JCC Arena The Theist/Atheist Thunderdome™

Interpreting a big chunk of the Bible as metaphor and allegory does raise questions as to why we should take anything within it literally, including the existence of God and the prophets and Jesus himself. Even the New Testament has extremely dubious provenance-- none of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses and Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source; half of the letters attributed to Paul were not written by him. To me it's more consistent to say Adam and Eve actually existed than to say they did not but hey this dude is the Son of God (but also not 'cause vaguely Eastern influence) and he died and came back to life and he'll come back but this thing written about him coming back is just a metaphor for the Roman Empire.

 

Because they're different genres? Some are poetry for crying out loud. Surely we're not meant to take those the same as the histories?

 

There's no reason to believe they record what happened or were really meant to (there's a lot of allegory in metaphor in those four books). Like I said, the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, the authors probably didn't talk to eyewitnesses, and the books source and sometimes contradict one another or omit important details that the others mention (e.g., Mark doesn't say anything about a virgin birth). Except for the broad strokes of the setting (Roman occupation, some major figures, apocalypse cults), they're as accurate as Genesis is.

 

Who is deciding which book is which genre?

 

“Look, no needs to bother writing any of this down because the end of the world is right around the corner. Consider the lily: it doesn’t write anything. You should be like the lily. Now go get married and forsake all your material possessions. I said forsake them, Thomas, forsake the **** out of them. Consider the lily: it does what I goddamn well said. No one better be writing this.” - Jesus “Actually my name is Josh” Christ

 

It's as obvious when you read them as it is that a poetry book isn't a history book.

 

It's just. obvious.

 

Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon are some examples of poetry/praise type books, not history. I personally believe Genesis to be factual, not allegorical.

 

Your interpretation of fact against allegory is phenomenologically modern in a way the authors of Genesis wouldn’t even have been able to parse so good luck with that.

 

Genesis is clearly creation myth, which is obvious when you read contemporary myths like the epic of Gilgamesh.

 

No, I'm pretty sure all the names are curiously symbolic for exactly 11 chapters of exactly one book which just so happens to then deviate wildly in favor of establishing valid lines of descent amongst patriarchs because the ancient Hebrews - sorry, just Moses - boldly anticipated later developments in historiography which demanded the removal of mythological elements from the text and definitely had our post-Enlightenment view of where the line between fact and fiction lay.

 

On what grounds to you believe Genesis to be factual, if I may ask?
Have you taken a good look at what natural science has to say on those matters?

Sent from my BLA-L29 using Tapatalk

 

Genesis was a Schwarzenegger movie, wasn't it? I think it was a good one. A factual one.

 

When you read ancient Hebrew it is. I've mentioned before that I did my own full translation of Jonah, for instance, and it was clear it was parable from the writing style and references.

 

Amazing.

 

You get that this is a senate thread, right?

 

I find these sorts of conversations tiresome.

The basic argument is that taking the entire Bible as literal would imply unbelievable consequences.

In a religion about someone coming back to life. Take away every “questionable” text and the religion is still undeniably about this.

It’s not a scientific belief. People choose to accept it or not. The rest is garbage. (Note: Rachel’s discussion about how Christians should understand their own sacred texts is a more nuanced and worthwhile discussion.).

 

Sorry, if this is the senate then how or why am I supposed to take seriously "believe me I've translated it myself"? That tells me absolutely nothing. Where are your notes? Who'd you use as references? What source did you use?

How else am I supposed to respond to "I did it and it was clear to me"? Get real.

 

Because I've previously talked extensively about it. But your dismissive attitude doesn't exactly inspire one to write a whole essay about it. You don't seem to have an intellectually honest interest in such a discussion.

 

Clearly you are both in a frothing rage.

 

I also find it a little bizarre that this debate is about "HOW CAN YOU TELL WHAT GENRE IT IS?!" as if that's the most difficult question, or rather that there's some sort of objective scientific test she could run and deliberately has not.

 

Right? Genre is honestly pretty easy in any literature you read. Even in translation but especially in the original language. Like I've said, it's obvious Genesis is creation myth because it references and uses the same style as other contemporary creation myths. It's a response to them. "Your founding myth says the world was created through accidentally violence, my view says a loving God oversaw it with care." That's what it's saying. Not "this is science and the world was literally made exactly this way."

Also, if you need someone to tell you what books are poetry, idk what to say.

 

It's all pointless anyway because, as we all know from the Linga Purana, existence actually just continuously arises from and is subsumed by Adi Parashakti via the union of every Pavarti and Shiva in all universes.