Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mrunicycler · 05-02-2008, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

It is to be taken literally only where it where it tells us to do that such as in John 6:55 where "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." The rest is metaphor and allegory.

*Or*

It is to be taken literally except where it expressly tells us to take it differently, as when Jesus tells his disciples that he was speaking in metaphors and parables.

mrunicycler · 05-02-2008, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

If, for example, they try to tell you that the seven days of creation are a allegory for billions and billions of years, point out that the writers of the Bible didn't know the earth was billions of years old, therefore they almost certainly didn't have billions of years in mind when they wrote that passage... Saying the Earth was created in seven days didn't sound ridiculous to them like it does to us. Beliefs like that were typical in those days. It would have been entirely normal to believe it literally.

Don't forget...'god wrote it'. Therefore, theists would claim it gave the human vessels, or whatever, the knowledge they needed to write the book...

karlmarx · 05-02-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

Then there's the fact that the Bible is very detailed, which is unusual for a metaphor. It lists numbers of animals, tribes, who begat whom, etc. You normally use metaphors to avoid details and just capture the main ideas...

That's not how myth works. Myth thrives on detail. Consider the richness of Greek mythology, for instance. Consider the various contradictory myths in Greek culture: they could not all be factual. We're talking about a time before mass media and before science: myth had a role to inspire and also entertain, not just teach. Did Greeks believe the details in the Odyssey to be factual? Unlikely. Yet they would have argued that it nevertheless contained universal truths, as indeed it does.

Quote:

And all of that ignores the obvious question of why the Bible would be written as a metaphor. Why couldn't the writers just say what they meant? Why wouldn't they? At best, it's an unjustified assumption.

They could hardly express what they meant in modern terms that would satisfy you, particularly in regards to cosmogony myths. What would you have them say?

A mediocre author could write, "Man is the plaything of the elements, and life is a homecoming filled with suffering". A better author would write the Odyssey. Which do you think is more effective?

The problem is not with the authors, but with the readers.

makerowner · 05-02-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by karlmarx

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

Then there's the fact that the Bible is very detailed, which is unusual for a metaphor. It lists numbers of animals, tribes, who begat whom, etc. You normally use metaphors to avoid details and just capture the main ideas...

That's not how myth works. Myth thrives on detail. Consider the richness of Greek mythology, for instance. Consider the various contradictory myths in Greek culture: they could not all be factual. We're talking about a time before mass media and before science: myth had a role to inspire and also entertain, not just teach. Did Greeks believe the details in the Odyssey to be factual? Unlikely. Yet they would have argued that it nevertheless contained universal truths, as indeed it does.

Quote:

And all of that ignores the obvious question of why the Bible would be written as a metaphor. Why couldn't the writers just say what they meant? Why wouldn't they? At best, it's an unjustified assumption.

They could hardly express what they meant in modern scientific terms that would satisfy you. What would you have them say?

A mediocre author could write, "Man is the plaything of the elements, and life is a homecoming filled with suffering". A better author would write the Odyssey. Which do you think is more effective?

The problem is not with the authors, but with the readers.

I don't know why you assume that the Greeks didn't believe in the literal truth of their myths. The contradictory stories developed because the same gods and heroes were worshipped in different places. The Greeks used their myths to support land claims, alliances, declarations of war, political divisions, etc. A good example showing that they believed in the literal truth of their myths is the Spartans' returning Orestes' body in order to beat the Tegeans.

Solitary Man · 05-02-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by karlmarx

That's not how myth works. Myth thrives on detail. Consider the richness of Greek mythology, for instance. Consider the various contradictory myths in Greek culture: they could not all be factual. We're talking about a time before mass media and before science: myth had a role to inspire and also entertain, not just teach. Did Greeks believe the details in the Odyssey to be factual? Unlikely. Yet they would have argued that it nevertheless contained universal truths, as indeed it does.

They could hardly express what they meant in modern scientific terms that would satisfy you. What would you have them say?

A mediocre author could write, "Man is the plaything of the elements, and life is a homecoming filled with suffering". A better author would write the Odyssey. Which do you think is more effective?

The problem is not with the authors, but with the readers.

I don't know why you assume that the Greeks didn't believe in the literal truth of their myths. The contradictory stories developed because the same gods and heroes were worshipped in different places. The Greeks used their myths to support land claims, alliances, declarations of war, political divisions, etc. A good example showing that they believed in the literal truth of their myths is the Spartans' returning Orestes' body in order to beat the Tegeans.

Many of the Greeks explicitly said they didn't believe their myths. Plato was one. Epicurus was another. Actually, none of the Epicureans believed the myths. I haven't taken up a full account of all the ancient atheists, but their number is more than just a few.

Solitary Man · 05-02-2008, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

I see no indication in the vast majority of the Bible that it was meant to be taken as anything but literal history.

That's probably because you are unfamiliar with ancient historiography and other ancient genres.

makerowner · 05-02-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

I don't know why you assume that the Greeks didn't believe in the literal truth of their myths. The contradictory stories developed because the same gods and heroes were worshipped in different places. The Greeks used their myths to support land claims, alliances, declarations of war, political divisions, etc. A good example showing that they believed in the literal truth of their myths is the Spartans' returning Orestes' body in order to beat the Tegeans.

Many of the Greeks explicitly said they didn't believe their myths. Plato was one. Epicurus was another. Actually, none of the Epicureans believed the myths. I haven't taken up a full account of all the ancient atheists, but their number is more than just a few.

Yes, but why say that if everyone else agrees? I think statements like this are evidence that most people did believe in the myths. If you read Herodotus for example, he's rather superstitious when talking about the gods in different countries; it could just be habit, or "good taste", but it could also mean he believed that they were real.

makerowner · 05-02-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

I see no indication in the vast majority of the Bible that it was meant to be taken as anything but literal history.

That's probably because you are unfamiliar with ancient historiography and other ancient genres.

So why don't you enlighten me? What evidence leads you to believe that the authors of the Bible didn't intend it to be understood literally?

Solitary Man · 05-02-2008, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

That's probably because you are unfamiliar with ancient historiography and other ancient genres.

So why don't you enlighten me? What evidence leads you to believe that the authors of the Bible didn't intend it to be understood literally?

You can easily pick up any primer on apocalyptic literature. Vines has a good book on Markan genre. How Matt and Luke treat Mark is a good indication of what they thought was "literal history".

Solitary Man · 05-02-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Many of the Greeks explicitly said they didn't believe their myths. Plato was one. Epicurus was another. Actually, none of the Epicureans believed the myths. I haven't taken up a full account of all the ancient atheists, but their number is more than just a few.

Yes, but why say that if everyone else agrees? I think statements like this are evidence that most people did believe in the myths. If you read Herodotus for example, he's rather superstitious when talking about the gods in different countries; it could just be habit, or "good taste", but it could also mean he believed that they were real.

You'll have to do more than just assume that everyone else believes. Whatever happened to the standards of evidence around here?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.