The Bible: Symbolic or Literal?

[david_x]

Why? What makes you think that the ancient Hebrews had such an ill-equiped mental capacity? Even sheep can comprehend shapes more complex the spheres.
Oh, and, they had birds back then. I think they could concieve of flight.

And one more thing: if they couldn't comprehend spheres, then why did they have a word for spheres?

Listening is an importent skill.

I never said anything about the hebrews not being able to understand the concept of a sphere. They did not understand the concept of a sherical earth. (If you need proof of that they were very cruel when people came up with therioes like that. Not the hebrews directly but other places other times.)

The thing about a sense of humour is that it only senses that which is humourous.

Well some senses of humar can find humar in about anything.

In what context is the Earth a disc?

Context of time.

 

[Fed]

Then Creation and Scripture disagree, no matter what context you choose: the former says the Earth is spherical, whilst the latter says it is circular.


For the record, my argument is against the literalist's stance. The 'cherry-pick what looks good' stance, while as indefensible as the literalist's stance, is at least immune to disproof.

Again, you're approaching the Bible from a modernist perspective. TE's are not cherry-picking what looks good. Ancient writers exaggerated, fudged, and used myths all the time (for example, the ages given in the Genesis genealogies are incredibly nonrandom). No one cared exactly how accurate the "facts" were. The focus was the moral truth. It's foolish to expect exact factual accuracy from the writers, no matter how inspired they were.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Listening is an importent skill.

Right...
Your point?

I never said anything about the hebrews not being able to understand the concept of a sphere. They did not understand the concept of a sherical earth. (If you need proof of that they were very cruel when people came up with therioes like that. Not the hebrews directly but other places other times.)

What makes you think they couldn't comprehend a spherical Earth?

Well some senses of humar can find humar in about anything.

And some people can spell. Takes all sorts, I guess.

Context of time.

Time isn't a context. Try again.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Again, you're approaching the Bible from a modernist perspective. TE's are not cherry-picking what looks good.

I never mentioned TE's, but they are cherry-picking: they arbitrarily label some sections as 'metaphorical', and keep the rest as literal.

Ancient writers exaggerated, fudged, and used myths all the time (for example, the ages given in the Genesis genealogies are incredibly nonrandom). No one cared exactly how accurate the "facts" were. The focus was the moral truth.

Though we agree that the fact/fiction ratio of the Bible is irrelevant, I'm curious: what parts do you consider to be factually accurate, and, if any, why?

It's foolish to expect exact factual accuracy from the writers, no matter how inspired they were.

Indeed, which is why I disagree with the literalist's stance.

 

[Fed]

I never mentioned TE's, but they are cherry-picking: they arbitrarily label some sections as 'metaphorical', and keep the rest as literal.


Though we agree that the fact/fiction ratio of the Bible is irrelevant, I'm curious: what parts do you consider to be factually accurate, and, if any, why?

I can't speak for all TE's, but I personally could care less exactly how much of the Bible was literal apart from the Resurrection. It doesn't affect my faith. A basic way to go about it is: things that have extrabiblical evidence, like some OT historical accounts, were literal (though could sometimes be exaggerated), things that contradict clear evidence were not (flood), and the rest is up for grabs. Making the Bible more or less literal doesn't matter to me - the message is the key.

I'm basically in the "I don't care how literal something is unless it contradicts evidence" category. Other TE's would agree but I can't speak for all.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can't speak for all TE's, but I personally could care less exactly how much of the Bible was literal apart from the Resurrection. It doesn't affect my faith. A basic way to go about it is: things that have extrabiblical evidence, like some OT historical accounts, were literal (though could sometimes be exaggerated), things that contradict clear evidence were not (flood), and the rest is up for grabs. Making the Bible more or less literal doesn't matter to me - the message is the key.

I'm basically in the "I don't care how literal something is unless it contradicts evidence" category. Other TE's would agree but I can't speak for all.

Fair enough.

 

[david_x]

What makes you think they couldn't comprehend a spherical Earth?

Maybe the torture that early people were treated by the people back then.

Time isn't a context. Try again.

Saying something way back then has a different meaning then saying it now. For example: screw. My parents generation took that word to mean sex. Were as my generation would take it to mean "I don't care" as in "screw you".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe the torture that early people were treated by the people back then.

You contradict yourself: if people were tortured for believing in a round Earth, then they must have been able to concieve of a round Earth.
That said, I have never heard of the ancient Hebrews torturing those who claimed they believe in a round Earth, nor do I believe that such an act suggests that the Hebrews were incapable of concieving a roud Earth.

Saying something way back then has a different meaning then saying it now. For example: screw. My parents generation took that word to mean sex. Were as my generation would take it to mean "I don't care" as in "screw you".

First, that is the context of culture (ironically, my culture and generation take the term 'screw' to mean 'sex'; we have much better phrases for 'screw you').
Second, you said that time was a context. It is not.
Third, a sphere, in any context, is still a sphere. A nebulous colloquialism it is not.

Let me put it another way: the ancient Hebrew's had a word that directly translates as 'sphere'. The word is used to describe the same concept that we describe when we use the word 'sphere'. Thus, the Hebrews were more than capable of comprehending spheres.
Thus, the only reason the Bible calls the Earth a circle is because those particular sections are wrong.

 

[david_x]

You contradict yourself: if people were tortured for believing in a round Earth, then they must have been able to concieve of a round Earth.
That said, I have never heard of the ancient Hebrews torturing those who claimed they believe in a round Earth, nor do I believe that such an act suggests that the Hebrews were incapable of concieving a roud Earth.

They were not open to the idea therefore unable to comprehend.

First, that is the context of culture (ironically, my culture and generation take the term 'screw' to mean 'sex'; we have much better phrases for 'screw you').
Second, you said that time was a context. It is not.
Third, a sphere, in any context, is still a sphere. A nebulous colloquialism it is not.

It would have been part of the culture back then, that was kinda my point.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They were not open to the idea therefore unable to comprehend.

The two are not synonymous. I cannot comprehend a square circle, but I'm sure as hell open to the idea.

It would have been part of the culture back then, that was kinda my point.

And my point is: so what? Whether their culture believed in flying pigs or not, doesn't justify the Bible mentioning flying pigs as if they were a reality.
My whole point is that the Bible makes a catagorically false statement: it says the Earth is disc-shaped. Why it says that is irrelevant; the fact that it says it, and it is wrong, is enough.
Like I said to Fed: my beef is with Literalists.

 

[david_x]

The two are not synonymous. I cannot comprehend a square circle, but I'm sure as hell open to the idea.

No, but not being open does blind you to the true way it is.

And my point is: so what? Whether their culture believed in flying pigs or not, doesn't justify the Bible mentioning flying pigs as if they were a reality.
My whole point is that the Bible makes a catagorically false statement: it says the Earth is disc-shaped. Why it says that is irrelevant; the fact that it says it, and it is wrong, is enough.
Like I said to Fed: my beef is with Literalists.

Why do you get the impression that that is the reality then?
No it does not say the earth is disk shaped, the bible said circle. (inheriently 2-D)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, but not being open does blind you to the true way it is.

No, it doesn't. A person who does not want to admit that the Earth is spherical can nontheless comprehend a spherical Earth. I, for example, can comprehend a circular Earth.

Why do you get the impression that that is the reality then?

Why do I think the Earth is spherical? Because I cannot see the Eiffel Tower with even the most power telescope and a clear view of the horizon.

No it does not say the earth is disk shaped, the bible said circle. (inheriently 2-D)

A disc is a circle in three-dimensional space.

 

[david_x]

No, it doesn't. A person who does not want to admit that the Earth is spherical can nontheless comprehend a spherical Earth. I, for example, can comprehend a circular Earth.

They simply would not have seen the earth is spherical.

Why do I think the Earth is spherical? Because I cannot see the Eiffel Tower with even the most power telescope and a clear view of the horizon.

No, i mean why do you think the bible says that like it's reality. As far as you know it's an expression.

A disc is a circle in three-dimensional space.

That is kinda what I said. Except that a circle can not exhist in a 3-D world.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They simply would not have seen the earth is spherical.

Yes, we've established that the ancient Hebrews did not believe that the Earth was spherical. However, this does not change the fact that it is, and that therefore their belief is false.
That it is written in the Bible is what I am interested in. To put it into proof format:

1) The Bible states that the Earth is a disc.
2) The Earth is not a disc.
3) Therefore, the Bible is at least partially incorrect.

Of course, (1) only holds under the literalist's stance, which is what I am arguing against.

No, i mean why do you think the bible says that like it's reality. As far as you know it's an expression.

As I have said four times now, I am only arguing against the literalist's stance. If someone want's to cherry-pick, fine. Such a position is as indefensible as the literalist's, but at least it's immune to disproof.

That is kinda what I said. Except that a circle can not exhist in a 3-D world.

Discs and circles are exactly the same thing; the difference in name is simply convention. A square is only a special kind of rectangle, after all.

 

[ludovica]

This is getting like a geometry lesson!

 

[david_x]

Yes, we've established that the ancient Hebrews did not believe that the Earth was spherical. However, this does not change the fact that it is, and that therefore their belief is false.
That it is written in the Bible is what I am interested in. To put it into proof format:

1) The Bible states that the Earth is a disc.
2) The Earth is not a disc.
3) Therefore, the Bible is at least partially incorrect.

Of course, (1) only holds under the literalist's stance, which is what I am arguing against.

Taking somthing out of conest of time and culture does not make it false in anyway. (or just culture depending how you want to look at it)

Discs and circles are exactly the same thing; the difference in name is simply convention. A square is only a special kind of rectangle, after all.

Yes but they are not comparable as far as one is on a third demention. To be honest the earth is not comparable to a sphere as it is in 4/4+ dementions. (depending on your stance with string theory)

 

[Fed]

String theory has nothing to do with the dimensions of the Earth. The Earth is an imperfect sphere (I think it's an oblate spheroid). Your allusion is completely irrelevant.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Taking somthing out of conest of time and culture does not make it false in anyway. (or just culture depending how you want to look at it)

As we have already discussed, the 'conest of time' is irrelevant here. I am arguing against the literalist's stance, and thus all that is required is the text itself. Why the Hebrew's chose to write what they did is irrelevant to the fact that the did write it.
In any event, the fact remains that the Bible, for whatever reason, at least partially contradicts reality when taken literally.

Yes but they are not comparable as far as one is on a third demention.

A circle with length is a cylinder, not a disc.

To be honest the earth is not comparable to a sphere as it is in 4/4+ dementions. (depending on your stance with string theory)

If the Bible called the Earth a sphere, then I wouldn't have a problem with that. It is a sphere, insofar as, to a high degree of accuracy, it is a solid volume defined by a central point equidistant from all points of it's surface area.

However, it is in no way a circle, even if we stretch 'circle' to include 'thin cylinder'.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

String theory has nothing to do with the dimensions of the Earth. The Earth is an imperfect sphere (I think it's an oblate spheroid). Your allusion is completely irrelevant.

I believe he is confused by the term dimension, believing that objects have length in all dimensions, including non-spacial ones.

 

[Fed]

Yeah he is. Time is not a spatial dimension, but the extra dimensions in string theory are, just curled up. Still, the shape of the Earth is, for all intents, an oblate spheroid. No use muddling up the discussion with string theory.