The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

robinph

Safehands wrote: »

His miracles: I would say parables which morphed into facts as time passed

How does that work?

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Only if you're telling them to base their faith in its factuality.

I'm not a cleric. How do people (e.g. clerics) who tell others how to interpret the Bible know which bits are events (or facts if you will) and which bits are metaphors?

Safehands

robinph wrote: »

How does that work?

If you take the wedding feast and the wine. Jesus would have said, I am like the fine wine, up to now all you had was poor quality wine, now I am changing all that. I am changing the water you are drinking at a wedding onto the finest wine meaning up until now your beliefs were basic, from now on I will give to the best way to live.
It is a metaphor.

Leroy42

Safehands wrote: »

If you take the wedding feast and the wine. Jesus would have said, I am like the fine wine, up to now all you had was poor quality wine, now I am changing all that. I am changing the water you are drinking at a wedding onto the finest wine meaning up until now your beliefs were basic, from now on I will give to the best way to live.
It is a metaphor.

But based on that he didn't actually do anything. So we have some guy that simply talks a good game.

Of course, that doesn't mean that his opinions on the best way to live life were not good. Although one needs to take account of the fact that he never claimed slavery was wrong. It is all metaphor, then why do people treat Jesus with the reverence that we do?

Safehands

Leroy42 wrote: »

But based on that he didn't actually do anything. So we have some guy that simply talks a good game.

He was saying things no-one else said. He wasn't just 'some guy's, whether he was devine or not.

Leroy42

Safehands wrote: »

He was saying things no-one else said. He wasn't just 'some guy's, whether he was devine or not.

Are you suggesting that no-one else had ever said love your neighbour, or be more focused on your spirit than material goods?

Come on now. He is not held up because he said these things, he is held up because he is the son of god, who died for our sins and resurrected, thus defeating the power of death.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

So which parts are not factual? Genesis, exodus? What about the twelve apostles, Jesus dying on the cross? The resurrection? His miracles? Noahs ark?

The virgin birth, Herods killing of the innocence? Are the Israelites the chosen people, and the land of Israel the promised land?

In relation to each of those, I can only repeat the question I have already asked several time, and that you have made no attempt to answer. Why do you think it matters?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Cause if that ain't true then there has been, and will continue to be, a lot of blood split because of it.

That doesn’t make sense. Whether or not that particular claim (that God made a covenant with Moses granting Israel the promised land, as described in Exodus) is historically factual, a great deal of blood has been spilt over that particular piece of real estate. The amount of blood split doesn’t depend at all on the factuality of the claim.

Does it depend on people believing the claim to be factual? No, I don’t think we can say that it does.

True, Exodus does describe God making this promise, whereupon the Israelites go onto the land and beat seven kinds of snot out of the Canaanites who are already there. But of course this event is described in the very texts whose factuality you are questioning. So, it may never have happened. Or, there may have been an invasion of some kind, but the notion of the Covenant may have arisen after the event, as a way of expressing the Israelites belief in their claim to the land, and divine sanction for it. So you can’t say that this event happened or, if it happened, that it was motivated by a belief that the Exodus account of God making a Covenant with Moses is historically accurate.

After that, of course there were many invasions of the land, and much fighting. The Egyptians invaded; the Assyrians; the Phoenicians; the Babylonians; the Persians; the Macedonians; the Romans; the Mamelukes; the Ottomans; the British. And each time, or most times at any rate, there was resistance, and lots of fighting. But of course none of the invaders were motivated by any supposed Covenant between God and Moses; they had the usual material motivations of lust for power and lust for wealth. And while any resistance they met may have invoked the Covenant, it would be foolish to imagine that they resisted because of the Covenant; we don’t need to appeal to belief in a Covenant, and still less to a belief in the factuality of the Exodus account of the Covenant, to explain why the inhabitants of any land might resist invaders.

Leroy42

Sorry, Peregrinus, are you really asked me why I think the factual accuracy of something that people believe in and based their actions on, is of any importance?

I have already dealt with this point. People can believe in whatever they wish, but once they start to impose those beliefs on other people, and are allowed to do so because of those beliefs, then yes I think it should be based on something more that simply what they want to think.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, Peregrinus, are you really asked me why I think the factual accuracy of something that people believe in and based their actions on, is of any importance?

I have already dealt with this point. People can believe in whatever they wish, but once they start to impose those beliefs on other people, and are allowed to do so because of those beliefs, then yes I think it should be based on something more that simply what they want to think.

Uh-huh? So you reckon, say, that there are people who believe that the Slaughter of the Innocents (you mentioned that one, not me) is a historical event, and they are "imposing" that belief on others?

You got any evidence for that, or is it just something you believe?

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Uh-huh? So you reckon, say, that there are people who believe that the Slaughter of the Innocents (you mentioned that one, not me) is a historical event, and they are "imposing" that belief on others?

You got any evidence for that, or is it just something you believe?

Creationists.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Uh-huh? So you reckon, say, that there are people who believe that the Slaughter of the Innocents (you mentioned that one, not me) is a historical event, and they are "imposing" that belief on others?

You got any evidence for that, or is it just something you believe?

24% of Americans believe that the bible is the literal word of God http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

In terms of imposing that particular belief, what it does, and the reason for it being made up, was to increase the 'magic' of Jesus. Just like the story of having to go to Bethlehem. It fits in with the narrative people are expecting (the scriptures) and the slaughter was a story to show that God himself was working to defeat the all powerful Herod.

Now if you believe one part of it, say Noahs Ark, then why would you not believe another part of it?

Safehands

Leroy42 wrote: »

24% of Americans believe that the bible is the literal word of God http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

In terms of imposing that particular belief, what it does, and the reason for it being made up, was to increase the 'magic' of Jesus. Just like the story of having to go to Bethlehem. It fits in with the narrative people are expecting (the scriptures) and the slaughter was a story to show that God himself was working to defeat the all powerful Herod.

Now if you believe one part of it, say Noahs Ark, then why would you not believe another part of it?

Yes and if you meet these people they will tell you that you are damned to spend eternity in hell's fires if you don't believe. That is some threat! "Either believe what I believe or suffer the consequences".

"But what you believe makes no sense"

"That doesn't matter. You'd better believe it too or the consequences for you will be horrific"

No pressure!

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

24% of Americans believe that the bible is the literal word of God http://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

In terms of imposing that particular belief, what it does, and the reason for it being made up, was to increase the 'magic' of Jesus. Just like the story of having to go to Bethlehem. It fits in with the narrative people are expecting (the scriptures) and the slaughter was a story to show that God himself was working to defeat the all powerful Herod.

Now if you believe one part of it, say Noahs Ark, then why would you not believe another part of it?

Well, as I don't believe in the literal truth of the Noah's Ark story, I'm probably the wrong person to whom to put the question.

And, in the interests of nit-picking, I'd point out that a belief that the Bible "is the literal word of God" is not the same as a belief that stories in the bible are literally true. God's omnipotent, but he is incapable of using metaphor, allegory, parable, etc? That makes no sense at all. The "literal word of God" can employ any genre of writing; that's pretty much inherent in the concept of omnipotence.

It would be interesting to know how many Americans think that all the stories in the Bible are literally true. Sadly, Gallup didn't think to ask that question. Still, lets assume that the figure is, in fact, 24%.

71% of Americans identify as Christian, and a further 2% as Jewish. That gives us (71% + 2% - 24% 49% of Americans who profess a religious faith which ascribes value and significance to these scriptures, but who don't profess to believe that they are accurate narrations of historical events.

And this comes back to the question that I keep asking; why does it matter? You clearly think it does matter, and you have expressed surprise at my asking the question. But there's clearly a large body of Americans for whom it doesn't seem to matter - they ascribe value and meaning to the scriptures, without needing to believe them to be necessarily historically accurate - so your perception that it matters is evidently not universally shared.

Ironically, your perception is shared by fundamentalist biblical literalists, who insist that the only valid way to read the scriptures is as reliable historical narrative. If you share that perception you're in slightly surprising intellectual company, no?

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, as I don't believe in the literal truth of the Noah's Ark story, I'm probably the wrong person to whom to put the question.

And, in the interests of nit-picking, I'd point out that a belief that the Bible "is the literal word of God" is not the same as a belief that stories in the bible are literally true. God's omnipotent, but he is incapable of using metaphor, allegory, parable, etc? That makes no sense at all. The "literal word of God" can employ any genre of writing; that's pretty much inherent in the concept of omnipotence.

It would be interesting to know how many Americans think that all the stories in the Bible are literally true. Sadly, Gallup didn't think to ask that question. Still, lets assume that the figure is, in fact, 24%.

71% of Americans identify as Christian, and a further 2% as Jewish. That gives us (71% + 2% - 24% 49% of Americans who profess a religious faith which ascribes value and significance to these scriptures, but who don't profess to believe that they are accurate narrations of historical events.

And this comes back to the question that I keep asking; why does it matter? You clearly think it does matter, and you have expressed surprise at my asking the question. But there's clearly a large body of Americans for whom it doesn't seem to matter - they ascribe value and meaning to the scriptures, without needing to believe them to be necessarily historically accurate - so your perception that it matters is evidently not universally shared.

Ironically, your perception is shared by fundamentalist biblical literalists, who insist that the only valid way to read the scriptures is as reliable historical narrative. If you share that perception you're in slightly surprising intellectual company, no?

I think if the people who believe this stuff were benign, easy going folk, then it wouldn't matter. But they are not. They threaten us all for suggesting that these tracts may not be true.

Leroy42

Did you even open the link?

The very 1st line

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Fewer than one in four Americans (24%) now believe the Bible is "the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word,"

You asked me to show you evidence that people believe the story, I showed it to you. You then went off on some tangent that not every christian or Jew believes every word, a claim that I never made.

It matters as it goes to the very heart of the belief. Belief stems from the bible. It cannot come from anywhere else. You might have gotten your belief from your parents, teachers, priest etc, but they got it from the bible. It is the only source they have. If you don't believe the bible then why would you believe?

So what we have is a book that is claimed to tell us the real word of God. Except that it is filled with parts that many people don't believe. Now, having some parts of a story shown to be made up does not in itself prove that other parts are, but it certainly raises the possibility and should, and would in any other sphere, call in question the other parts.

So what evidence do we have for the key bits? The virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection. Non, except for the bible itself, which we already know has parts in it that are made up. How can one make an informed decision why something is made up or not?

On what basis do you not accept the story of the slaughter? It is in the book afterall.

Does it matter what people believe, well as Safehands has pointed out, not usually.

But people use the bible as the basis for all kinds of stuff. Discrimination in school admittance policy. Legality of gay sex. Divorce and remarry. Heck, only in 2018 has Ireland accepted that there is simply no reason why alcohol shouldn't be sold on Good Friday. You know why we had that law? The church.

Why are women allowed to be discriminated against in the church (not allowed to be a priest which runs against every equality legislation we have), well because the church is somehow special. Why, they have the bible.

And you are trying to make the assertion that it really makes no difference why they believe what they believe?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did you even open the link?

The very 1st line



You asked me to show you evidence that people believe the story, I showed it to you. You then went off on some tangent that no every christian or Jew believes every word, a claim that I never made.

OK, you got me.

For the record, I did open the link. But I looked at the headline (“Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God”) and the highlighted statement of the statistic (“Americans who believ Bible is the literal word of God: 24%”) and the story highlights (“24% believe Bible is literal word of God, the lowest in Gallup's 40-year trend”) and took it that the rest of the page would be to the same effect.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It matters as it goes to the very heart of the belief. Belief stems from the bible. It cannot come from anywhere else . . .

Nope. Where do you imagine the bible texts came from? They didn’t grow on trees, and I assume you don’t imagine they were handed down on tablets of stone from God.

Beliefs come from people, Leroy. Paper, papyrus, parchment or whatever can’t believe things; only people can. The bible isn’t the source of Christian/Jewish beliefs. It’s a record of beliefs, a mode of transmitting beliefs, etc, etc. But it’s absolutely not the source of beliefs. The bible texts were produced by individuals and communities who already believed.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what we have is a book, that is claimed to tell us the real word of God. Except that it is filled with parts that many people don't believe . . .

No. It’s filled with parts which many people don’t believe to be historically accurate narrative, but nevertheless do believe to be inspired by God. In fact, as the Gallup poll that you yourself produced, this is the dominant belief (in America, at any rate).

Leroy42 wrote: »

Now, having some parts of a story shown of made up does not in itself prove that other parts are, but it certainly raises the possibility and should, and would in any other sphere, call in question the other parts.

All] of the bible texts are made up, Leroy. Again, did you think they grew on trees? All texts are made up by someone; that’s how texts come into being.

So, does the fact that all of the bible texts are made up, and some of them are not historically accurate narratives, call into question the others? Not particularly, no. If you get a bunch of disparate texts and, centuries after they were written, collect them all as “the bible”, how can that magically change the nature of each of the texts? Text A either is or is not accurate history, but that won’t be changed at all, in the smallest degree, by the decision of a later editor to publish it between the same covers as Text B. How would that even work?

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what evidence do we have for the key bits? The virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection. No, except for the bible itself, which we already know has parts in it that are made up. How can one make an informed decision why something is made up or not?

Like I say, you’re asking the wrong question. All of the texts in the bible are made up. This tells us nothing about whether they are true or not. Some of the texts in the bible are true. This tells us nothing about whether the rest are true or not. Some of the texts in the bible are not true. This tells us nothing about whether the others are true or not. If you are interested in the literal truth of the texts (and I’m still waiting for an explanation as to why this must always matter) I’m afraid there’s no short cut; you’re going to have to read the texts and evaluate them on their own terms.

Leroy42 wrote: »

On what basis do you not accept the story of the slaughter? It is in the book afterall.

It’s not sufficiently evidenced, and its role and significance in the larger text of which it is a part - the Gospel of Matthew - doesn’t seem to me to depend on whether it’s true or not. So I conclude that it’s probably a literary construction.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nope. Where do you imagine the bible texts came from? They didn’t grow on trees, and I assume you don’t imagine they were handed down on tablets of stone from God.

OK, I don't know if you are being deliberately semantic or maybe I am missing something. So because someone believes something, and writes it down, that to you is sufficient to give that belief credibility.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Beliefs come from people, Leroy. Paper, papyrus, parchment or whatever can’t believe things; only people can. The bible isn’t the source of Christian/Jewish beliefs. It’s a record of beliefs, a mode of transmitting beliefs, etc, etc. But it’s absolutely not the source of beliefs. The bible texts were produced by individuals and communities who already believed.

This is starting to sound a bit like an argument about the start of the universe. Who believed it first. Why does it matter? Is Ron Hubbard devine. He believes is, even wrote a book about it. What about David Icke. Or Jim Jones? Whilst it may not have been the original source, it is clearly the source now. How else does any christian believe? We aren't born believing (otherwise why would the whole world not be christian), we are informed of these belief's by our parents etc. And based on what? The bible. There is no one alive that has any direct experience of what may or may not have happened 2000+ years ago, the only thing they have os the bible. It is quite literally the very cornerstone of the faith. Without the bible, the faith would be just a lot of people with a bunch of stories.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. It’s filled with parts which many people don’t believe to be historically accurate narrative, but nevertheless do believe to be inspired by God. In fact, as the Gallup poll that you yourself produced, this is the dominant belief (in America, at any rate).

I totally accept that many people do not take every word to be true, that every thing happened the way it is stated. And in many cases, that does not change the fundamental narrative of the book. That God is the creator, that Jesus gave his life to save us, and that we must commit ourselves to Jesus to enter the kingdom of heaven.

But since there is no evidence to back up the claims of the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection, save for the bible, then we must consider whether we can rely on the bible as the source. When we can show that other parts of the bible are not accurate then we need consider that other parts may be inaccurate.

If, for example, the resurrection is nothing more than a metaphor that the disciples felt reborn on the quest to spread the word, and so Jesus never resurrected, doesn't that change how the world would see Jesus?

Professor Moriarty

I'm still wondering which parts of the Bible are metaphors? Which are stories? Which are facts and events? Who gets to decide and why?

pauldla

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm still wondering which parts of the Bible are metaphors? Which are stories? Which are facts and events? Who gets to decide and why?

Do you know the bits with the people walking on water and the talking donkey and the dead rising and appearing to many and all that kind of carry on? They're probably made-up.

And the bits of history like the Jews being slaves in Egypt and Herod killing all the kids and Caesar holding a census so everybody have to go back to the hometown of a remote ancestor from 1000 years before? They're probably made up too.

etc etc

Safehands

pauldla wrote: »

Do you know the bits with the people walking on water and the talking donkey and the dead rising and appearing to many and all that kind of carry on? They're probably made-up.

And the bits of history like the Jews being slaves in Egypt and Herod killing all the kids and Caesar holding a census so everybody have to go back to the hometown of a remote ancestor from 1000 years before? They're probably made up too.

etc etc

Yes and the burning bush that talked?
Made up,
Noah and the lions, kangaroos and Polar bears all living on a big boat? Take a wild guess, true? I don't think so.
We can keep going, it's not that hard really. Have go yourself Professor Moriarty.

Professor Moriarty

Safehands wrote: »

Yes and the burning bush that talked?
Made up,
Noah and the lions, kangaroos and Polar bears all living on a big boat? Take a wild guess, true? I don't think so.
We can keep going, it's not that hard really. Have go yourself Professor Moriarty.

But that's my point. Let's apply logic:

Based on my education, I might decide that there is sufficient archaeological evidence to infer that a certain event mentioned in the Bible may have taken place. Based on your education, you might infer that there isn't sufficient evidence. Similarly, based on my intellect, I might apply reason to certain stories and decide that they couldn't have happened. Based on your intellect, you might conclude that they did happen. And so on. So each person will have their own views on the accuracy of the Bible.

Also, because it is such a smorgasbord, I will pick and choose different elements and you will pick and choose different elements. So every human being will have a different interpretation and belief. Unless they take every word of the Bible literally. Which, in my opinion, would be insanity.

So how do we understand the Bible in a cohesive and coherent manner? If every person has a different interpretation then its purpose as the unifying Word of God is rendered meaningless. So who will interpret the Bible and give us meaning? Who will decide what is a metaphor, a fact or an event? What is the rationale behind this interpretation? Why should they decide? What is their purpose in making those interpretations? Where is the evidence that their particular interpretations are the right interpretations? Why should a rational human being hand over their spirituality to this book and those people?

Safehands

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But that's my point. Let's apply logic:
Based on my education, I might decide that there is sufficient archaeological evidence to infer that a certain event mentioned in the Bible may have taken place. Based on your education, you might infer that there isn't sufficient evidence. Similarly, based on my intellect, I might apply reason to certain stories and decide that they couldn't have happened. Based on your intellect, you might conclude that they did happen. And so on. So each person will have their own views on the accuracy of the Bible.

Yes, Lets apply logic. You might decide that there is sufficient archaeological evidence to infer that a certain event mentioned in the Bible may have taken place. Well, if there is any evidence that an event may have taken place then I for one will not dismiss it. I will examine that evidence and then decide if I can believe it or not. Take for example Noah's Ark. No evidence whatsoever. So is it likely that it happened? Is it possible that a man could not only live for 900 years but would continue to father children for most of those years? Answer: No. So I dismiss it as a nice fictitious story. I struggle to think of an OT story that stands up to any scrutiny.
The new Testament is a different story (excuse the pun). Historically there is evidence that some of it took place. I believe Jesus did exist. I believe he was put to death, he did have apostles. Was he devine? I don't believe so

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

every human being will have a different interpretation and belief. Unless they take every word of the Bible literally. Which, in my opinion, would be insanity.

I agree, that would be insanity. So, if we are going to interpret it then everything is up for grabs really. Its down to opinion and interpretation.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So how do we understand the Bible in a cohesive and coherent manner? If every person has a different interpretation then its purpose as the unifying Word of God is rendered meaningless.

The OT certainly is anything but the unifying word of God. The NT can be very useful as a blueprint for how we should lead our lives.
You can interpret it your own way so that it gives meaning to your life. I can do the same. You can do your best based on what you believe and stop trying to make everybody else believe what you believe. I can do the same. Live and let live.
But life is not really like that, is it? That's why we have so many religions and so many conflicts. Will it ever change?

Nick Park

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm still wondering which parts of the Bible are metaphors? Which are stories? Which are facts and events? Who gets to decide and why?

There's no one person, or institution that gets to decide, we all have to interpret the Bible for ourselves.

However, there are certain principles that we follow, just as we do when we interpret any piece of communication, be it written or oral.

For example, consider the following excerpt from an article in today's Irish Independent:

Miriam 'must come clean on her Áras intentions' - presidential hopeful Craughwell.
Presidential hopeful Gerard Craughwell says broadcaster Miriam O'Callaghan may have been "flying a kite" on a potential Áras bid by dropping her summer chat show.
Mr Craughwell believes it's in everybody's interest the public knows who intends to run sooner rather than later and called on Ms O'Callaghan, and any other parties who might be weighing up a bid, to declare their intentions.
"I hope she does run. I think it is time that those who are interested came out of the woodwork and declared their intention," he told the Irish Independent.

That short excerpt actually contains 6 metaphors, and I would guess that we both recognise them without needing anyone else to decide for us. We don't think Miriam O'Callaghan is physically dirty and needs to literally 'come clean'. Nor do we think she we was flying a literal kite, literally dropped a TV show onto the floor, is literally running (at a jog or a sprint?), literally weighed a bid on a set of scales, or that presidential candidates are literally appearing out of holes in woodwork.

The reason why we both (hopefully) instantly recognise the metaphors is because we are clued up to the rules and principles that govern speech in 21st Century Irish journalism.

Now, given how much we accept the use of metaphors in most texts and speech, it would seem rather petty and foolish to poke fun at the Bible for containing metaphors - wouldn't it?

The problem, of course, is that when we try to interpret a text that is thousands of years old (and which has been translated from other languages), we aren't as adept at spotting what is metaphor, parable, hyperbole, poetry or intended to be taken literally.

That is why, if we are really interested in what the authors of the Biblical books were really saying (and not just looking for an opportunity to take a cheap shot at religion) that we engage in literary criticism. This involves studying the cultures from which the biblical texts originated, and recognising how these cultures used poetry to make a point, what were the kind of metaphors they used, and what did their writings look like when they were intended to be taken literally. How, for example, would the language of a historian (like a writer of 1 Kings) differ from the language of a songwriter (like the writer of a Psalm)?

Many of the attempted answers to your question in this thread (which were probably tongue in cheek anyway) focus on whether we think today that miracles are possible. But that is not how historians and theologians approach these texts. They don't decide something is a metaphor because it conflicts with our current understanding of science. They decide if it is a metaphor based on whether they think the original readers would have understood it as metaphor or not.

Of course it is pretty easy to distinguish what in the New Testament is intended to be taken literally or not. We're talking less than 2000 years ago, we know much more about that culture, and we have thousands of texts from a similar time and culture from which we can learn the literary forms and conventions. It gets much harder when dealing with much older texts from a Semitic culture, such as Genesis, where we have very few contemporary examples of literature with which to compare it.