[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Deesse23]

A proper reading of ancient texts always includes one informing himslef of the background of the time the stuff was written in, the person who wrote it and the possible audience. When i took latin classes and we translated classic roman literaure, 50% of the time was devoted to this background, in orde to be able to understand the text from the persepctive of the times it was written in.

It depends on what you mean by "proper." You are proclaiming what "proper" means for everyone, when it might be different for different uses of the text. 
 

With proper i was referring to the method of analysing the text (by viewing it in its wider hostorical and sociologica context), not to the conclusion about its (alleged) exact meaning.

A teacher who intentionally keeps his disciples confused is an ass imho.

You would have voted to kill Socrates. 

How do you know? I wouldnt. I dont approve of killing people for mundane reasons and am offended by you suggesting i would. Isnt such a claim a bit, well, over the top? 

If the subject is difficult it is false to pretend it's not confusing. Offering a too-easy solution is as bad as lying. We hope, in the long run, that students reach some kind of understanding, but part of teaching them (if I were Socrates, which I'm not) is first to show them that they don't know what they think they know. In other words, we have to reveal their actual confusion to them so they can get past it. Unless, like Boru, you just want to hand them the answer. But I think that what we find is more valuable to us than what we're handed.

We are talking about a teacher who is intentionally ambiguous, and this teacher is a god. What topic should be hard to teach ...for an (omni-whatever-you-like) god? I would think a god had some better didactics than Socrates, or you, or any other non-deity. 

Puny god.

I dont know what shools and universities you attended, but my teachers were never trying to be intentionally ambiguous. The only instanes where they were is when they also left big time disclaimers to take anything with a grain of salt now. Is there any such disclaimer in the bible? Considering it is supposed to be inspired by a god, its general level of ambiguousness is lousy even compared to my worst teachers. God should take teaching lessons from my teachers.........or possibly there wasnt any god involved at all, just other people/teachers who were much less educated in educating other people. I know where to put my money on.

---

A proper reading of ancient texts always includes one informing himslef of the background of the time the stuff was written in, the person who wrote it and the possible audience. When i took latin classes and we translated classic roman literaure, 50% of the time was devoted to this background, in orde to be able to understand the text from the persepctive of the times it was written in.

I don’t necessarily disagree with this.

But I’m curious when reading the Genesis account, do you read it with the assumption that the writer saw himself as writing a historical account?  It seems like an odd assumption to make, but wondering if you think that?

I dont make assumptions about the Genesis accout, and i am not basing any of my beliefs on that. How about you?

What i know is that a literal meaning wuld be objectively wrong, since science has long disproven it.

What a believer (which i am not) had to do now, is to show that it was meant in a non-literal way, in what way it was original meant and tell his findings. Good luck. If there may not way to figure out what Genesis´ background and intention was, then i will happyily keep suspending my belief(s) based on that. How about you?