The Bible

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

…Is it an accurate historical document? In places, not always (such as Genesis)…

[/quote]

Where is Genesis historically inaccurate? The whole thing? Parts of it? Which parts?

Do tell.[/quote]

Two and three. According to the St. Augustine, at least.[/quote]

Does Augustine’s accommodative interpretation not open a door that can’t be closed in your view? In other words, when it is understood that some unidentified claims are literally true and others are not, isn’t the whole thing cheapened? Even suspect?[/quote]

All scripture has a literal sense to it (whoever says there isn’t doesn’t know the ECFs) but there is sometimes a “metaphoric sense” (if anyone says there isn’t, then explain Jesus parables) or parabolical sense (I’m not sure if all scripture does have a parabolical sense, I believe you’re referring to what I call the “literalistic” sense, which is not identifiable in any of the Early Church Father’s writings, to my knowledge. And, should in all likelihood be rejected as bad theological methods.

To quote a maxim:

Littera gesta docet; quid credas allegoria.
Moralis quid agas; quo tendis anagogia.

Letters tell of the deeds, allegory to what we believe.
Moral as to how we act, anagogical to what is to come.

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)

122

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

Ditto.

But for a more…“muscular”…version, try:

Modern translation is a thing of…interesting mixed with a lot of head scratching. Why I prefer the Latin.[/quote]

Well, that’s ok, too. As long as you know that Jerome’s Latin head-scratching is twice removed from the originals, is overlaid with misplaced theology and doesn’t try to capture the poetry. NTTAWWT.[/quote]

I hope you don’t mind if I disagree with you on the theology, after all he is a Doctor of the Church. Nevertheless, it is far more masculine then modern translation and is far more poetic especially when chanted.

[/quote]

Well, that is very nice, but it is still attempt at a translation of a text, a text which is still accessible and open.
The Vulgate divides and numbers the Psalms differently, but it gives me an opportunity to show an example of the poetic power of the original, even when translated into English.

Let’s take the Psalm 116 I know as an example of literary translation.

In the KJV that Fletch1986 likes:

"5 Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; yea, our God is merciful.

“6 The LORD preserveth the simple: I was brought low, and he helped me.”

…and then verse 12:

"12 What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me?

“13 I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the LORD.”

Now the translation by Robert Alter:

“5 Gracious the Lord and just, and our God shows mercy.”
“6 THe Lord protects the simple. I plunged down, but me He did rescue.”
and…

"12 What can I give back to the Lord for all He requited to me?
“13 The cup of rescue I lift and in the name of the Lord I call.”

(I cannot comment on the Vulgate; it barely gets the tenses correct, and it does not really translate the poetry at all.)

But however beautiful the KJV, what is lost in translation that is retrieved by Alter?

Well, in verse 6, note the verb root yshua, to draw up, to rescue, to save (particularly from a pit or from water, hence the name of Moses) is translated as “rescue.” (“Plunged…rescue” up; not the flabby “brought low…helped” of the KJV.)

And now the parallelism to lines 12 and 13 is clear: plunge, rescue (draw up)…cup of rescue, lift.

This is what I meant by more “muscular.” In a good translation, the language is sinewy, the parallel structure is revealed, as it is in the original Hebrew.

[/quote]

I admit Latin is a bit tough to understand (still if the Pope uses it to abdicate his position, maybe those foreign language departments in high school should look into making it a requirement), but translation is not something I can greatly argue over as I’m ill equipped to discuss it beyond stating that Latin Vulgate is the official translation of the Church and out sacred language is Latin and that is the purpose of translating the original. Of course there is plenty of good resources that translate from the original and I’d never not recommend learning how to read Greek (though I’m not too sure on the availability of the Septuagint ;)), or even Hebrew.

123

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.

124

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]

The pope…duh.

125

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

I lived Job for a few years… It sucked.[/quote]

You don’t get to “live Job for a few years” unless you had a Bentley, a Ferrari, a Lamborghini and a Porsche 911 and had been left to go by only with a 2002 Kia Spectra.

Sorry.
[/quote]

I had a Porsche 914 1.8 :), Am I Job :)?

126

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]

The pope…duh.
[/quote]
Yep lol, I forgot that BC is a Catholic. I get the denominations confused around here from time to time.

127

[quote]groo wrote:[quote]smh23 wrote:
On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]

The pope…duh.
[/quote]That’s not exactly how it works, but I need sleep.

128

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]

What authority do I have to know something? I’m not a gnostic, the truth is available to all. You just have to listen to the Church.

I said that all of the Bible has a literal sense and some (possibly all) of scripture has a metaphorical sense (think 100% literal, 90% metaphoric (I don’t know what the percentages are, it could be 100% and 100%, but I used that for demonstrative purposes)).

129

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]

The pope…duh.
[/quote]

I’m not the Pope. Though that be really cool to be the only man in the world without a human boss.

130

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]

The pope…duh.
[/quote]
Yep lol, I forgot that BC is a Catholic. I get the denominations confused around here from time to time.[/quote]

Denomination, not exactly.

132

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]

The pope…duh.
[/quote]
Yep lol, I forgot that BC is a Catholic. I get the denominations confused around here from time to time.[/quote]

Denomination, not exactly. [/quote]

“A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.”

133

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I said that all of the Bible has a literal sense [/quote]

You’re using extremely ambiguous language. Is every word of the Bible literally true, or is it not? If something has “a literal sense,” is it not then literally true? In which case none of Genesis could be historically inaccurate.

134

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]

The pope…duh.
[/quote]
Yep lol, I forgot that BC is a Catholic. I get the denominations confused around here from time to time.[/quote]

Denomination, not exactly. [/quote]

“A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.”

[/quote]

I guess I was going off the etymology and the original use of the word. I don’t consider the Catholic Church or Catholic faith a denomination, I consider it a Church or an institute (or, belief/faith).

135

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]See what you think of some thing like this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n1/six-days Regardless of anybody’s views he does spell out what was the vast majority one in the church for a very long time and for very good biblical reasons. Of course this will have no effect on most even church people nowadays, but just to throw it out there. Still lookin for that answer on probability btw.

136

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:KingKai25 wrote:Pat my friend, this kind of syncretistic nonsense is exactly why I have argued so vehemently before against the notion of a singular religious consciousness underlying the various religions. As soon as you start saying that any religion that looks remotely like monotheism worships the same God (Islam, Christianity, and in your opinion, Hinduism), you open the door for this kind of ahistorical crap.
I didn’t mention anything of the sort. I am not sure why you brought this up? His most royal majestic graciousness is of course free to correct this simple plebe if I am wrong, but he is saying that his PAST rejection of your sometimes syncretistic tendencies have been motivated, in addition to the declarations of the texts themselves, also as a safeguard against just such wide open Unitarianism as is here being advanced by our new young, progressive and open minded friend cstratton2.

In other words, once one departs from the exclusive and specific specie of CHRISTIAN theism everywhere proclaimed in the bible, cstratton2 is the logical conclusion and ANY tolerance of this kind of syncretism at all logically precludes one from legitimate criticism of some one like this lad because hes’ simply being consistent. I agree with him and I’m just bein honest Pat. I’m not tryin to start a fight, but we both knew we would not see eye to eye on a LOT of doctrine and theology.
[/quote]
Again, I made no mention of anything of the sort. And there is no departing of Christian theism at all in anything I have said, past or present. I feel it’s a choice of deliberate misunderstanding of either myself or Christianity as a whole.
Who is anyone to judge whom God loves or chooses to save? We are not capable of that observation. There is humility in understanding that. If you people wish to discuss that, I am open to it, but I made no mention what so ever of it here. It seems odd to bring this up randomly from things of the past that seemingly have no link or current bearing on the topics at hand.
Forgive me, but bring up things from past threads out of the blue seems a deliberate attempt to pick a fight. Otherwise, why comment on something I did not say?

[/quote]

I wasn’t attacking you, Pat. I’m sorry if it came off that way. I just haven’t had time to post much and I’ve honestly been pondering our previous conversations often, especially now that I am continuing my studies in an EXTREMELY liberal context. I’m currently in a systematic theology course where every student simply assumes that every religion is as true as any other. So that discussion of the extension of salvation to unbelievers has been on my mind a lot. Tirib basically got my point - while I agree with you that God is the ultimate judge and that we must demonstrate humility in any of our claims about what particular individuals God is or isn’t saving, I do not think the proper path is this popular leveling of religions. No New Testament author would have ever agreed that Muslims or Hindus simply worshipped “imperfectly” or “ignorantly” the same God as Christians. For Paul, there is only one God, but that doesn’t mean that when his Greek neighbors sacrifice to Zeus, they are really worshipping Yahweh. Rather, he argued that such worship of anyone other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was worship of demons (1 Cor. 10:20). Yes, there is only one God, but that God is not the only being out there nor the only being to whom humans have directed worship.

Consequently, my further point was that Cstratton’s New Agey nonsense is a logical extension of the view that all people worship the same God with varying degrees of knowledge. Once that is allowed in the door (and especially since Vatican II, the view that (if I interpret YOUR statements correct) you espouse has been popular), there’s not much reason to distinguish one faith from another. It becomes a matter of personal preference.

137

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
The bible which was written by second hand prophets… I find Jesus Christ to be a great example of a humanitarian, however alot seems to not sit right… The teaching is meant to dissolve oneself and see past conditioning, not to follow blindly to random scripture and text and call it truth through a pattern of the mind, theology and belief is just a mental mind construct. [/quote]

This is all wrong. I suspect you have not read the whole thing or know a great deal about biblical history. Jesus was not a humanitarian, he was the Christ. God incarnate in the flesh. Much more than a humanitarian and the depth and breath of his presence on Earth is still yet to be fully realized and understood.[/quote]

Precisely. And people who see Jesus as simply a good guy, a humanitarian perhaps, are absolutely clueless to the fact that when he returns he will kill millions of people when he returns. He has every right, for he is God. That will be the side of Jesus we will be frightened to see. [/quote]

I understand everyones points and are putting up great statements, about war for land, money personal gain etc… I did not say every war was based on religion… The thinking mind is a virtual reality and everything in it is not real… Ask any psychologist this and they know, its a very thin line between normal day dreaming and psychotic break… Jesus would NEVER do something like that, That is religious dogma and stupidity at its finest… Jesus had no favorable side sinner or saint, no one is exempt from salvation, he spent equal time with all… In fact if anything those that are hardest to love need it the most… Yes there are very good christians out there, but also buddhist, atheist, hindu, islam, etc… Theology and belief have nothing to do with a persons ability to be “human”. [/quote]

LOL stop making claims about what Jesus would or wouldn’t have done when you clearly know NOTHING about textual study. As I already demonstrated, you couldn’t even interpret his admonition to “deny yourself” properly.

Jesus “had no favorable side, sinner or saint?” I assume you mean that Jesus showed no favoritism, but that is simply untrue. From the portrait the gospels depict (which are our primary resources into the acts and teachings of Jesus), Jesus eschewed spending time with those who considered themselves saints (taken in its loose sense of “good people”) because there are no “saints”; every person stands condemned before God. Moreover, Jesus explicitly limited his ministry to the Jews; the examples to the contrary prove the rule (Matthew 15:24). So yes, Jesus WAS pretty selective. And if you still entertain the erroneous notion that Jesus didn’t buy into the majority of the Jewish Messianic expectations, disabuse yourself of that notion by reading Matthew 25:31-46, where he clearly validates the most common Jewish belief about the Messiah, i.e., that he would judge the peoples and condemn those he deemed wicked to eternal suffering.

So once again, believe what you want about Hinduism and Buddhism and Islam, but at least demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty by recognizing that the Jesus depicted in the New Testament (THE ONLY SOURCES WE HAVE ABOUT HIM) is not some existentialist teacher of universal truths.

138

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Forgive me, but bringing up things from past threads out of the blue seems a deliberate attempt to pick a fight. Otherwise, why comment on something I did not say?[/quote]Pat, you have my word that I AM NOT trying to pick a fight. Honest man. I know the exact statements he’s referring to and they are not outta the blue. They are relevant to the conversation at hand.
How I do wish we could talk in private. Feel free still any time ( tiribulus@gmail.com ) Nobody’s ganging up on you either. It’s not like that. I never even told him we were speaking again just so I could honestly tell you that I didn’t tell him. He’ll tell you himself.

When you say Muslims are seeking the same God as Christians, you ARE expressing syncretism. When you are reluctant to call the Mormon pantheon of gods a damnable pagan falsehood, you ARE expressing syncretism. As a couple of examples. I’m not attacking you my friend, I’m discussing with you. Am I allowed to be honest? You are of course free to honestly critique anything I’m saying as well.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote an excellent post I’m redacting for page space:<<< LOL stop making claims about what Jesus would or wouldn’t have done when you clearly know NOTHING about textual study. <<<>>> So once again, believe what you want about Hinduism and Buddhism and Islam, but at least demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty by recognizing that the Jesus depicted in the New Testament (THE ONLY SOURCES WE HAVE ABOUT HIM) is not some existentialist teacher of universal truths. [/quote]Very very good your highness. Of course I couldn’t have said it better myself.

139

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Still lookin for that answer on probability btw.
[/quote]

lol dammit. I will answer it today.

140

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]See what you think of some thing like this: The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days | Answers in Genesis Regardless of anybody’s views he does spell out what was the vast majority one in the church for a very long time and for very good biblical reasons. Of course this will have no effect on most even church people nowadays, but just to throw it out there. Still lookin for that answer on probability btw.
[/quote]

I tend to agree with the content of the link you’ve provided–my understanding of the word yom is of course second-hand, but every reputable account I’ve read has left little doubt that a dusk-to-dawn day is what’s meant in Genesis.

If we accept that a 24-hour day is what’s described by the text, it seems to me that the true believer has little choice but acceptance. Obvious problems arise when a foundational narrative is presented as fact and then found not to be–“perhaps the virgin birth was metaphorical, perhaps the resurrection was metaphorical.”

It was noted above that metaphor plays a role in the Bible as evidenced by Jesus’ parables. But Jesus makes it explicitly clear to his disciples that he finds metaphor effective. No such meta-description accompanies Genesis.