Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 05-04-2005, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

If a person believes in a personal god,

and

If the documents in question are regarded as being divinely inspired,

then

It's inevitable that they must be true, word for word, without error, no exceptions, none, none, whatsoever.

Face it. It's the word of god. That's why those who believe in the bible's inerrancy fight so hard to keep it all true. I even have one thread going where the theist accepts the fact that the earth goes around the sun but still insists that Joshua made the sun stand still.

Yup! One single slip, and it's not god's word.

There is a distinction between claiming that the Bible is true and claiming that it is all to be interpreted literally.

Origen held a strong doctrine of Biblical inspiration together with a strong tendency for non-literal interpretation.

Andrew Criddle

John A. Broussard · 05-04-2005, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There is a distinction between claiming that the Bible is true and claiming that it is all to be interpreted literally.

Very true, but if it is literally true, then there can be no mistaking what it says. If it's merely "true," then it's open to all sorts of interpretations. It leads to heresy, which is what happened to Origen.

Wallener · 05-04-2005, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Brouserd

If it's merely "true," then it's open to all sorts of interpretations.

Since we do not live in a black and white universe, perhaps we shouldn't have expectation of such texts being readable in black and white terms.

Chili · 05-04-2005, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

Since we do not live in a black and white universe, perhaps we shouldn't have expectation of such texts being readable in black and white terms.

. . . but must black be called white and white black because of that? Metanoia means to do a 180 and go the other way as if black was called white and white was called black or still is?

Skeptical · 05-04-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

If a person believes in a personal god,

and

If the documents in question are regarded as being divinely inspired,

then

It's inevitable that they must be true, word for word, without error, no exceptions, none, none, whatsoever.

The problem with that is that a story can be "true" but not be factual. It is quite compatible that a story can be used to convey a moral without being factual. In fact, I would argue that is the point of most of the HB stories, that they were never intended to be true in the sense of being factual. (whether the morals taught are good morals or not is an entirely different question)

The problem with the biblical literalists is that they seem to have a child-like notion that if a story is not factually accurate, it is not "true". Logic does not dictate that a story must be 100% factual for it to be "true" meaning conveying a true message.

But my question was actually not what literalists believe, but if they can actually point to a legitimate biblical/Jewish tradition for their beliefs. I suspect that answer is no, but it would be nice to have evidence to back up my suspicion.

Skeptical · 05-04-2005, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

There is also 3000 years of Jewish tradition which teaches the literal reading is the least important of all possible readings.

Do you have a specific reference for this? Thanx.

Wallener · 05-04-2005, 01:36 PM

The 4 traditional levels of reading are:

Peshat = Literal, contextual, philological level
Remez = Allegorical, referential, philosophical level
Derash = Moral, homiletic meaning, aggadic or midrashic level
Sod = Mystical or anagogic meaning

Googling the terms should take you to a wealth of resources. One starting point...

http://www.hillel.org/Hillel/NewHill...d?OpenDocument

Philippe* · 05-04-2005, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

But any concession means that the bible cannot be taken literally. The passage is clear. Joshua made the sun stand still.

That's the crucial problem that anyone believing in biblical inerrancy faces.

In the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith writes that God slowed down the movement of the Earth that's why the sun looked still with Joshua.

Philippe

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-04-2005, 01:36 PM	#17
Wallener Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver Posts: 1,043	The 4 traditional levels of reading are: Peshat = Literal, contextual, philological level Remez = Allegorical, referential, philosophical level Derash = Moral, homiletic meaning, aggadic or midrashic level Sod = Mystical or anagogic meaning Googling the terms should take you to a wealth of resources. One starting point... http://www.hillel.org/Hillel/NewHill...d?OpenDocument

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.