Biblical Literalism

[koan]

Admittedly I'm just reading the OT right now but, really, it's a load of bunk historically. Not necessarily bunk in deeper meaning but, historically ridiculous.

Leave aside the New Testament for a moment and lets just look at the OT. It's impossible to seriously read that narrative and not see the major plot holes and problems with literal interpretation. A fictional writer could have come up with something more consistent and that's talking fiction, being fabrication from the mind, doomed to plot holes because it ain't true. So... how does a book like the bible end up with so many obvious problems reading like a true story? Especially if it's literal.

And we'll also leave aside the parts of Genesis that were obviously records of events prior to any available witnesses.

[TruthBringer]

koan;1344910 wrote: Admittedly I'm just reading the OT right now but, really, it's a load of bunk historically. Not necessarily bunk in deeper meaning but, historically ridiculous.

Leave aside the New Testament for a moment and lets just look at the OT. It's impossible to seriously read that narrative and not see the major plot holes and problems with literal interpretation. A fictional writer could have come up with something more consistent and that's talking fiction, being fabrication from the mind, doomed to plot holes because it ain't true. So... how does a book like the bible end up with so many obvious problems reading like a true story? Especially if it's literal.

And we'll also leave aside the parts of Genesis that were obviously records of events prior to any available witnesses.


I take it you could saved the trouble by telling everyone the Bible is complete BS. Which of course is not true at all for myself but seriously that's all you would have needed to say regarding what you think about it. But you either believe in something Spiritual or you don't believe in anything Spiritual. That's just the way it is in Life Koan. The debate continues on possibly forever.

[Ahso!]

My take on this is evidence that most christians don't actually believe the bible story and that their main motivation for being religious is grouping. I see this as the why believers won't talk about the contents or merits of the bible, not because they can't be bothered, but because either they haven't actually read the thing or they can't defend it.

I recall the first time I read the OT, I was 20 years old and it made absolutely no sense to me, but I continued reading because I kept insisting to myself that I wanted and needed the religion, pure and simple.

[koan]

TruthBringer;1344920 wrote: But you either believe in something Spiritual or you don't believe in anything Spiritual.


That's exactly the problematic thinking I've been arguing against with atheists. It's not all or nothing. I consider myself very spiritual (not meaning hippy style new age groovy mellow... which I obviously am not) but it doesn't mean I have to believe the bible is a true story.

I'm not making a public announcement that the bible is not true,

I'm saying please tell me how you can believe this so I might be able to explain it to some atheists

[Ted]

Taking the Bible literally is the problem. It was not written to be taken literally. (The Rev. Dr. Rabbi Robert Daum of VST) As a history book it has far too many flaws. There is some historic basis for some of the stories. Many have also been embellished. A literal interpretation leads one into all kins of absurdities. The Bible contains ancient wisdom and is primarily a religious document. The best question should be "What did it mean at the time of writing? and "What does it mean for today?" The Bible is to be reinterpreted generation by generation not on the basis of ancient history. Daum, Borg, Crossan, Fox and a host of others.

Shalom

Ted

[Ted]

Truth comes in many forms not just historical reality. "Oliver Twist" which is fiction contains incredible amounts of truth based on historical events. Nevertheless the story itself is fiction.

Shalom

Ted

[koan]

It reads to me like some really great storytellers included, amidst their understanding of what God is and wants, a few stories to explain why they found a bunch of really big rocks in various places, why there is an ancient city in ruins that no one wants to rebuild, how they ended up where they are geographically, etc. I expect there to be a point where the narrative is speaking about more current events but until then it seems obvious that it's a collection of "how the leopard got its spots" stories.

[Ted]

koan

I think there is a lot of truth in what you said. They are giving their response to their understanding of reality and the Divine. Can you imagine taking acar back to the stone age. What kinds of stories would they dream up to explain that event? Like all stories there can be a deeper truth that takes a little thought or a lot of thought.

Shalom

Ted

[koan]

Any really good story is good because it says something about the eternal reality of being human. We like those stories because we can relate to them. I can certainly relate to what it would feel like to think God is on your side and want some sort of explanation as to why the wrong side got slaughtered. There seems to be a lot of eternal truths about the humans in the stories and doesn't require there be truth about what God did or didn't say to make them good stories or eternally true in the human aspect.

It doesn't require God to be literally the way God is described for the stories to retain meaning in other ways. I wonder if literalists are afraid that the bible will be smote if they admit it might be embellishing a bit. Midsummer Night's Dream does not require that fairies be real to prove that love is a rollercoaster.

[Ted]

koan

My personal view is if one accepts the reality of God, and I do, S/He or It is beyond human understanding and certainly beyond human language.

I sometimes wonder if the literalistic folks want absolute certainty in a very uncertain world. They need a contract signed sealed and delivered: Hence the Bible becomes inerrant. My interpretation is it shows a lack of trust in the Divine. The word faith comes from the Greek word "pistis" which does not mean right belief but trust. Where is the trust if you need the contract.

Shalom

Ted

[K.Snyder]

There is no such thing as "grouping", only an observation that leads people to assume a group. By default one only defines their self as within a "group" once they judge which is both theoretically and mathematically incorrect. The bible proves it by not assuming it's to be taken literally, the only difference between perspectives are those that find it fortuitous to believe everything they hear and read. Religion is not a peculiarity of ignorance

[Ahso!]

K.Snyder;1344988 wrote: There is no such thing as "grouping", only an observation that leads people to assume a group. By default one only defines their self as within a "group" once they judge which is both theoretically and mathematically incorrect. The bible proves it by not assuming it's to be taken literally, the only difference between perspectives are those that find it fortuitous to believe everything they hear and read. Religion is not a peculiarity of ignoranceThis may prove a waste of time but I'll gve it one shot.

http://web.missouri.edu/~ernstz/phil_bi ... ducing.pdf

David Sloan Wilson: Truth and Reconciliation for Group Selection XII: Multilevel Selection Theory, Salsa Style

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... Aw&cad=rja

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... BA&cad=rja

[LarsMac]

The subject of why people might follow, or join a religion is irrelevant to whether the Bible should be taken literal, I think.

Certainly the literal notion held by some religious fundamentalists seems ludicrous to most thinking people, though.

I have been reading the Bible most of my life. It has always been an inspiration to me. Every time I read through it, I learn something new.

However, to take the OT as a work of historical accuracy is a waste of time and spirit. (IMHO)

[K.Snyder]

Ahso!;1345000 wrote: This may prove a waste of time but I'll gve it one shot.

http://web.missouri.edu/~ernstz/phil_bi ... ducing.pdf

David Sloan Wilson: Truth and Reconciliation for Group Selection XII: Multilevel Selection Theory, Salsa Style

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... Aw&cad=rja

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... ad=rjaWhat do these links have to do with the conversation and moreover what is your argument?

[koan]

K.Snyder;1345042 wrote: What do these links have to do with the conversation and moreover what is your argument?


I believe it's addressing your claim that there is no such thing as group selection

eta: group selection/grouping/people being definable by groups

[K.Snyder]

koan;1345043 wrote: I believe it's addressing your claim that there is no such thing as group selection


Yes but one has to prove correct for it to be efficient, it's blatantly obvious there is no true definition of "grouping"

[koan]

not so blatant

[Ahso!]

I knew it would be a waste of time.

[gmc]

LarsMac;1345017 wrote: The subject of why people might follow, or join a religion is irrelevant to whether the Bible should be taken literal, I think.

Certainly the literal notion held by some religious fundamentalists seems ludicrous to most thinking people, though.

I have been reading the Bible most of my life. It has always been an inspiration to me. Every time I read through it, I learn something new.

However, to take the OT as a work of historical accuracy is a waste of time and spirit. (IMHO)


You can cross reference some of the events with the histories of other people, ramses tye second seems the best bet to be the pharoh of the exodus, the queen of sheba was perhaps a black african which may account for some of the prejudice, King solomon's mines were probably copper rather than gold. The sea port David built has been located there are records of the philstines asking for help against an invading tribe from the hittires - that tribe might have been the jews. Tin from britain was being traded around the mediterranean coast and there was trade with europe. There is evidence of world spanning fllod events and many undersea ruins have been found where legend said they were, not just in the med but in india and japan. If you stop thinking of the bible and the middles east as being the only place there was civilisation and intelligence existed and look at a wider context it is historically interesting. The literalists do it a great diservice.

The Philistines I

King Solomon's Mines Rediscovered?

King Solomon’s copper-and-gold palaces ‘may have existed’ (Reissue)

[K.Snyder]

koan;1345045 wrote: not so blatantSure it is...

Ahso!;1345051 wrote: I knew it would be a waste of time.No you didn't or you wouldn't have posted it...The obvious misinterpretation of "grouping"...

It's simple, no one joins a "group" to better the "group", it's all entirely an observation, much like evolution quite alot of "you" like to throw arond as if it were some sort of characteristic, while "grouping" is just quite simply one person that wishes to better their own personal agenda by exploiting the generosities of other individuals. The difference is that some do not logically extend not a coin to their own damn children while pi**ing and moaning about it at that while others have the empathy enough to give to charity, all entirely to benefit individuals, not some xenophobic view of "groups" that leave "you" people handicapped

[Richard Bell]

"The Bible says a lot of things."

Homer J. Simpson