Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 07-14-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidstarlingm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The passage is just a quote of some guy talking, and this guy is not even supposed to be speaking the infallible Word of God, so he has permission to make plenty of errors. It is only a problem for those who use such passages in the Bible to attempt to demonstrate the reliability of the Bible. It may seem bizarre, but I have seen very many Christians cite that very same passage (Job 37:18) to prove that the Bible predicted an expanding universe ("...spread out the skies...").

I should hope that no one would use Job 37:18 (or anything from the first 7/8ths of Job) to make any kinds of arguments about what the Bible teaches. After all, God tells Job to pray that his friends might be forgiven for all of their errors at the end....kind of self-refuting.

I have, however, heard plenty of people use the Psalms, Jeremiah, and Isaiah to make the claim that the Bible taught an expanding universe. Psalm 104:2, Jeremiah 10:12, and Isaiah 42:5 are a few examples.

Job does, however, offer a very interesting look at the scientific beliefs of Ancient Near Eastern people. This story can be traced back quite far; I always find it helpful when a new source of information about ancient culture is brought to light.

I think it's quite obnoxious when people claim that the Bible indisputably teaches a particular cosmological model (heliocentrism or, horror, general relativity). If it did, the 17th century Catholics wouldn't have used it to bolster their classically-derived assertions about geocentrism.

I do, however, find it interesting that the Bible, for all its commentary on the natural world, never seriously advances any of the cosmological models of its era. It is one of the few exhaustive ancient works that makes very few falsifiable assertions about cosmology.

Would you not consider the first few chapters of Genesis to be a few falsifiable assertions about cosmology?

davidstarlingm · 07-14-2011, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Would you not consider the first few chapters of Genesis to be a few falsifiable assertions about cosmology?

The first chapter of Genesis is the only one that makes any assertions about the heavens as a whole; 2-11 are all local to the planet. And the assertions in Genesis 1 say nothing about cosmology (the structure of the universe), only about cosmogony (the origin of the universe). Of course that can variously be taken as poetic or frameworked or otherwise.

The interesting difference that I'm pointing out is a more general one. While most ancient mythologies tend to elaborate about the actual ongoing structure of the universe (the sun is a chariot or barge, the sky is an overturned crystal bowl, the stars are gods, the flat earth rests on the shoulders of Atlas), the Bible tends to limit its falsifiable assertions to the origins of the earth and universe, leaving the ongoing operations of nature alone (apart from the blanket "God is ultimately in control of everything"; that's pretty pervasive). Perhaps this is one reason why the Judaic tradition has survived so long; it is much easier to prove that the earth doesn't rest on Atlas than it is to prove exactly how everything got here.

gurugeorge · 07-14-2011, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

When plain sense makes ancient sense, seek no other sense or it will result in nonsense.

The point is that the plain interpretations tend to be most probable if they seem to make sense from the known perspective of the authors or the immediate society of the authors. That is true, I believe, not just for Biblical interpretation, but for interpretation of any sort of texts--fiction, poems, letters, or corporate memos. I don't see any reason to treat the Bible any differently.

Hmm, the problem is, what was ancient sense? You're talking about a culture steeped in magic and woo-woo - a culture in which miracles were supposed to be some kind of proof that someone was worth listening to. Does that make plain sense? It seems to have done in the ancient sense ...

I think you may have misunderstood, so please allow me to clarify. The aphorism's use of the phrase, "plain sense," means a literal interpretation of a part of text. Another way of saying the aphorism would be: "A literal interpretation of the text is probable if we have sound reason to expect that the society in which it was written would accept a literal interpretation of the text."

What does "literal interpretation" mean in a context where people believe in the reality of miracles and spirits?

ApostateAbe · 07-14-2011, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think you may have misunderstood, so please allow me to clarify. The aphorism's use of the phrase, "plain sense," means a literal interpretation of a part of text. Another way of saying the aphorism would be: "A literal interpretation of the text is probable if we have sound reason to expect that the society in which it was written would accept a literal interpretation of the text."

What does "literal interpretation" mean in a context where people believe in the reality of miracles and spirits?

The same as without that context?

gurugeorge · 07-15-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

What does "literal interpretation" mean in a context where people believe in the reality of miracles and spirits?

The same as without that context?

I don't think so. If someone who believes in magic entities, even experiences them (or rather, what he thinks of as "them", in visions) reports that a magic entity did magic thing x or y, that's literal to them, just as literal, to them, as them saying "Barnabas sat in a chair".

Is it literal to us? It can't possibly be, in the same sense as it's literal to them.

Not only that, but it seems that people in ancient times could believe BOTH that something magic literally happened AND that it had metaphorical or symbolic significance (relating to the common sense world).

davidstarlingm · 07-15-2011, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

What does "literal interpretation" mean in a context where people believe in the reality of miracles and spirits?

The same as without that context?

I don't think so. If someone who believes in magic entities, even experiences them (or rather, what he thinks of as "them", in visions) reports that a magic entity did magic thing x or y, that's literal to them, just as literal, to them, as them saying "Barnabas sat in a chair".

Is it literal to us? It can't possibly be, in the same sense as it's literal to them.

Not only that, but it seems that people in ancient times could believe BOTH that something magic literally happened AND that it had metaphorical or symbolic significance (relating to the common sense world).

The "literal" interpretation of the passage is an objective concept that rarely (if ever) changes based on context.

Consider the first verse of Songs 4:

Behold, you are beautiful, my love,
behold, you are beautiful!
Your eyes are doves
behind your veil.

The "literal" interpretation of this is that Solomon's bride has birds nesting in her eye sockets. Context, however, makes it clear that this was written as a metaphor, it was understood by its original hearers as a metaphor, and thus it ought to be interpreted as a metaphor.

Our question, then, is not whether we are taking a verse literally (Nietzche will tell you that language itself is a metaphor), but whether we are understanding a passage in the same way it was meant to be understood by its author. In other words, what was the sense that the ancients intended -- the "ancient sense".

Thus, we have three approaches:

Literalism: Everything is to be taken literally unless it wouldn't make sense (depends on our idea of what "makes sense"). Subjective.
"Ancient Sense": Context should be used to determine as best as possible how the original author(s) intended each passage to be understood to the ancient reader. Objective.
Liberalism: No claims are made about the veracity of any passage or statement; the spiritual/metaphorical meaning is the only thing that is important. Subjective.

Although many people may take the first or third approaches, the middle approach is the only one that is useful from a textual criticism point of view.

ApostateAbe · 07-15-2011, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The same as without that context?

I don't think so. If someone who believes in magic entities, even experiences them (or rather, what he thinks of as "them", in visions) reports that a magic entity did magic thing x or y, that's literal to them, just as literal, to them, as them saying "Barnabas sat in a chair".

Is it literal to us? It can't possibly be, in the same sense as it's literal to them.

Not only that, but it seems that people in ancient times could believe BOTH that something magic literally happened AND that it had metaphorical or symbolic significance (relating to the common sense world).

If it was literal to them, then it should be literal to us, in my opinion. Remember, I am not asking anyone to believe in magic the same way that the ancients believed in magic. We don't have to believe a single claim that the ancients made. We just need to interpret their own writings according to what made the most sense from their perspective, not according to what makes the most sense from our perspective. If it makes perfect sense for the ancients to believe in miracles, then that is the proper interpretation for an ancient attestation of miracles. We don't believe in miracles, but that doesn't mean we have to interpret metaphorically an ancient attestation of miracles.

aa5874 · 07-15-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The Introduction to the Golden Ass would I think make clear to the reader that it is a piece of fiction with a message rather than a true account.

(Also I think that a first person narrative of ones experiences after being turned into a donkey would not have been taken literally in the Ancient World.)

Andrew Criddle

And, the introduction of Jesus in gMatthew I think would make it clear we are dealing with a piece of fiction also with a message.

Think about it.

Think of the Metaphor.

Jesus was the Child of a Ghost. See Matthew 1.18.

Jesus was the Word? See John 1

What is the allegorical meaning of "child of a Ghost"?

What is the allegoric meaning of "the Word"?

It is clear that Jesus of the NT was NOT human but derived from WORDS.

andrewcriddle · 07-18-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

In addition, Apuleius in the Latin introduction was using the word fabula. This is transliterated as "fable" in the translation you link to, but had a broader meaning in Latin which included even historical stories, such as the Octavia which was known as a "fabula praetexta."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apuleius

At ego tibi sermone isto Milesio varias fabulas conseram auresque tuas benivolas lepido susurro permulceam — modo si papyrum Aegyptiam argutia Nilotici calami inscriptam non spreveris inspicere — , figuras fortunasque hominum in alias imagines conversas et in se rursus mutuo nexu refectas ut mireris. Exordior. "Quis ille?" Paucis accipe. Hymettos Attica et Isthmos Ephyrea et Taenaros Spartiatica, glebae felices aeternum libris felicioribus conditae, mea vetus prosapia est; ibi linguam Atthidem primis pueritiae stipendiis merui. Mox in urbe Latia advena studiorum Quiritium indigenam sermonem aerumnabili labore nullo magistro praeeunte aggressus excolui. En ecce praefamur veniam, siquid exotici ac forensis sermonis rudis locutor offendero. Iam haec equidem ipsa vocis immutatio desultoriae scientiae stilo quem accessimus respondet. Fabulam Graecanicam incipimus. Lector intende: laetaberis.

The reference to Milesio varias fabulas ie various Milesian tales would I think make clear the fictional nature of what follows.

Andrew Criddle

beallen041 · 07-18-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

In addition, Apuleius in the Latin introduction was using the word fabula. This is transliterated as "fable" in the translation you link to, but had a broader meaning in Latin which included even historical stories, such as the Octavia which was known as a "fabula praetexta."

The reference to Milesio varias fabulas ie various Milesian tales would I think make clear the fictional nature of what follows.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks, I was unaware of the genre marker. Much appreciated.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.