orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/29/85)
I am not sure of Rick Frey's point about problems with taking words in the Bible literally. > In article <739@whuxl.UUCP>, orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > All this proves is yet another contradiction in the Bible > > if it is *taken literally*. My "New Oxford Annotated Bible" points > > out that the discrepecancy between the Genesis 1 and the Genesis 2 > > accounts of creation are evidence that the two accounts come from > > different traditions and authors. This is merely another way in which > > those two accounts *taken literally* blatantly contradict each other. > > > I'm trying to understand what you think constitutes a contradiction. Any > time someone uses 'literal words' whose 'literal meaning' (does such a > creature really exist the way you think it does?) goes against other > 'literal words', that's a contradiction. > > Some examples. (Christ speaking) "I am the bread of life." "I am the > ressurrection and the life." Obviously a contradiction, a person can't be > two things at once. Or at least not the bread of life and THE life. > > "But I say to you that Elijah already came ..." "Then the disciples > understood thay He had spoken to them about John the Baptist." Jesus said > the literal name Elijah, yet He was talking about someone else. You can't > have one thing refer to or mean another. All analogies, symbols and > parables are contradictions. > > "A sower went out to sow." Did a literal sower go literally out to sow? Did > seed actually fall by the wayside and get snatched up? Did thorns grow > amidst some of the seed and strangle it? It most likely didn't literally > happen, so not only is the Bible full of contradictions, it's also full of > lies. > > One last one just so you get the point of what I'm literally saying and a > good example of the error you made. "Everyone who drinks of this water > (speaking to the woman at the well) shall thirst again, but whoever drinks > of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst." What a lie. He's > saying I'll never be thirsty again because words can only have their literal > meanings and that's what He literally said. > Rick Frey Rick, I hope that people who say they believe in the "literal truth of every word in the Bible" will answer your question. The argument in my original article was that it is ludicrous to take the Bible as literal scientific truth, that its value lies in its wisdom not its literal truth. Specifically I was pointing out that belief in the "literal truth" of Genesis 1 leads to the refusal to believe that the Earth moves around the Sun. Moreover that the accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other in the order of events as they recount them for creation. tim sevener whuxn!orb
ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) (11/02/85)
In article <340@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > I am not sure of Rick Frey's point about problems with taking words > in the Bible literally. > > Rick, I hope that people who say they believe in the "literal truth of > every word in the Bible" will answer your question. The argument in my > original article was that it is ludicrous to take the Bible as literal > scientific truth, that its value lies in its wisdom not its literal truth. > Specifically I was pointing out that belief in the "literal truth" of Gen 1 > leads to the refusal to believe that the Earth moves around the Sun. > Moreover that the accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other > in the order of events as they recount them for creation. > tim sevener whuxn!orb I guess that's what I deserve for trying to make a point by example instead of by strict statements. The whole point I was making is that your supposedly 'literal interpretation' of the Bible is the problem here. Unfortunately I'm not adequately equipped, but the problem (to be exact) is the 'literal meaning of the Hebrew word used for day. The whole point I made in my article is that words can be used to mean differant things and words can be used to convey part of the imagery they represent without implying a literal correlation to the object in comparison (i.e. I am the bread of Life.) Scientific, literal truth means taking a text the way it is supposed to be read and not forcing some 20th century, English word literal meaning on it. Now, before you scream too loudly, I completely agree adn admit that tons of people abuse to all heck this fact that the Bible has to be interpreted. But so what? Does that mean that it's correct meaning is no longer interpreted? The Bible (as does all language) needs to be understood in context, in the spirit of what it's trying to say and (in as much as possible) the original language and cultural setting of the writing. One last attempt at an example. The English word day can mean: 1. 24 hour period 2. The period of light (approx 12 hours) 3. A 'day's work' or approx 8 hours. 4. Sleep the 'day' away or some quantity of time extending from the morning into the early afternoon. And these are just the few I could think of in our extremely calendar oriented specific, scientific, western culture. Think about a group of people who at best hoped the sun was coming up tomorrow and had to tell the seasons by stars and the path of the sun and not by their Casio chronograph. Rick Frey