The Bible was NEVER supposed to be taken literally

[typomaniac]

As anyone who has studied ancient literature knows, the style of communication in those days was much different (in every culture, not just the mideast).

The way the ancient Greeks defined literature was that it had to contain strong elements of both "mythos" and "logos." Mythos, of course, is where the word "myth" comes from, but the purpose of myths in those days was to convey some sort of deep meaning. Really just a way for people to make sense of what often seems like a chaotic life. Logos, by contrast, forms the root of our word "logic," and deals with practical considerations. The huge problem for religion today is that myth as a means of common communication has totally gone out of use. Now it's all based on logos.

What happens when you try to read the Bible without understanding its mythos?


...consider the Creation Story in Genesis. Why would anyone think that it is a factual account of creation and insist that it must be factually, scientifically correct, never mind the actual data? It is because people have become fooled into thinking that there is only one kind of truth and knowledge, that which derives from logos, and this leads them to conclude that if they were to admit that the account of creation in Genesis is terrible science, they would have to deny to the Bible any possibility of being true. But if the Bible is false in this case, the whole thing can be called into question.

Notice that there is an inverse to this conclusion that is no better, namely the denial of any validity whatever to the Genesis Creation Story since it is factually incorrect. Since there is only factual, logos-validity, this reasoning goes, and it is pretty clearly factually incorrect and not a scientifically supportable account, then it must be wrong-headed in every way, and we’re better off ignoring the whole thing. It’s the same mistake turned inside out.

Source (http://www.ussb.org/sermonwrit02-22-04mythosandlogos.html)

This is why Fundamentalism of all kinds works so poorly. Instead, all people need to recognize the myths in their faiths, and respect the myths in others.

[darin]

http://www.d-mphotos.com/images/darinshrug.gif



Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains:

*

Poetry—as in the Psalms, where the repetition or parallelism of ideas is in accordance with Hebrew ideas of poetry, without the rhyme (parallelism of sound) and metre (parallelism of time) that are important parts of traditional English poetry. This, by the way, is the reason why the Psalms can be translated into other languages and still retain most of their literary appeal and poetic piquancy, while the elements of rhyme and metre are usually lost when traditional Western poetry is translated into other languages.
*

Parables—as in many of the sayings of Jesus, such as the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3–23), which Jesus Himself clearly states to be a parable and about which He gives meanings for the various items, such as the seed and the soil.
*

Prophecy—as in the books of the last section of the Old Testament (Isaiah to Malachi).
*

Letters—as in the New Testament epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, and others.
*

Biography—as in the gospels.
*

Autobiography/testimony—as in the book of Acts where the author, Luke, after narrating the Apostle Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus as a historical fact (Acts 9:1–19), then describes two further occasions when Paul included this conversion experience as part of his own personal testimony (Acts 22:1–21; 26:1–22).
*

Authentic historical facts—as in the books of 1 and 2 Kings, etc.

Thus the author’s intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually quite clear from the style and the content. Who then was the author of Genesis, and what intention is revealed by his style and the content of what he wrote?
The author

The Lord Jesus Himself and the gospel writers said that the Law was given by Moses (Mark 10:3; Luke 24:27; John 1:17), and the uniform tradition of the Jewish scribes and early Christian fathers, and the conclusion of conservative scholars to the present day, is that Genesis was written by Moses. This does not preclude the possibility that Moses had access to patriarchal records, preserved by being written on clay tablets and handed down from father to son via the line of Adam–Seth–Noah–Shem–Abraham–Isaac–Jacob, etc., as there are 11 verses in Genesis which read, ‘These are the generations [Hebrew: toledoth = ‘origins’ or by extension ‘record of the origins’] of … .’1 As these statements all come after the events they describe, and the events recorded in each division all took place before rather than after the death of the individuals so named, they may very well be subscripts or closing signatures, i.e. colophons, rather than superscripts or headings. If this is so, the most likely explanation of them is that Adam, Noah, Shem, and the others each wrote down an account of the events which occurred in his lifetime, and Moses, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, selected and compiled these, along with his own comments, into the book we now know as Genesis2 (see also Did Moses really write Genesis?).

Chapters 12–50 of Genesis were very clearly written as authentic history, as they describe the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his 12 sons who were the ancestral heads of the 12 tribes of Israel. The Jewish people, from earliest biblical times to the present day, have always regarded this portion of Genesis as the true record of their nation’s history.

So what about the first 11 chapters of Genesis, which are our main concern, as these are the ones that have incurred the most criticism from modern scholars, scientists, and sceptics?
Genesis 1–11
Are any of these chapters poetry?

To answer this question we need to examine in a little more depth just what is involved in the parallelism of ideas that constitutes Hebrew poetry.

Let us consider Psalm 1:1, which reads as follows: ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.’ Here we see triple parallelism in the nouns and verbs used (reading downwards in the following scheme):
walketh counsel ungodly
standeth way sinners
sitteth seat scornful

As well as this overt parallelism, there is also a covert or subtle progression of meaning. In the first column, ‘walketh’ suggests short-term acquaintance, ‘standeth’ implies readiness to discuss, and ‘sitteth’ speaks of long-term involvement. In the second column, ‘counsel’ betokens general advice, ‘way’ indicates a chosen course of action, and ‘seat’ signifies a set condition of mind. In the third column, ‘ungodly’ describes the negatively wicked, ‘sinner’ characterizes the positively wicked, and ‘scornful’ portrays the contemptuously wicked.

Other types of Hebrew poetry include contrastive parallelism, as in Proverbs 27:6, ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful’, and completive parallelism, as in Psalm 46:1, ‘God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of need.’3.

And so we return to our question. Are any of the first 11 chapters of Genesis poetry?

Answer: No, because these chapters do not contain information or invocation in any of the forms of Hebrew poetry, in either overt or covert form, and because Hebrew scholars of substance are agreed that this is so (see below).

Note: There certainly is repetition in Genesis chapter 1, e.g. ‘And God said …’ occurs 10 times; ‘and God saw that it was good/very good’ seven times; ‘after his/their kind’ 10 times; ‘And the evening and the morning were the … day’ six times. However, these repetitions have none of the poetic forms discussed above; rather they are statements of fact and thus a record of what happened, and possibly for emphasis—to indicate the importance of the words repeated.
Are any of these chapters parables?

No, because when Jesus told a parable He either said it was a parable, or He introduced it with a simile, so making it plain to the hearers that it was a parable, as on the many occasions when He said, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like … .’ No such claim is made or style used by the author of Genesis 1–11.
Are any of these chapters prophecy?

Not in their full context, although two promises of God are prophetic in the sense that their fulfilment would be seen in the future. One of these is Genesis 3:15, which was the pronouncement by God to the serpent (Satan) in metaphorical form: ‘And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.’ (NASB). Many have interpreted the ‘seed’ in this verse as the Messiah, including most evangelicals and even the Jewish Targums4 hence the Talmudic expression ‘heels of the Messiah’5. The Messiah would suffer wounds to His feet (on the Cross), but would completely destroy Satan’s power. This verse also hints at the virginal conception, as the Messiah is called the seed of the woman, contrary to the normal biblical practice of naming the father rather than the mother of a child (cf. Genesis chapters 5 and 11, 1 Chronicles chapters 1–9, Matthew chapter 1, Luke 3:23–38).

The other is Genesis 8:21–22 and 9:11–17,

‘And the LORD said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake … and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.’



More. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp)

[Pale Rider]

How would a nonbeliever of no faith be able to tell believers how to take the Bible.

Kind of like a janitor lecturing about rocket science.

[glockmail]

How would a nonbeliever of no faith be able to tell believers how to take the Bible.

Kind of like a janitor lecturing about rocket science.
:lol:

[typomaniac]

How would a nonbeliever of no faith be able to tell believers how to take the Bible.

Kind of like a janitor lecturing about rocket science.

The essay about mythos and logos in religion is from Karen Armstrong's book Battle for God. Armstrong is an ex-nun.
:slap:

[glockmail]

U no y they call 'em nuns, right?

[Pale Rider]

Armstrong is an ex-nun.

Like I said... :slap:

[typomaniac]

:lame2:

By your "logic," I'm not able to tell you that Alice in Wonderland was a satire about the British government unless I actually believe the events in the book literally happened.

[Said1]

:lame2:

By your "logic," I'm not able to tell you that Alice in Wonderland was a satire about the British government unless I actually believe the events in the book literally happened.

They did. And if it happened to me, it could happen to you. suddenly. Without warning.

[PostmodernProphet]

As anyone who has studied ancient literature knows, the style of communication in those days was much different (in every culture, not just the mideast).


if you have in fact studied ancient literature, you should be aware that there is not ONE style of communication involved....the scriptures are an excellant example of that.....you have narrative, letters, poetry, apocrypha, proverbs. etc.......each with it's own style and characteristics......

personally, I think that what the Bible intends to communicate was intended to be taken literally, but there is a responsibility on the part of the reader to be intelligent about what that communication is.....

when Sanberg wrote "the fog crept in on little cat feet" he was communicating something about fog that he wanted taken literally, but it wasn't that fog had four legs....

there are those who say they take everything in the scriptures literally, but no one does......when it says the cattle on a thousand hills sing the praise of God, it isn't taken to mean that the cattle on Hill 1001 weren't singing....

that being said....use your brain when reading the scriptures.....

[Mr. P]

The Power of Myth.....Joseph Campbell

See it, regardless of your beliefs, it may change them.

[typomaniac]

The Power of Myth.....Joseph Campbell

See it, regardless of your beliefs, it may change them.

Read the book years ago. Very interesting and well thought out.

[bullypulpit]

How would a nonbeliever of no faith be able to tell believers how to take the Bible.

Kind of like a janitor lecturing about rocket science.

Rocket science...? Religion is not rocket science, which is based upon scientific principles. It is, however, a structure of allegory and mythology used to instill moral values in early societies.

[darin]

that being said....use your brain when reading the scriptures.....

Calling people to be responsible for what they read, and applying context and common-sense makes Scripture harder to ridicule for those whose hearts are hard, or are simply afraid of truth.

[bullypulpit]

if you have in fact studied ancient literature, you should be aware that there is not ONE style of communication involved....the scriptures are an excellant example of that.....you have narrative, letters, poetry, apocrypha, proverbs. etc.......each with it's own style and characteristics......

personally, I think that what the Bible intends to communicate was intended to be taken literally, but there is a responsibility on the part of the reader to be intelligent about what that communication is.....

when Sanberg wrote "the fog crept in on little cat feet" he was communicating something about fog that he wanted taken literally, but it wasn't that fog had four legs....

there are those who say they take everything in the scriptures literally, but no one does......when it says the cattle on a thousand hills sing the praise of God, it isn't taken to mean that the cattle on Hill 1001 weren't singing....

that being said....use your brain when reading the scriptures.....

Earlier societies understood the distinction between mythos and logos as presented in the Bible. With that understanding also cam the understanding that the Bible was allegorical in nature and not the literal truth at all.

With the Reformation and the new burgeoning of scientific inquiry, to this present day, mythos no longer maintains the equal footing it once had as logos has eclipsed it. Hence we see the attempts of religious fundamentalists of all stripes attempting to frame the allegory of their given doctrines into a strictly rational framework. But one may as well try to hold back the tides with one's hands. The subjective, internal experiences of a religion will not fit neatly into the boxes rationality and reason demand. We can attempt to describe religious experience, as was done in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran and other religious treatises, but given its subjective nature that description will be of a general and non-specific nature. The experiences with be unique to each individual.

[darin]

...hrm...but science POINTS to God; not away. Your conclusion, then, such as, the Iraq and science should be education such as.

[bullypulpit]

...hrm...but science POINTS to God; not away. Your conclusion, then, such as, the Iraq and science should be education such as.

Does it? As for your second sentence...wtf?

[darin]

Does it? As for your second sentence...wtf?

Absolutely. Science reveals God's hand in creation and the world around us. :)

As for the second sentence - you sucks at the interwebs. :)

[Kathianne]

...hrm...but science POINTS to God; not away. Your conclusion, then, such as, the Iraq and science should be education such as.

OT, sorry. I don't know about Jeff, but to me that is like the perfect sentence. Lots of commas, a couple of ellipsis and even a semicolon!

[bullypulpit]

D'OH! Junior Miss South Carolina.

[Mr. P]

So if science points to God, why do the fundys have such a problem with the theory of evolution?:poke:

[darin]

Because the theory is not plausible; not believeable. :)

[Missileman]

...hrm...but science POINTS to God; not away. Your conclusion, then, such as, the Iraq and science should be education such as.

The second part of your post makes more sense than the first. The study of all things natural would be the LAST thing to point to the supernatural. Unless, of course, you can link any science book...just one, that attributes a natural process, such as a chemical reaction, to divine intervention.

[PostmodernProphet]

With that understanding also cam the understanding that the Bible was allegorical in nature and not the literal truth at all.

while it is true that the allegories in scripture were allegorical in nature, they are only a part of scripture....quite clearly, for example, the epistles of Paul were not allegorical in nature, and except perhaps for the parables, neither were the gospels.....


on the other hand, it is true that there have always been those who did not take any part of the scriptures literally.....we generally refer to those people as 'unbelievers'.....

[PostmodernProphet]

why do the fundys have such a problem with the theory of evolution

I'm not sure myself....evolution does a fine job of explaining things within it's limits....such as describing how wolves became Chihuahaus......

[manu1959]

So if science points to God, why do the fundys have such a problem with the theory of evolution?:poke:

evolution is not creation

[bullypulpit]

?

[bullypulpit]

Because the theory is not plausible; not believeable. :)

Why not...? And be specific please. Provide links as well.

From having read both, several times, J.R.R. Tolkien's <i>The Silmarillion</i> presents as valid a cosmology as that presented in the Bible.

[darin]

Why not...? And be specific please. Provide links as well.


I'm not going to build your strawman. What's the point? Do I need links to 'prove' to you how VASTLY-IMPOSSIBLE the odds are that Macro-evolution really happened? What would that do?

SillyBully.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think anyone should tell others how or what to believe, believe whatever you want, just dont physically or verbally assault anyone.



How would a nonbeliever of no faith be able to tell believers how to take the Bible.

Kind of like a janitor lecturing about rocket science.

[bullypulpit]

I'm not going to build your strawman. What's the point? Do I need links to 'prove' to you how VASTLY-IMPOSSIBLE the odds are that Macro-evolution really happened? What would that do?

SillyBully.

The "creation science" folks are the one who have set up the straw man, particularly with the claims that evolution is "just a theory" and that it "hasn't been proven". Such claims reveal a fundamentally flawed understanding, if not utter ignorance (willful or not), of the scientific method and principles.

The conclusions arrived at through the use of the scientific method are tentative and cannot proven with absolute certainty. The conclusions arrived at by scientists are prefaced, whether explicitly or implicitly, by the idea that a given conclusion is true to the best of current knowledge. And this is where the commonly understood definition, used by creationists, diverges from the definition as used in the scientific world.

The commonly accepted definition of 'theory' that a given assertion may or may not be true...is unproven, is the one that creationists and creation scientists have glommed onto. Theories developed under scientific method start with gathering data...repeatably, independently verifiable data. The formation of a hypothesis is the next step in the process, the hypothesis is closest to the common understanding of what a theory is, but it's only one step in the process. The hypothesis is then examined in light of data, old and new, to see how well it conforms to the facts as they currently stand. If the data contradicts or negates the hypothesis, it must either be re-examined and retested or tossed in the round file and a new hypothesis formed. When a hypothesis has passed this verification by observed data, then, and only then, does it become a theory. The theory then becomes a source of new hypotheses and new observational data. If the theory continues to consistently and correctly explain this new information, it is then held to have a <i>high degree of reliability</i>. From this standpoint, a theory is not an unsubstantiated, random guess. Rather than mere supposition, it is a hypothesis which has been repeatedly and consistently confirmed by repeatably, independently verifiable observational data.

Creationism and creation"science" simply do not meet this muster.

[Pale Rider]

Rocket science...? Religion is not rocket science, which is based upon scientific principles. It is, however, a structure of allegory and mythology used to instill moral values in early societies.

Where did I lose you... because I didn't say it was.

Even if there are parts of Bible that someone could argue should not be taken literally, what does that matter? What's the point? How is whether or not it should be taken literally matter just so long as a Christian, that point gets acrossed?

I don't see any big reason for alarm.

[bullypulpit]

It would appear that 'dmp' has abandoned the field.

[Yurt]

bullypulpit;115951]The "creation science" folks are the one who have set up the straw man, particularly with the claims that evolution is "just a theory" and that it "hasn't been proven". Such claims reveal a fundamentally flawed understanding, if not utter ignorance (willful or not), of the scientific method and principles.

You are grasping for intellectual straws bully.

Before I get to the rest, has evolution been proven? Of course not.


The conclusions arrived at through the use of the scientific method are tentative and cannot proven with absolute certainty.

Yet, you take that proof over some words in a book. Your bias is so transparent you can't even see it. Creation can be proven using the same methods.



The conclusions arrived at by scientists are prefaced,

I know, with bias.


whether explicitly or implicitly, by the idea that a given conclusion is true to the best of current knowledge. And this is where the commonly understood definition, used by creationists, diverges from the definition as used in the scientific world.

LOOOOOOOOOOOL


The commonly accepted definition of 'theory' that a given assertion may or may not be true...is unproven

Prove "common" and you're kidding right? :laugh2:



Theories developed under scientific method start with gathering data...repeatably, independently verifiable data. The formation of a hypothesis is the next step in the process, the hypothesis is closest to the common understanding of what a theory is, but it's only one step in the process. The hypothesis is then examined in light of data, old and new, to see how well it conforms to the facts as they currently stand. If the data contradicts or negates the hypothesis, it must either be re-examined and retested or tossed in the round file and a new hypothesis formed. When a hypothesis has passed this verification by observed data, then, and only then, does it become a theory. The theory then becomes a source of new hypotheses and new observational data. If the theory continues to consistently and correctly explain this new information, it is then held to have a <i>high degree of reliability</i>. From this standpoint, a theory is not an unsubstantiated, random guess. Rather than mere supposition, it is a hypothesis which has been repeatedly and consistently confirmed by repeatably, independently verifiable observational data.

It is unproven :poke:



Creationism and creation"science" simply do not meet this muster.

What muster? Give me a break. Your "belief" is like mine, except you believe in men/woman who call themselves scientists.

[bullypulpit]

You are grasping for intellectual straws bully.

Before I get to the rest, has evolution been proven? Of course not.



Yet, you take that proof over some words in a book. Your bias is so transparent you can't even see it. Creation can be proven using the same methods.




I know, with bias.



LOOOOOOOOOOOL



Prove "common" and you're kidding right? :laugh2:




It is unproven :poke:




What muster? Give me a break. Your "belief" is like mine, except you believe in men/woman who call themselves scientists.

Your responses prove my point. The scientific method relies upon repeatably, independently verifiable, data, to gain knowledge of the world around us. "Creationism" and creation "science" rely upon nothing more than unverifiable, assertions based upon unsubstantiated belief in religious doctrine.

Your equivocation of science with religion utterly fallacious. The scientific method understands the limits of human perception and conception, understanding that we can be certain of something only to the extent of our quantifiable, verifiable knowledge about that something. As new knowledge is gained, our understanding of that something will also change. The absolute certainty advocated, and desperately desired, by creationists and creation "scientists" denies, ultimately, the possibility of any knowledge at all. Everything is known, and whatever lies beyond that is an act of God....Utterly mysterious and unknowable.

And this is the crux of the problem. That lack of absolute certainty fills those who crave it with a nameless dread. They do not accept that neither the world nor the universe are fixed or static. They are dynamic and changing, and that terrifies them. They want everything to be fixed...static...immutable...unchanging, whether they admit that to themselves or not. Never realizing that which is fixed...static...immutable...unchanging...is dead.

[bullypulpit]

It would appear that 'yurt' has abandoned the field.

[diuretic]

I simply don't get the opposition to (a) science and (b) the various scientific ideas about evolution and the development of life.

I would really like to know why some of us feel the need to quibble with or denigrate (a) and (b) above. I'm serious, not looking for a fight or anything stupid.

Science and scientific ideas shouldn't threaten anyone's religious beliefs. But.....I have to say those of us who use science and scientific ideas to bash those of us who profess religious beliefs are probably chucking fuel on the fire.

Having said that I have to admit I loathe those wild-eyed head cases who have such a literal view of the teachings of the Bible (Old Testament) that they profess that the Earth is only 6000 years old and kids had pet dinosaurs. I mean, give me a break. If you're of that opinion then fine, nothing I say will convince you otherwise, but don't whine if I jump on your head :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

I simply don't get the opposition to (a) science and (b) the various scientific ideas about evolution and the development of life.

I would really like to know why some of us feel the need to quibble with or denigrate (a) and (b) above. I'm serious, not looking for a fight or anything stupid.

Science and scientific ideas shouldn't threaten anyone's religious beliefs. But.....I have to say those of us who use science and scientific ideas to bash those of us who profess religious beliefs are probably chucking fuel on the fire.

Having said that I have to admit I loathe those wild-eyed head cases who have such a literal view of the teachings of the Bible (Old Testament) that they profess that the Earth is only 6000 years old and kids had pet dinosaurs. I mean, give me a break. If you're of that opinion then fine, nothing I say will convince you otherwise, but don't whine if I jump on your head :laugh2:

They don't, mine.

[diuretic]

They don't, mine.

And there's the power of a comma.

I used to mine. Opal. Bloody hard work too. But I was a lot younger. Didn't get much money out of it but it was fun, blowing walls of ironstone and sandstone with prilled ammonia and running up the ladder and hoping that the bloke who set the fuse had given us enough time to get out of the shaft.

Ah the things you do when you're young and bulletproof eh? :laugh2:

[gabosaurus]

Religion and The Bible are faith based. There is no single interpretation of God's Word.
The stories in the Bible are the telling and retelling of God's Word, collected through the ages. You believe it or you don't.