Distinguishing biblical metaphor from reality

PDN wrote: »

I've bolded your error.

My interpretation of Genesis 1 as metaphorical is on linguistic grounds. It fits with other extended parables in Hebrew literature.

Therefore it is dishonest or ignorant to claim that Christians adopt the metaphorical interpretation as a salvage operation in response to scientific evidence or social acceptability. Why? Because Christians were reaching this interpretation, on literary, theological and philosophical grounds, long before there was any issue with scientific evidence or social acceptability.

Once that has been pointed out, using Augustine and others as examples, then ignorance is no longer an excuse. Therefore those who continue to claim that non-creationist Christians are reaching their interpretation of Genesis 1 as a salvaged retreat from a literal interpretation are simply being dishonest.

To be honest I find this profoundly depressing. I can accept that we all hold different opinions. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I don't expect others to be proficient in Hebrew. I don't expect them to have a good knowledge of Church history. I can even adapt to discussion with people with a poor grasp of English who don't understand the concept of a metaphor. But where can you go with those who think that it is acceptable to use dishonesty to further their argument?

Fionnmatthew wrote:

PDN

It's a very simple point, and you seem to be intentionally misinterpreting it.

When the Bible's credibility as a historical source, or as a work revealing cosmological truths, is brought into question because a part of it is challenged by available evidence, it is salvaged piecemeal by retracting the claim of literalism for that particular part of it, and that part only.

Now the Bible gets to still be true in its entirety, if only because the now contentious bit is considered to express something other than what it literally says. Now we are to understand that that part too is metaphor, but the subtext is, we'll take as many of the bits we want to be true as we can get.

You can point all you want to historical precedent for doing this, and yes, it's a game the RCC has been playing since, well, before there was an RCC; before the Church fathers ever knew they were going to be church fathers. But you cannot deny that this is something that is done by huge amounts of christians who find themselves in the tricky position of justifying their modern day commitment to the truth of a book some of which seems, well, silly.

The result is a pockmarked wasteland of varying degrees of literalness, and a get-out-of-jail-free card for any eventuality. It's certainly not an activity for the stupid - it's a sort of scholarship. But it looks like a salvage operation - like the activity of a group which was committed ab initio to the truth of a work without justification. The question has to be asked, if christians believed this 80 years ago, but now believe it is metaphorical, what reason do they have to believe that what they now claim is literal is not metaphorical too, will not be discovered to be so in 20 years time? Or, to take an individual example, if Johnny believed this 10 minutes ago, and now, after being presented with evidence that he cannot force himself to deny is pretty damn solid, believes it must be metaphorical, what reason does he have to believe that what he still claims is literal is not metaphorical too? And christians often have no answer to that question but 'faith.'

It all seems so pointless and bitty, and the foundational motivation of it falls so far short of a good reason to believe anything. When a modern day historian's work is thrown into question by the revelation that he seriously misrepresented entire periods of history, the credibility of the entire work of research is thrown into question. People do not, preferentially, claim that those bits were meant as metaphors, but that the rest is literally true. This would be intellectually dishonest. Clever, sure. But dishonest, because it demonstrates that the overriding commitment is holding that the work is mostly literally true until every single assertion in it it can individually be proven otherwise, each with its own little tribunal. This is precisely backwards to how any intellectually honest person should proceed.

Creationists are as thick as treacle in believing against vast mountains of evident facts that the Bible is entirely and literally true. They have to abuse their own epistemic faculties, and become entirely less than what is befitting a human in order to do this, throwing evidentiary standards and basic inference rules out the window, such that they are no longer able to reason properly anymore - no longer able to make basic logical inferences.

But, and it shouldn't really be seen as a commendation, it does seem a bit more "honest" than the idea of redacting the bits that aren't fashionable anymore with a "metaphor pen" just so that you can still have your magic book in an increasingly hostile intellectual culture.

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Im having a major issue with this thread and may soon have to stop perusing it. Any time I read JC's posts now I read them in either a strong North of Ireland accent just like the bible bashing loons one regularly find on street corners threatening passers by with fire and brimstone. But more and more often now i read them in a deep South 'Billy Bob plays the banjer' accent. Help :eek:

bluewolf wrote: »

I'll try and reply in your language, ok?

I'm notlisteninglalalalalla:rolleyes:;):p:cool::pac::cool:

PDN wrote: »

The struggle is probably more to do with the fact that it's pretentious shyte.

bluewolf wrote: »

Best larger than what?

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes but that (anti-maths) forum would just be based on faith.

J C wrote: »

Jesus loves every person ... and wants to save them.

Dougla2 wrote: »

go back a couple of pages and you will see evidence from the bible that this statement is bull****