Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

Why does it matter when Biblical literalism came around?
And if in the mediaeval ages someone decided the meaning of the bible, then doesnt that mean that Biblical Literalism is before 19th century america?

Because it debunks the whole point of fundamentalists saying their intrepretation is the only good and pure one, and that the Bible is meant to be taken literal.
He, and some other people, wrote a philosophical work about the Bible, and described 4 ways in which the Bible might be interpreted. He never says which is the true one(of which there isn't). From 19 th century America we get the first large groups of people who believe that everything that's written in the Bible litteraly happened.

I do believe in the Bible, but not in it's literal intrepetation.(Please note that the literal intrepretation of the Bible first came in sway during the 19^the century, in America.)
It has been agreed since medieval times and before that the Bible has not one, but four meanings, of which the literal one is just one. Because, truly, if the Bible where to be taken literaly, they would have made sure that the stories inside didn't contradict each other.

Or maybe it's just wrong.  I don't get to retroactively say that parts of what I said were metaphorical if they're shown to be untrue or contradictory, and I'm not sure why we give the Bible that privilege.

As stated before, The Bible was not ever meant to be taken literaly. That only came in sway since the 19^the century. The Bible does not have one meaning, it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some of those might prove inherently false, others do not.Besides, I'm not giving the Bible that privilege. One can say something similiar about all religious texts, and even all stories. (And by extent even history and stuff).

Okay, true, that's an ambiguous term.

Let's rephrase it; do you think that Jehovah changes over time? Now physically, as a non-corporeal being that is both the alpha and the omega, I doubt you would hold that he changes much (although I would be interested if you felt that he did, and would love to hear it ).

Rather, I ask more in the sense of knowledge or mentality. Do you hold that god can learn? Or do you think that, as he has literal omniscience, he cannot be surprised, discover new knowledge, or change his mind (or more accurately, ever have reason to)?

God is more of a concept rather than entinity. Terms like learning and surprise do not really apply.

[MrWiggles]

God can't be a concept, as he's a character in the bibical works.

[10ebbor10]

God can't be a concept, as he's a character in the bibical works.

That's Biblical literalism. Don't do that, please.

The god you see as character in the Bible is an anthromorphization of the Biblical god. (That is, if you decide not to interpret it the literal way)

[Grek]

So, what are the four interpretations of the bible? I understand that one of them is "Everything taken literally.", but what are the other three?

[10ebbor10]

Two Western Christian (that is, Latin-speaking) Patristic figures, Augustine of Hippo and John Cassian, established principles of biblical interpretation that would endure well into the Renaissance. In De doctrina Christiana (On Christian Teaching), Augustine asserted the literary and rhetorical qualities of the Bible (now clearly defined by Christians as Old Testament and New Testament), recognized that the Bible employed different literary forms, and insisted on the necessity of knowing biblical languages. He also emphasized allegorical interpretation, but not at the expense of understanding literal senses. John Cassian introduced the notion that the Bible can be interpreted at four levels of interpretation or in four senses of scripture: the literal, the allegorical, the tropological (the moral sense), and the anagogical. Using, for example, the city of Jerusalem as it frequently appears in the Bible, he proposed that there is an actual city (the literal city of Jerusalem), but that Jerusalem can also be interpreted to mean the community of believers or the Church (the allegorical sense), that it can also signify the human soul in its passage through life (the tropological sense), and that it can also signify our final home in heaven (the anagogical sense). To present that more schematically:

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I am not even remotely buying this.

[Grek]

That doesn't quite seem right to me. Where would, say, the Elijah test (the one where the prophet Elijah has the priests of Yahweh and the priests of Baal compete to see which god will light their sacrificial fire first) fall into that classification? It's clearly not something to be taken anagogically or tropologically, since the story invites those dubious about the existance of God to ask to have God's power put to the test before converting, something that no modern christian, muslim or jew would agree to. It's not acceptable morally (meaning it isn't a trope the authors of the bible would support) nor is it something that you'd want people trying in analogous situations. Allegorically, you could kinda sorta make a case for it being a "be confident in your faith, don't let people try to convince others away from God and do whatever you have to to convince them not to convert" sort of thing, but if that were the real reason, I seriously doubt that they'd have Elijah slit the Baalite's throats only after they fail to light their idol on fire. By elimination, the only way to interperate it is literally - the authors of the bible wanted it as a "Of course God is real, he lit that altar on fire once, remember?" sort of message, despite the fact that when priests pray to Yahweh for fire to descend from the heaven and whatnot, nothing of the sort actually happens.

[Osmosis Jones]

God is more of a concept rather than entinity. Terms like learning and surprise do not really apply.

Yes, they do.

One of the fundamental concepts of theistic faith (of which Christianity is a crowning example) is that said deity is a "personal god", to whit, a god...

...who can be related to as a person instead of as an "impersonal force", such as the Absolute, "the All", or the "Ground of Being".

If we can talk about god as a person or entity, then questions such as whether said god learn are indeed relevant.

A god who can be thought of more as a process or concept sounds like a pantheistic god, which was not what I was asking a question about.

-Snip-
 S'interesting stuff, really.

Yeah, it was kind of niggling away at me. That said, this sort of stuff is why I'm interested in the topic in general; you can argue existence till you're blue in the face, and get nowhere. Far more interesting are the properties and constraints such an entity would have.

E: That said, I imagine the more lay understanding would be that god could learn, but has no need to, as you mentioned. No reason, as all the decisions or knowledge god could wish to make or have is already known to god, so the general stuff that prompts humans toward learning or changing opinion simply isn't there.

As for change... maybe. From what I understand, that's somewhat underpinning the difference between new and old testament. Though it might be arguable that god did not change, merely the covenant god has with man, or whatever that is. Exactly where a person falls on it probably differs between denominations and religions, assuming they've ever really thought about it at all.

The Old/New schism is what got me thinking about this question to begin with; I think we can all agree that there is a pretty big shift in tone between the two, which then raises questions as to why. Not going to lie, as an atheist my suspected reason is a pretty simple one, but that doesn't mean I can't evaluate other possibilities.

I came up with the following alternates to the first option:
God is not omniscient; and is capable of making false starts, and thus learning.
God is not omnipotent; and you have alternate conflicting influences.
God needed to act like a homicidal maniac to begin to influence the crowd of the day, but once an established presence was made, more passive teachings could proceed.
Or, the act of god imparting himself into an earthly vessel altered his perspective on the matters somewhat.

Ahh well.

[Grek]

Alternative #5: The Gnostic Heresy. Old Testament God and New Testament God aren't the same guy. OT God is actually an evil Demiurge who NT Jesus came down to save us from.

[10ebbor10]

That doesn't quite seem right to me. Where would, say, the Elijah test (the one where the prophet Elijah has the priests of Yahweh and the priests of Baal compete to see which god will light their sacrificial fire first) fall into that classification? It's clearly not something to be taken anagogically or tropologically, since the story invites those dubious about the existance of God to ask to have God's power put to the test before converting, something that no modern christian, muslim or jew would agree to. It's not acceptable morally (meaning it isn't a trope the authors of the bible would support) nor is it something that you'd want people trying in analogous situations. Allegorically, you could kinda sorta make a case for it being a "be confident in your faith, don't let people try to convince others away from God and do whatever you have to to convince them not to convert" sort of thing, but if that were the real reason, I seriously doubt that they'd have Elijah slit the Baalite's throats only after they fail to light their idol on fire. By elimination, the only way to interperate it is literally - the authors of the bible wanted it as a "Of course God is real, he lit that altar on fire once, remember?" sort of message, despite the fact that when priests pray to Yahweh for fire to descend from the heaven and whatnot, nothing of the sort actually happens.

http://bible.org/seriespage/ineffectual-prayers-baal-priests-1-kings-1823-29

The above link doesn't really follow the four meanings thing, but it does give quite a bit more explanation then what you said.

[10ebbor10]

God is more of a concept rather than entinity. Terms like learning and surprise do not really apply.

Yes, they do.

One of the fundamental concepts of theistic faith (of which Christianity is a crowning example) is that said deity is a "personal god", to whit, a god...

Christian theologian Alister McGrath writes that there are good reasons to suggest that a "personal god" is integral to the Christian outlook, but that one has to understand it is an analogy. "To say that God is like a person is to affirm the divine ability and willingness to relate to others. This does not imply that God is human, or located at a specific point in the universe

From the exact same page. The fact that God is represented as an anthromorphological figure doesn't mean he's human or anything, or that he exist in a physical form.

[Grek]

The above link doesn't really follow the four meanings thing, but it does give quite a bit more explanation then what you said.

I disagree with the author's essential thesis there. The story of Elijah vs. Baal is very clear about how the proof of your trust in God comes from without, in the form of your faith producing divine miracles, while the author of that article is focused on proofs from within, based on the mental state and perceptions of the faithful. I mean, yes, he later goes on to pontificate on how it's important to examine your trust in God, but that's not what Elijah was doing. At no point did Elijah doubt or examine his own faith. Instead, he was examining the faith of others, and providing them with a test. Never himself. If would be different if Elijah himself had doubts, and then personally compared the two faiths by praying first to Baal and getting no answer, but then praying to Yahweh and having the sacrifice be accepted. That would be a good analogy/metaphor for the personal crisis of faith the author is talking about. But, as it stands, that interpretation falls flat given the actual story in the actual bible.

[Leafsnail]

As stated before, The Bible was not ever meant to be taken literaly. That only came in sway since the 19^the century. The Bible does not have one meaning, it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some of those might prove inherently false, others do not.Besides, I'm not giving the Bible that privilege. One can say something similiar about all religious texts, and even all stories. (And by extent even history and stuff).

What makes you think the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally?  It doesn't say so anywhere inside.  There's nothing to suggest that you shouldn't take it literally except that it ends up being wrong on many counts if you do (which is also the property of something which is wrong).  And I guess you could do something similar with all stories, which means you could make, say, Harry Potter a true text about how the world is by selectively turning things into metaphors.  I don't see the point.

[10ebbor10]

As stated before, The Bible was not ever meant to be taken literaly. That only came in sway since the 19^the century. The Bible does not have one meaning, it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Some of those might prove inherently false, others do not.Besides, I'm not giving the Bible that privilege. One can say something similiar about all religious texts, and even all stories. (And by extent even history and stuff).

What makes you think the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally?  It doesn't say so anywhere inside.  There's nothing to suggest that you shouldn't take it literally except that it ends up being wrong on many counts if you do (which is also the property of something which is wrong).  And I guess you could do something similar with all stories, which means you could make, say, Harry Potter a true text about how the world is by selectively turning things into metaphors.  I don't see the point.

Who's says Harry Potter can't have a morale and learn you a lesson about how the you should live? Doing so is fine with me

As for not taking the Bible's literaly meaning as it's only meaning. There are the point where the Bible would then contradict itself. Now, assuming the people who wrote the Bible where no complete idiots, we can then safely say the Bible that the Bible was not meant to be interpreted as a purely litteral story(Not all of it anyway). After all, the morales and such corespond a bit to wel to be just a fact of random chance.

It's as much as a case of you shouldn't as a case of you better don't because most of us know the inherent dangers of fundamentalism.
As for the above text about Elijah vs Baal.
You can interpret the story in a variety of reasons. But it serves well to illustrate a serious discrepancy between the old and the New testament.
In the old testament, the Baal priests, who are finally killed by Elijah, are portrayed to be guilty of idolatry and such. In the new testament, you don't see that. There, the victim will be portrayed to be innocent. A scapegoat as it were.

Now, for the complete explanation on why this might be important, and some other reasons, I'm going to redirect you the blog of my religion teacher

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As for not taking the Bible's literaly meaning as it's only meaning. There are the point where the Bible would then contradict itself.

Yeah, no shit, it contradicts itself because it was written over the course of hundreds of years by dozens of authors, badly translated several times, and politically edited by every group powerful enough to get away with it.

After all, the morales and such corespond a bit to wel to be just a fact of random chance.

I don't know what you mean here.

It's as much as a case of you shouldn't as a case of you better don't because most of us know the inherent dangers of fundamentalism.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.