The Bible: Symbolic or Literal?

[DMagoh]

I guess evolution took one on the chin today. Fossils now show that the "ape-man" that man supposedly evolved from really co-existed with man.

A lot of people put their faith in science, yet science continually proves itself to be wrong. Things that you accept as fact for years, all of sudden comes crumbling down. That fossil really isnt man's grandmother, it's really his sister. Wonder what else science is wrong about? Some people are betting eternity on a discipline that constantly has to regroup and say, "Ooops, guess we were wrong. So now we think it happened this way...."

 

[Fed]

I guess evolution took one on the chin today. Fossils now show that the "ape-man" that man supposedly evolved from really co-existed with man.

A lot of people put their faith in science, yet science continually proves itself to be wrong. Things that you accept as fact for years, all of sudden comes crumbling down. That fossil really isnt man's grandmother, it's really his sister. Wonder what else science is wrong about? Some people are betting eternity on a discipline that constantly has to regroup and say, "Ooops, guess we were wrong. So now we think it happened this way...."

LOL. Nice logic there:

1. Science corrects itself.
2. Therefore, science is not trustworthy.

Not to mention a complete butchering of what the article actually said.

 

[Dannager]

You seem to have an incredible amount of faith. Why do you choose to put it on shifting sand of science?

Because science corrects itself when it's shown to be wrong.

Fundamentalist religion never corrects itself, because it repeats "We can't be wrong," over and over and over and over and...

 

[Dannager]

Somthing like that, but something impossible like that is not even worth considering as it takes more faith than just thinking that God made it that way.

But clearly you've already considered it, or else you could not have come to the conclusion that it is impossible.

Or did you come to the conclusion that it's impossible without considering it?

 

[Brennin]

Hey look everyone! We have finally found "The One" who knows all about scripture! We can quit discussing and debating now! Let's see if we can get a moderator to start a specific subforum where artybloke can just share his wisdom with us.

Consider the source; he also believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Scripture is a-okay with homosexual acts between consenting adults.

 

[Brennin]

I guess evolution took one on the chin today. Fossils now show that the "ape-man" that man supposedly evolved from really co-existed with man.

A lot of people put their faith in science, yet science continually proves itself to be wrong. Things that you accept as fact for years, all of sudden comes crumbling down. That fossil really isnt man's grandmother, it's really his sister. Wonder what else science is wrong about? Some people are betting eternity on a discipline that constantly has to regroup and say, "Ooops, guess we were wrong. So now we think it happened this way...."

I think you are justified in rejecting the hypothesized common descent of apes and humans, but not that the earth is billions of years old, if that is indeed the case with you.

 

[artybloke]

Consider the source; he also believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Scripture is a-okay with homosexual acts between consenting adults.

Unlike you, who believes, contrary to all the evidence of context and history and language, that the Bible is against homosexuality.

Not surprising really. Fundagelicals all think they own the Bible and are entitled to push their pathetic prejudices on the rest of us.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

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

What gave you the impression that people would be tortured for believing the Earth was spherical?

 

[Dannager]

Consider the source; he also believes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Scripture is a-okay with homosexual acts between consenting adults.

Why are you supporting that ridiculous jab of DMagoh's?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

You seem to have an incredible amount of faith. Why do you choose to put it on shifting sand of science?

Hmmm, by having "faith" in those "shifting sands" we've:
split atoms,
released the power of the Sun,
gone to the moon,
correctly predicted how much light is bent by gravity,
wiped out diseases,
identified genes responsible for diseases allowing parents to avoid passing those diseases on...

And the Bible has taught us what, exactly, about the physical world?
Read literally it teaches us that:
the sky is like a tent,
the world is flat, circular, square,
the Sun goes around the Earth...

The only thing that comes to mind that the Bible accurately teaches about the physical world is the value of pi, with a breathtaking precision of one (1) digit.

And you wonder why we prefer to rely on science for information about the physical world?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

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.

A disk is the surface bounded by a circle.
Both are 2-dimensional.
Both can exist in 3-D space.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

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 believe, based upon my reading of the Bible, that God has two primary purposes in dealing with humanity, to teach us how to "act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God", and to lead us to salvation.

I further believe, also based upon my reading of the Bible, that God has largely constrained himself from directly and overwhelmingly interferring with our freewill.

Here and now I will not debate how I came to those conclusions or why God would do this.

Based on the above I would suggest that the strongest constraints that God has placed upon the writing, editting, translation and preservation of the Bible involve the above purposes.

God has inspired various authors who then, to varying degrees, filtered that inspiration through their experiences and understanding of the world as they strove to communicate that inspiration as best they could.

What do I consider to be literal vs. allegorical?

I examine the Bible similarly, though with notable differences, to the way I examine any text. The most notable difference is that I am far more likely to accept as possibly factual any depiction of supernatural events. Beyond that I look for clues to the backgrounds, the points of view of the authors.

What spin are they likely to put on what they write? What is the purpose of their writing, what sort of message are they trying to get across?

e.g. when I read a science fiction morality play I don't critique it based on the fact that the story violates physics in 17 different ways. But if it references history to bolster its case I would want to know if the history is accurate. I would critique it based upon how accurately it portrays human behaviour.

When I read science being explained by an enviromentalist/industrialist I expect a certain amount of spin.

Numbers of people cited in historical accounts can be automatically taken as inaccurate, and the bigger the number, the greater the inaccuracy.
"Thousands" = a lot of people
"Millions" = even more

When I read about the history of Israel and Judah in the Bible I expect to see history being put in context of religious beliefs, I expect to see leaders who were righteous being puffed up a bit, and those who were not minimized.

The first eleven chapters of Genesis appear to me to be fairly clearly mythical in nature. Beyond that, my assumption is that most everything has a kernal of historical reality behind it.

One of the primary lessons of much of Hebrew Scripture is that God provides what is needful, that he leads us on a journey home, that we have repeatedly turned away from him and ended up in the wilderness as a result.

I haven't thought about it much, but I think that my faith would be seriously damaged by gross and pervasive historical inaccuracies in the Bible that affected that lesson.

Is this position "defensible" in a scientific sense?
No, of course not, that is why they call it faith.
OTOH it is pretty much internally consistant, and not arbitrary.

 

[Noxot]

I believe that the Bible is sometimes symbolic and sometimes Literal. and sometimes both at once.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I believe that the Bible is sometimes symbolic and sometimes Literal. and sometimes both at once.

Congratulations on your first post, and welcome to CF
If you don't mind me asking, how can something be both symbolic and literal? Or, could you give an example of a simultaneously literal and symbolic part of the Bible?

 

[Fed]

I haven't thought about it much, but I think that my faith would be seriously damaged by gross and pervasive historical inaccuracies in the Bible that affected that lesson.

That's a great point. People could get the impression that rejecting a purely literal meaning means you think the events didn't happen. That's false. I think most, if not all, of the events described in the Bible happened, but not necessarily in the exact fashion they are described. The flood was likely a devastating local flood (explaining flood myths in nearby cultures). The stories were founded on some historical truth, but they were adapted for a single purpose - communicating God's truths to mankind. If Biblical events were entirely fabricated my faith would be damaged as well.

 

[david_x]

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.

I said you could look at it in just the cultural aspect if need be.

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

Well then it would be a circle and not a disc. How do you put no depth into a 3-D object?

 

[david_x]

I guess evolution took one on the chin today. Fossils now show that the "ape-man" that man supposedly evolved from really co-existed with man.

I saw that a few months ago actually, Scientific America I believe.

Because science corrects itself when it's shown to be wrong.

Fundamentalist religion never corrects itself, because it repeats "We can't be wrong," over and over and over and over and...

I guess it's true then. If you don't stand for somthing, you will fall to anything.

But clearly you've already considered it, or else you could not have come to the conclusion that it is impossible.

Or did you come to the conclusion that it's impossible without considering it?

Strawman.

Have reached a conclusion I then decided it had been a waste of time.

What gave you the impression that people would be tortured for believing the Earth was spherical?

In the same way that Darwin was suppresed for his views.

Hmmm, by having "faith" in those "shifting sands" we've:
split atoms,
released the power of the Sun,
gone to the moon,
correctly predicted how much light is bent by gravity,
wiped out diseases,
identified genes responsible for diseases allowing parents to avoid passing those diseases on...

And the Bible has taught us what, exactly, about the physical world?
Read literally it teaches us that:
the sky is like a tent,
the world is flat, circular, square,
the Sun goes around the Earth...

The only thing that comes to mind that the Bible accurately teaches about the physical world is the value of pi, with a breathtaking precision of one (1) digit.

And you wonder why we prefer to rely on science for information about the physical world?

You think that's somthing? That is truly sad. "Oh yeah we made an H-bomb" God has resurected the dead. The most we can do seems to be destruction.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I said you could look at it in just the cultural aspect if need be.

Which I keep saying is unnecessary when discussing the literalists stance. The context of culture only influences non-literalists.

Well then it would be a circle and not a disc. How do you put no depth into a 3-D object?

Ever heard of a plane? How about a point particle? These are 3D objects without depth (and, in the case of the particle, width or breadth either).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In the same way that Darwin was suppresed for his views.

As in, not at all?

 

[david_x]

Which I keep saying is unnecessary when discussing the literalists stance. The context of culture only influences non-literalists.

Oh, well then I don't see what we have been arguing about. I only take things in contect to the culture they were written in and to.

As in, not at all?

You mean you don't know? I kinda wanna wallow in this for awhile but that would be wrong I guess.

Darwin, on his death bed, denounced everything he thought at the threat of being exercised from the CC. (To a Catholic that means you can not go to heaven)