would be a red herring which I will not bother to address unless you would like to start a separate thread.

"What parts of the Bible should be taken literally?" leads inevitably to the question of "what are the parts of the Bible?"; it's cute that you think you know what 'red herring' means, but it's anything but.

"Inspired" was never the criteria or ever even entered the debate when humans non-unanimously VOTED on inclusion/exclusion from the canon.
More proof Wanker has not a clue what's he's on about.
When 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness") was written, there was no canon. Therefore we know the all "holy/religious" writing was considered "inspired", not just what was to become canonical.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-06-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(15-06-2014 06:27 PM)Can_of_Beans Wrote:  As far as I know, the Catholic Church has never taken it literally.

That's why they kept it locked away from the public for so long. The priests just parroted church doctrine and were like "Don't worry, we'll tell you what God says. Trust us..." Evil_monster

While not entirely untrue, that's a very easy matter to overstate (like, say, persecution of "witches" - pop conceptions of such tend to draw from the [in absolutely no way historical] wiccan view; it was the radical protestants who executed the most practitioners of "witchcraft" [still not very many], and hanging was by far preferred to immolation, but that's not really what I'm getting at in any case).

The church hierarchy certainly distrusted vernacular translations, but that's not the same thing. In the middle ages, anyone literate could read Latin anyway.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2014, 07:02 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
When skeptics tore the bible apart so much with logic that the only way to keep it around is to make sure all the bullshit is not literal.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Metazoa Zeke's post
15-06-2014, 08:34 PM
RE: At What Point Did Christians Decide That The Bible Isn't Meant To Be Taken Literally?
(15-06-2014 05:43 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(15-06-2014 05:15 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  " If it contradicts anything, does not make sense, or is an obviously evil act. It is up to the Christian to cherry pick that out and make it into a metaphor so they can "double pick" everything by claiming the entire bible is a metaphor and pick out what is not a metaphor out from what they DO really like"

That is what I get from all that.

And you would be wrong if that was your interpretation of why those literary forms were listed.

Those literary forms were listed to show you that the Bible is not one book that is read either literally or figuratively.

It is a collection of sixty six different literary works. Within each work, there are further variations in genre, writing style, form, etc. etc.

Now if you have a specific scripture in mind that you would like me to engage, then simply provide it WITH the context and I can tell you whether it is to be taken literally or not.

Deuteronomy 22:29 Wrote:…28"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

How is this to be interpreted?

Quote:When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Is this literal?

Deuteronomy 2:34 Wrote:And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain.

What is the figurative language in this passage?

Quote:“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Quote:“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

Quote:“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

Quote:“And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, ‘If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord’s, to be offered up by me as a burnt-offering.’ Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her. When he saw her, he tore his clothes, and said, ‘Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low; you have become the cause of great trouble to me. For I have opened my mouth to the Lord, and I cannot take back my vow.’” (Judges 11:30-1, 34-5)

Quote: “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.” (Ephesians 5:22)

Quote: “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

Up until this point you have refused to address scripture, or danced around the topic. Seeing as how I have been trying to find a satisfying answer to these questions for years, I am eagerly awaiting your response.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: