So you say.

So you say

(November 21, 2022 at 8:29 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Yes, Augustone does matter because it directly refutes the point you were making. There are important early Christians that did not consider Genesis a literal account. Augustine is one.

That is just not true. Augustine only didn't think that the creation of the universe lasted six days but one moment, he took literally everything after that. He thought Adam and Eve really existed and that original sin was transmitted by semen from Adam till now.

(November 22, 2022 at 1:47 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: That is just not true. Augustine only didn't think that the creation of the universe lasted six days but one moment, he took literally everything after that. He thought Adam and Eve really existed and that original sin was transmitted by semen from Adam till now.

Those naughty little swimmers!

The most ridiculous uneducated believer we get on these boards today is..still..orders of magnitude less silly than the entire cast of early christian authority.

Something to consider whenever anyone makes an appeal to tradition or traditional authority. Flat out, those guys were dumb.

(November 22, 2022 at 4:16 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The most ridiculous uneducated believer we get on these boards today is..still..orders of magnitude less silly than the entire cast of early christian authority.

Something to consider whenever anyone makes an appeal to tradition or traditional authority.  Flat out, those guys were dumb.

I wouldn’t say ‘dumb’ so much as ‘desperate’. It’s a feature of theology that when you realize that what your book actually says is just plain stupid, you’re driven to come up with the most outlandish excuses and inventions for why the book doesn’t mean what it says.

Boru

(November 21, 2022 at 9:06 am)Ahriman Wrote:

(November 21, 2022 at 8:46 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: Of course, it’s easy for us with our 21st Century, materialistic minds to dismiss the Bible as a load of rubbish. But in the actual analysis, that is exactly what the Bible turns out to be---a load of rubbish! It is a book of nonsensical, fantastic stories about talking animals, talking bushes, mythical creatures, people rising from the dead, magic and pseudo-history. It is the creation of ignorant, fallible men, reflecting the prejudices, superstitions, bad theology and fears of the times in which it was written. It promotes slavery, ethnic cleansing, race prejudice, wars of conquest, the subjugation of women, child abuse and genital mutilation. It promotes the worship and celebration of a god who is little more than an egotistical, homicidal, fear-mongering tyrant. It is a book which any reasonable, intellectually honest, and intelligent person should heartily dismiss as bad fiction.

You are very much a product of a godless, vapid society. The Bible is fine for what it is, it just wasn't written for you.

As far as who the Bible was written for, there are tens of thousands of Bible-thumping evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses who would disagree with you. Such people have intruded themselves and their biblical pontifications into my life since I was a teenager.

You know nothing about me or my social and educational background, so please refrain from making presumptuous statements about what I'm the product of.

I keep hearing about this godless vapid society, but I can't figure out where they're selling tickets for the life of me.

(November 21, 2022 at 8:25 pm)Belacqua Wrote: In Galatians 4, Paul interprets the Genesis account of Abraham's sons as allegory.

Irenaeus of Lyons, in the 2nd century, interpreted the Adam and Eve story as allegory.

In the 3rd century, Origen said that the meaning could only be discerned by reading allegorically.

Where I said elsewhere that I took the Bible literally - both when I was a Christian, 20, 30 years ago, and now as a critic - I meant with the exception of where it is explicit or obvious that it was not intended to be taken literally, such as Psalms or parables for instance. But where Genesis is concerned, I'm not convinced; to me, if something includes lots of specifics... names, places, details... that usually implies that it is intended to be taken as a literal, historic account of something. Genesis is full of such details. Why for instance would there be the need to describe the names and locations of specific rivers in the Garden of Eden? ...when such details are completely superfluous to any obvious allegorical reading?

(November 28, 2022 at 8:20 am)emjay Wrote: Where I said elsewhere that I took the Bible literally - both when I was a Christian, 20, 30 years ago, and now as a critic - I meant with the exception of where it is explicit or obvious that it was not intended to be taken literally, such as Psalms or parables for instance. But where Genesis is concerned, I'm not convinced; to me, if something includes lots of specifics... names, places, details... that usually implies that it is intended to be taken as a literal, historic account of something. Genesis is full of such details. Why for instance would there be the need to describe the names and locations of specific rivers in the Garden of Eden? ...when such details are completely superfluous to any obvious allegorical reading?

It seems pretty clear that the Bible is edited together from lots of different writers with lots of different intentions. Genesis in particular is a collage of different styles and levels. It's entirely possible that some part was believed by the author to be true history, and other parts are legend, myth, or extended metaphor. 

And you know, I'm sure, that it's a very old tradition to say that every verse should be interpreted at four levels simultaneously. There are easy meanings and difficult meanings, and secret, kabbalistic meanings. 

When Augustine talked about the "literal" meaning, he means the meaning that the original author intended. So if the verse was originally meant as a metaphor, then, confusingly, the literal meaning is metaphorical. But for people who believe that the text is inspired, the full meaning may not be known to the original author. It unfolds and reveals itself through time.

As for detail, I don't see why a symbolic reading would necessarily need to have less. The more propaganda/history parts of the OT about the kings of Israel, for example, might give place names for verisimilitude, but if they're talking about Eden, which is full of symbolism, more detail might just mean more symbols. 

Think about a famous non-biblical text that's been interpreted allegorically, for example. The chapter in the Odyssey where Odysseus finally arrives in Ithaca describes in great detail a cave where he goes to hide his stuff and disguise himself before going to his house. Whether Homer (or whoever made it up) intended it or not, every little detail of the description has been given Neoplatonic readings by later writers, most famously Porphyry. In this case, greater detail in the literal description corresponds to greater detail in the metaphysical meaning. Spenser imitated it, in part, for his description of the Garden of Adonis, where souls go in transit between the ideal and material worlds. He describes in exhaustive detail what he imagines such a place to be like. 

Or the famous "pageant" section at the end of the Purgatorio, is another example. Dante describes dozens of characters and a strange beast and lots of other stuff, in great detail. It has kept readers busy interpreting its meaning(s) for 700 years. 

Whether any part of Genesis was intended to operate this way originally or not isn't really important, except as a historical detail. The fact is it's been read that way, and so that's what it has come to mean.