Biff the unclean

My point was that for thousands of years the most sincere and well-educated and insightful biblical scholars took these passages to be straightforward information. They did not think them allegory and were outspoken and demonstrative in defense of that opinion.
Which means one of two things. If they were allegory they were a failure at communicating that they were and therefore imperfect. Being imperfect they could not therefore be a communication from a perfect God. The imperfection being that of the communicator.
Or two: they aren't allegorical at all, but simply wrong. If they are merely wrong that exposes the claims authenticity of the bible to be nothing but lies.
Either way the bible is discredited.

blackhawk

Actually this view is very old. Origen held it. I do not thin he was right but he did hold it. Basically I do not believe that his view of hermeneutics is the correct way on most issues. But here is a pasage where he explains his view on what we are talking about. Origen was born around A.D. 185.

15. But as if, in all the instances of this covering (i.e., of this history), the logical connection and order of the law had been preserved, we would not certainly believe, when thus possessing the meaning of Scripture in a continuous series, that anything else was contained in it save what was indicated on the surface; so for that reason divine wisdom took care that certain stumbling-blocks, or interruptions, to the historical meaning should take place, by the introduction into the midst (of the narrative) of certain impossibilities and incongruities; that in this way the very interruption of the narrative might, as by the interposition of a bolt, present an obstacle to the reader, whereby he might refuse to acknowledge the way which conducts to the ordinary meaning; and being thus excluded and debarred from it, we might be recalled to the beginning of another way, in order that,
by entering upon a narrow path, and passing to a loftier and more sublime road, he might lay open the immense breadth of divine wisdom. This, however, must not be unnoted by us, that as the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took
place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their “bodily” meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by the insertion of many. And this we find frequently to be the case in the legislative portions, where there are many things manifestly useful among the “bodily” precepts, but a very great number also in which no principle of utility is at all discernible, and sometimes even things which are judged to
be impossibilities. Now all this, as we have remarked, was done by the Holy Spirit in order that, seeing those events which lie on the surface can be neither true nor useful, we may be led to the investigation of that truth which is more deeply concealed, and to the ascertaining of a meaning worthy of God in those Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by
Him. (Origen De principiis Book 4 chapter 1)

CJD

Sorry, I had too much coffee this morning.

Besides, I think the whole "divine inspiration-inerrancy" issue is a complete waste of time outside of the faith-community.


CJD

lpetrich

CJD, you may want to tell that to your fundie friends some time.

And I proposed this hypothesis because I wanted to propose some alternative to the usual theological debates, which get boring after a while. It's something like my "deduction" of biological evolution from the various Biblical genealogies.

However, I agree that some alleged divinely-revealed instruction manual could have been written a LOT more clearly than the Bible had been, complete with translation and interpretation instructions. Of course, what does one need with a book when it could have been imprinted on everybody's consciousness.