Seperating Metaphor from Literal Truth.

[Scotishfury09]

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Perversion is considered pathological and abnormal. The immorality talks about the acts and the perversion talks about the orientation.

You're right though, homosexuality is a broad topic and rightly deserves its own forum. It shouldn't be discussed here. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, I'm sorry I brought it up in the first place.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Jude 1:7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Perversion is considered pathological and abnormal. The immorality talks about the acts and the perversion talks about the orientation.

My Bible says "Fornication" for the part you bolded. How are you making the leap to homosexuality?

 

[Scotishfury09]

Being as prideful as I am I don't want to concede defeat, but I will on this just so we won't be discussing it anymore. Sorry.

 

[gluadys]

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

I believe that is talking about sexual orientation, is it not?

No. The sins named are "exchanging natural relations for unnatural", "abandoning natural relations" and becoming "inflamed with lust". Both the first two imply sexual acts. And while lust deals with desire rather than overt act, it is more than orientation. It is a mental and emotional act of visualizing intimacy with another person and deliberately encouraging that desire.

Lust is just as sinful when directed heterosexually, as Jesus pointed out in the case of a man lusting after another man's wife. In both cases one has the choice to indulge or not to indulge in lustful thinking. The difference in orientation does not mean one is unable to exercise mental and physical self-discipline or excused from the responsibility to do so.

I think the point I am getting at, and it applies to a lot of things besides the nature of one's sexuality, is that one cannot be a sinner on the basis of what one is, but only on the basis of what one does. That can be a fine line to draw when dealing with sinful thoughts, but it is still an important one. As an analogy, it appears that in some cases there is a genetic factor that pre-disposes people to alcoholism. Yet we would not say that having that genetic factor makes a person a sinner. Rather it is the act of permitting oneself to become drunk and dependent on alcohol. If person with that genetic trait takes the precaution of avoiding alcohol, then no sin is being committed, in spite of the genetic predisposition. Likewise, if a person tends to be attracted to the same sex, for whatever reason, but chooses to live a celibate life or in a heterosexual marriage, then what sin is being committed?

Anyway, I agree with scotishfury; that is probably enough discussion of this topic in this forum. It is usually a topic I avoid and I should have done so this time, too.

 

[busterdog]

Yes, it is not hard to understand at all.

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding." (Job 38:4 ESV)

"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion?" (Job 38:31 ESV)

Both verses are written by the same author,
in the same chapter,
have the same style,
form part of the same argument
in the same way (pointing out God's ineffable power),
within the same cultural context.

The only real difference is that
a literal interpretation of the former doesn't make sense with science, while
a literal interpretation of the latter does make sense with science.

Here's a good thought experiment. Suppose that incontrovertible evidence for esoteric cosmological theories is found. As a result, scientists make two groundbreaking discoveries: the earth is actually anchored in 11-dimensional space with tenuous but rock-solid tendrils of fundamental strings; and the Pleiades are actually not a gravitationally-collected cluster of stars, but happen to all be visually in the same corner of the sky, and there is no systematic pattern of motion to them - some are staying still, some are being attracted, and some are flying apart.

Wouldn't you then say that
the Bible indeed literally predicted that the Earth has foundations, and
the Bible only metaphorically spoke of binding the chains of Pleiades?

In isolation, the Pleides comment is not convincing to me, but merely interesting. That is, I don't think the text is sufficient to prove that the author was referring to gravity at all. It could well be a metaphor related to its appearance to the naked eye. Sorry, but I thought I said that.

I did suggest that adding together a number of different witnesses on different subjects makes the case for scientific knowledge in the Bible.

If one were to suspect a Biblical author of geocentrism based upon the plain text, there would be grounds for suspicion, but I think on closer examination it is clear that there is insufficient evidence to convict.

To use the criminal analogy, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is a sensible approach to scripture as well. I mean, we are talking about the Holy Spirit, no?

If one asks, is the Bible guilty of ignorance about geocentrism? The answer is presumptively no.

If one asks, is the Bible innocent of ignorance about the nature of the Pleides? The answer is presumptively yes.

As such, I have two different answers, but the questions are quite different. So, I think this remains a consistent hermeneutic.

But, I think I am clear in saying that the Pleides benefits from a presumption only -- if we confine ourselves to analyzing this text in isolation. It is not convining proof of "innocence" to me.

 

[shernren]

If one were to suspect a Biblical author of geocentrism based upon the plain text, there would be grounds for suspicion, but I think on closer examination it is clear that there is insufficient evidence to convict.

To use the criminal analogy, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is a sensible approach to scripture as well. I mean, we are talking about the Holy Spirit, no?

If one asks, is the Bible guilty of ignorance about geocentrism? The answer is presumptively no.

So you start by assuming that the writers of the Bible were not actually geocentrists. I can see how that would help in concluding that they weren't!

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Yay! Let's bow down to the world's views for everything.

If modern science confirms that homosexuality isn't a choice we should go with it, no matter what Romans 1:26-27 says!

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

This is such a terribly bad example.

Lets say science proves that homosexuality isn't a choice and that there is some sort of gay gene.

Why would this make us 'bow down' and abandon the claim that homosexuality is sinful?

Indeed, it would only make us abandon that claim if Christians thought that naturally-born conditions are universally good- which we don't, believe we believe in original sin!

If science establishes that homosexuality is a genetic condition, that means absolutely nothing in terms of biblical exegesis and Christian ethics.

We dismantled the geocentrism straw man, step by step, with sound literary rules.

No you didn't. You simply transfered contemporary non-geocentric connotations of 'sunrise' and 'sunset' onto an ancient text and completely ignored its largely geocentric setting.

That's not sound literary analysis. That's just blatant disregard for any honest rules of exegesis.

 

[Gwenyfur]

 

[laptoppop]

So you start by assuming that the writers of the Bible were not actually geocentrists. I can see how that would help in concluding that they weren't!

No, we start by assuming that the Scriptures are God's message, not man's message. Just as future-telling prophecies demonstrate, the Scriptures are not limited to the knowledge and even scientific worldview of the people used to communicate the message.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

No, we start by assuming that the Scriptures are God's message, not man's message.

But you don't only assume that. You assume that the Scriptures are inspired in every word, not only in every concept. Where the human authors robots? Are their words not their words?

Basically you're assuming verbal inspiration as well as conceptual inspiration, and that's an assumption I see no reason to make.

I of course assume that God inspired the author of Joshua to write an account of the long day and their victory over the Amalikites. But I don't assume that God inspired the author of Joshua to use those specific words. I assume that those specific words came, from, well, the author- and since they came from an ancient author, I just figure that the ancient author was recording a true, factual, divine event in the language of the ancient Near East- with all the cosmological implications.

 

[busterdog]

So you start by assuming that the writers of the Bible were not actually geocentrists. I can see how that would help in concluding that they weren't!

From time to time we dispute the importance of training.

I understand standards of proof and the nature of presumptions quite well. However, all these arguments are getting nowhere. You don't understand what I am writing.

Presumed innocence is not the same as proven innocence. I will say it again, I am not assuming that innocence is proven - - at least not on the basis of textual analysis itself. Taking the body of Scripture together, I have a numbef faith based conclusions. But, this text on its face does not do for me what you say it is doing..

Do you have a better starting place? What assumption do you start with? Presumed innoence or presumed guilt, presumed error or presumed accuracy? If you say have no presumptions at all, the we have at least eliminated presumed error and we must submit the text to a standard of proof. At that point you and I are close to being in agreement, though I can't understand why you resist me on that point.

That is where the case fails. The charge of error just fails to meet a standard of proof to prove geocentrism. And what are we left with then? Well, at least we have no conclusion of error. And, what is the absence of proven error?

 

[busterdog]

No, we start by assuming that the Scriptures are God's message, not man's message. Just as future-telling prophecies demonstrate, the Scriptures are not limited to the knowledge and even scientific worldview of the people used to communicate the message.

And for the record, I agree with that very strongly.

However, if we are looking for the text to validate itself and if we take it isolation, we eliminate our beliefs to determine what the text does by itself and in isolation. We have made many claims about the surface text, I think they all check quite well. That is the point of my exercise -- to show that the claim of geocentrism is prejudice pure and simple, because there is no rational standard of proof that allows that conclusion to be forced on the text.

People question the assumptions of YECs. Well, that is fine. If we are to remove assumptions, then we need to determine what the text is saying of itself. I really am coming to believe that the TEs posting here do not have a way to just read the text according to its own terms. It all has to be in reference apparently to someone's historical anaylsis or scientific paradigm. Are the TEs suggesting that the text, even on its own terms, testifies to geocentrism? I think they are. And that is a baseless misuse of the text and it is a reading that follows no rational rules, except those that must be imported from the consensus of scientists and academic historians based on their studies of things other than Scripture. I have yet to see another rational basis offered.

 

[shernren]

You don't understand what I am writing.

Because if we did, we would agree with you, right? Wonderful little dodge.

That is where the case fails. The charge of error just fails to meet a standard of proof to prove geocentrism. And what are we left with then? Well, at least we have no conclusion of error. And, what is the absence of proven error?

Hmm, I think it would be interesting to note that Genesis 1 itself is geocentric in perspective. Interested to hear that?

 

[gluadys]

We have made many claims about the surface text, I think they all check quite well. That is the point of my exercise -- to show that the claim of geocentrism is prejudice pure and simple, because there is no rational standard of proof that allows that conclusion to be forced on the text.

Are the TEs suggesting that the text, even on its own terms, testifies to geocentrism?

To the second question, I would answer "yes". I don't think geocentrism needs to be forced onto the biblical text. I think that is the most natural reading of the surface text, and read in isolation from any other source of knowledge about the relationships of the bodies in the universe to each other, any person seeking to develop a cosmology from the biblical text will develop a flat-earth geocentric cosmology.

That is even more the case if we do draw from history and look at the cultural and linguistic context in which the texts were written. But I would say the historical context only strengthens the most natural reading of the surface text. I see no reason why this reading would be questioned unless and until there is extra-biblical information to raise questions about it.

Now does this mean the bible is in error? Not necessarily. It would be in error if it specifically taught a geo-centric perspective. But it is not the purpose of the scriptures to teach cosmology*. It is more accurate to say the biblical authors give every evidence of assuming the ancient cosmology to be accurate than to say they were teaching it as something important to be believed.

Or one could say, that even if they were gifted with more accurate knowledge, they chose to express their theological points using the standard cosmological understanding of their time. Rather as John Milton chose to situate his Paradise Lost in a Ptolomaic cosmos even though he was aware of the Copernican hypothesis, because (as he explains in his introduction) it is the Ptolomaic cosmos that is most familiar to his readers.

*As Galileo famously said, the purpose of scripture is to tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

 

[busterdog]

Because if we did, we would agree with you, right? Wonderful little dodge.



Hmm, I think it would be interesting to note that Genesis 1 itself is geocentric in perspective. Interested to hear that?

Fine.

Then articulate a standard of proof and how the rules work. Do you start with an assumption? Where does it come from? Remember that you can assign this language as idiom, metaphor or to a worldview. Can you make that judgment without appealing to academic consensus about how people thought at the time or can you confine your self to the four corners of the text?

As for Gen. 1 being geocentric, frankly I would rather not.

 

[busterdog]

To the second question, I would answer "yes". I don't think geocentrism needs to be forced onto the biblical text. I think that is the most natural reading of the surface text, and read in isolation from any other source of knowledge about the relationships of the bodies in the universe to each other, any person seeking to develop a cosmology from the biblical text will develop a flat-earth geocentric cosmology.

Then the text also affirms a belief in six days of creation and in a God who actually descends on a mountain and writes on rocks.

And the text would also affirm a God with big enough hands to literaly hold entire weather systems.

Or you can make the distinction on the basis of science, which doesn't need a lot of debate, once we establish that this the basis for your interpretation. Or we can do it on the basis of what the text says and how it tells you when we have metaphor and when we have literal truth. I am hearing you say that I should accept the intent of these flat earth passages as literal intent, but when we start talking about the age of the earth, the rule is different for no reason I can perceive -- unless it is just a matter of scientific supremacy.

 

[shernren]

Then articulate a standard of proof and how the rules work.

Quite simple really. By your rules the presence of metaphor in text makes the whole text metaphorical, and thus the text cannot be taken to be a literal description of the physical world. Now Genesis 1 has a whole lot of metaphor, and by your own standards thus cannot be a literal description of the physical world.

As for Gen. 1 being geocentric, frankly I would rather not.

Why not? Let's start with Genesis 1:2. Why is it that only the earth is formless and void? Shouldn't the heavens be formless and void as well?

 

[gluadys]

Then the text also affirms a belief in six days of creation and in a God who actually descends on a mountain and writes on rocks.

And the text would also affirm a God with big enough hands to literaly hold entire weather systems.

No, I said that the text does not teach geo-centrism; it assumes it. Or the author chooses to use that perspective as an accommodation to his audience. Neither of these would be as strong as an affirmation of geo-centrism.

In the case of the other examples you mention, I think there is even less of a textual case to be made for accepting the surface text as the primal meaning of the text.

Who knows whether anthropomorphic texts were ever understood literally? But it was the theological perception of the pure spiritual nature of God--not any scientific discovery--that led to all anthropomorphic language being understood as metaphor. That would apply as much to God speaking in Genesis 1 as to references to God's hands, arms, eyes, wings, etc. And, of course, to the finger God allegedly used to write on a rock.

Or you can make the distinction on the basis of science, which doesn't need a lot of debate, once we establish that this the basis for your interpretation.

I think science comes into play only in the case of the geocentric language, because it seems to be the only reason to reject a literal reading of these passages.

For the others, I think there are good and sufficient reasons to justify a non-literal reading of these texts on theological grounds without an appeal to science.

What I do not think is justified is to reject science to save a literal reading in one instance, yet appeal to science to save a non-literal reading in another instance. There is no consistency in rejecting science to save a literal reading of 6-day creation or a global flood, yet appealing to science to reject a literal reading of a geocentric cosmos.

I am hearing you say that I should accept the intent of these flat earth passages as literal intent, but when we start talking about the age of the earth, the rule is different for no reason I can perceive -- unless it is just a matter of scientific supremacy.

Historically, the case for anthropomorphisms being metaphors and not literal descriptions of a physical divine being was a theological one. A Being of pure spirit, as God is or came to be perceived to be, simply does not have a body and all references to a body are therefore metaphors designed to help us understand the incomprehensible acts of God after the manner we understand our own actions.

Similarly, the case for a non-literal understanding of the Genesis days of creation was first advanced for theological reasons, long before there was any science to appeal to. Those reasons still apply.

Ironically, it is the geocentric passages which offer no reason not to be understood with literal intent except through an appeal to science. They tend to appear in a larger context in praise of creation and its Creator, as sort of incidental asides to the main theme. (And that is why I say the writers assume geocentrism rather than teach it.) Because they are not central to the theological point, but only a way of expressing it within the contemporary cosmological paradigm, there is all the more reason to conclude that the writers and their audience would understand them as referring literally to actual cosmic structures.

Certainly they continued to be understood in a literal sense, even by very well educated and astute philosophers and theologians right up to the publication of Copernicus' thesis. Yet these same philosophers and theologians would have scorned taking an anthropomorphism literally and may have debated to what extent the six days of creation could be understood literally.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.

I believe that is talking about sexual orientation, is it not?

I would say no, first, it is said that this is not natural for them, it implies that these were married men and women, confirmed heterosexuals if you wish..

Who is Paul addressing here? The Greeks and Romans.

This thing he is talking about was a common practice among those societies. Young men were taken into their field of study by mentors, whether it be army, or a trade, and as a form of showing dominance, their mentors would use them sexually. This also happened to the women.

This same thing can be seen today in prison, athletic teams, the military, anywhere you have single sex communities and a strict social hierarchy.

When the people, then and now, get out of these situations, they revert back to their natural state of sexuality.

This is about an entire culture gone bad, about social ranking being used to do horrible things, not about any natural sexual preference.

 

[busterdog]

Quite simple really. By your rules the presence of metaphor in text makes the whole text metaphorical, and thus the text cannot be taken to be a literal description of the physical world. Now Genesis 1 has a whole lot of metaphor, and by your own standards thus cannot be a literal description of the physical world.



Why not? Let's start with Genesis 1:2. Why is it that only the earth is formless and void? Shouldn't the heavens be formless and void as well?

I am frankly pretty happy with the breakdown for seperating metaphor from literal truth, though the writing is candidly not the best at all. I am not seeing another set of rules, nor much use of the language of textual criticism, which makes me think I am just not connecting with other readers. I could go back through it and re-write, which would take a while, but crappy writing isn't the best foundation upon which to build an argument such as mine.

The various passages define their intent and data set. The metaphors follow within those parameters. No textual critical rule allows those metaphors to overtake and obscure the defined subject matter. This is a fancy way of defining what the subject matter is.

As for Gen. 1, if you provoke me, you already know I won't be able to stop myself.

I will take a little time this weekend and boil it down.