(December 24, 2017 at 1:26 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: 1. The bible authors wrote what they literally believed to be true.
The bible authors intended the material to be taken literally with one caveat - Revelation. I have read this particular book numerous times and I really don't know what it is supposed to be so I will leave that one aside. Certainly, all of the OT was written with the intention that it be taken literally. There have been a number of scholarly works on this subject and I quote a few below.
Ref: http://www.iscast.org/journal/articles/D...ything.pdf
The Genesis of Everything
An historical account of the Bible’s opening chapter
John P Dickson
Honorary Associate of the Department of Ancient History,
Macquarie University, Sydney.
Quote:The paper seeks to plot a path through the controversy surrounding the Bible’s opening chapter by examining Genesis 1 in historical context. The author assumes and endorses no particular view of human origins but argues for a literal interpretation of the text, as opposed to what may be called ‘literalistic’. The former reading gives due weight to both the literary genre of Genesis 1 and the cultural milieu
of the original writer, whereas the latter gives sufficient attention to neither.
Ref: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hil...1_jasa.pdf
Interpreting Genesis One
CHARLES E. HUMMEL
Director of Faculty Ministries
Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship
Quote:Genesis 1 appears to be a narrative of past events, an account of God's creative words and acts. Its figurative language is largely limited to anthropomorphisms. (For a highly imaginative and figurative account of creation, read Job 38:4-11.) The text does not have the earmarks of a parable, a short allegorical story designed
to teach a truth or moral lesson. That genre generally deals with human events and often starts with a formula like "There was a man who had two sons" in Jesus' parable of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:11-31). Genesis 1 is "historical" in the sense of relating events that actually occurred. Modern historians distinguish between "history," which began with the invention of writing or the advent of city life, and "prehistory."
There are other scholarly works on the subject but I don't want to labour the point any more. The knowledge at the time of our cosmos and our place in it was still rather primitive. Genesis is an attempt to explain how the universe and we as humans came to be. It is a literal description of the creation of the universe. Of course these days we leave that to science as we have verifiable data on which to base our modern-day theories of the creation of the uni(multi)verse and of the diversity of life on this planet.
2. The literal interpretation of the bible is the largest Christian religion today.
What do I mean by this? To explore this I would like to borrow the figures you posted in this thread earlier on.
Quote:In the US (probably the most conservative group of Christians on the planet) only 24% believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. If we project that over the 2.3 billion on the planet, that means there are somewhere in the neighborhood 1.7 billion your line of reasoning would not apply to. What if the Adam/Eve story was metaphorical? Do you think that man does not have sin nature? Redemption is still required. The message of the NT still applies 100%.
Thanks for doing the maths here. So to summarise, there would roughly be 600 million xtians that believe in the literal understanding of the bible and 1.7 billion that accept some sort of metaphor for part of most of the bible. But where to translate as metaphor and where to take it literally? This becomes the conundrum because each and every one of the 1.7 billion so-called xtians will then interpret the bible in their own different way. So in effect, we have one sects of 600 million xtians and 1.7 billion sects of 1 xtian each with their own personal interpretation of the bible.
This is not tenable, it is not viable and is not the intent of the authors as per my first point.
The main effect of this is that the largest sect of xtians is in fact those that interpret the bible literally.
3. Impossible to have a discussion with 1.7 billion versions.
Whilst not an argument for interpreting the bible literally, having a discussion about the bible and having to take into account 1.7 billion different interpretations of it makes it impossible to have any meaningful discussion.
When I discuss/debate xtianity, I discuss the literal translation (usually the KJV) and quote from the texts as they are the definition of xtianity.
To discuss and debate your interpretation of the bible or person a, b, or c's interpretation fo the bible is rather pointless as all I have done is show that I can debate with a single idea of the bible. To discuss/debate the literal interpretation of the bible is a discussion that is relevant to 600 million xtians, not just 1.
Apologies that I took so long to respond, Steve. It is a funny time of the year and I have been busy with many different things in my life, not just the usual activities during the "festive season".
I look forward to your response (take your time).
1. Answer this simple question: who wrote Genesis and when? Once you answer that, explain how that person(s) knew the information and how they knew (not thought) what they were writing was a literal account of the history of the universe. If you can't give me a thorough explanation of what it is we are talking about, then there is no sense going on...because you don't know what you are talking about.
2. That is terrible reasoning! Your own argument is that it was intended to be literal. That means that any position that is not literal is a position against YOU. That is a binary choice: agree with you or not. Most don't. Your logic is so so so bad.
3. Again, that argument is so bad. Claiming that you can't possibly have a discussion with the majority of people that don't agree with you as support for your minority position is...well, more nonsense.
