Scriptural literacy

[Frozenwolf150]

Oh look, more junk hauled out from the sandcrawler. Sorry, but we're not interested in buying.

Claim: Work itself was punishment since prior to sin Adam was not to labor.

Context Fact: Adam is told to tend the Garden and subdue the earth as well as care for the animals.

Nobody here has made that claim. Try again.

Claim: Sex was the original sin

Context Fact: God created the sexual organs to be used to fill the earth. Adam and eve were instructed to have sex.

Nobody here has made that claim. Try again.

Claim: All scripture is allegorical and should not be taken literally.

Genre Fact: The scriptures contain poetry, history, song, prophecy, advice, proverbs, moral instructions, ceremonial worship instructions,

Nobody here has denied your "genre fact" but it in no way contradicts or refutes the idea that scripture should not be taken literally, given that the topic in hand had to do with biblical laws in a modern context, and whether or not one should apply descriptive laws in a proscriptive manner. This is a question you have failed repeatedly to answer.

For your information, when people talk about not taking scripture literally, they're not denying that the Israelites executed people for stupid reasons. They're talking about what relevance those laws have to us today, and whether or how they should be applied to our lives. That's where the allegorical interpretation comes into play. I thought that was obvious enough.

Claim: God lied because he used the word "yom" to indicate when Adam would die if he sinned.

Word meaning Fact: The word "yom" is used in the scriptures in reference to periods of time longer than one day as well.

Nobody here has made that claim. Try again.

The above three errors are being constantly used in support of easily refutable untenable antibiblical arguments. (snip)

Perhaps instead of ignoring what was actually said while arguing only with the imaginary arguments in your head, you should address the arguments people have actually made. Beating up a strawman is no different from beating on yourself. It's mental masturbation all the same.

Glad to hear that. Perhaps by exposing these dubious tactics there will be an increase in genuine arguments which will warrant a response and which will provide a basis for an intelligent discussion on the issues involved. Although judging by the furious raucus, I doubt it.

That statement is no different from that of a truther who believes he's "exposed" the government's involvement in 9/11. It's certainly based on the same brand of evidence.

The only times I refuse to engage in a discussion is when I am threatened with irrelevancies based on lack of knowledge, which might be firmly based on mental sloth or sheer stubborn reluctance to research the subject due to biased preconceptions. Since such attitudes, will swamp me, I am forced to discard them as unworthy of a response. Which they are.

Translation:

The only times I refuse to engage in a discussion is when I am threatened with logical refutal and valid criticism of my wafer thin beliefs, which might be firmly based on my mental sloth or sheer stubborn reluctance to research the subject due to biased preconceptions. Since such attitudes will force me to think about unpleasant things such as the possibility I may be wrong, when my Watchtower Society has already done all the thinking for me, I am forced to discard them as unworthy of a response. Which they are.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From my perspective, Radrook, you've a long history here proclaiming yourself Bible Apologist in Chief. A great majority of the time, your particular interpretations of the Bible are quite a stretch. So why should we assume you know the correct interpretation and the rest of us who read the Bible should take your word for it we cannot understand simple English?

 

[joobz]

From my perspective, Radrook, you've a long history here proclaiming yourself Bible Apologist in Chief. A great majority of the time, your particular interpretations of the Bible are quite a stretch. So why should we assume you know the correct interpretation and the rest of us who read the Bible should take your word for it we cannot understand simple English?

Radrook has compared biblical interpretation to playing chess. I think that this is a very fair and accurate comparison.

Chess is a game. Games have a set of rules which must be agreed upon and followed in order to play.
The rules to games are effectively arbitrary, in that there is no externally verifiable governing principle deciding how to play each game. For instance, there is no explicitly universal reason why chess is played the way it is. It could easily have been invented to be played with all knights except a king.

If you change the rules you have a variation of the game. You may even call it by another name. Replace all pieces with red and black discs which move and attack like pawns but can do it multiple times and you have checkers. But you still have a game.

Biblical Interpretation is exactly like this. You must agree upon a set of ground rules to accept the interpretation as valid. With each set of ground rules, you end up with a different denomination of christianity.

The difference comes in when each game player claims that their game is the only one true way to play games and that all other games are evil and false.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove which game IS the true game. It's not like in physics, when things are forced to work by only one set of rules. We can not experiment to find the "true game".

To people who do not play the games, it is clear that the rules are arbitrary and that all games are equal in this feature.

 

[schlitt]

Radrook has compared biblical interpretation to playing chess. I think that this is a very fair and accurate comparison.

Chess is a game. Games have a set of rules which must be agreed upon and followed in order to play.
The rules to games are effectively arbitrary, in that there is no externally verifiable governing principle deciding how to play each game. For instance, there is no explicitly universal reason why chess is played the way it is. It could easily have been invented to be played with all knights except a king.

If you change the rules you have a variation of the game. You may even call it by another name. Replace all pieces with red and black discs which move and attack like pawns but can do it multiple times and you have checkers. But you still have a game.

Biblical Interpretation is exactly like this. You must agree upon a set of ground rules to accept the interpretation as valid. With each set of ground rules, you end up with a different denomination of christianity.

There difference comes in when each game player claims that their game is the only one true way to play games and that all other games are evil and false.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove which game IS the true game. It's not like in physics, when things are forced to work by only one set of rules. We can not experiment to find the "true game".

To people who do not play the games, it is clear that the rules are arbitrary and that all games are equal in this feature.

Good post Joobz.

 

[Brian-M]

Three indications of scriptural illiteracy
3. Ignoring original word meanings

Claim: God lied because he used the word "yom" to indicate when Adam would die if he sinned.

Word meaning Fact: The word "yom" is used in the scriptures in reference to periods of time longer than one day as well.

Um, you seem to be responding to something I said in a different thread altogether. That's OK, I'll deal with it here.

I never mentioned the word "yom", or even heard of the word until now. Foolish me, I was looking at a standard English translation of the bible because that's the only language that I speak.

I've looked it up, and you're right. It doesn't need to mean a day. It can refer to practically any period of time depending on usage. The usage in the passage is not clear, so a correct translation would be if they ate the fruit they would "die this [untranslatable unspecified period of time].", which doesn't clear things up any.

Apparently, this same ambiguous word usage occurs throughout the entire bible, and is inherent in the Hebrew language...

Whereas our vocabulary is around half a million, the Hebrew language has only 8,700 words. The French language, one of the poorest modern languages in vocabulary and the language of choice for diplomats, has just about 40,000 words or over 4 times the amount of words that Ancient Hebrew has.

Many of the Hebrew words could be considered duplicates with only slight differences. Thus, words which contain multiple meanings are common.

As a consequence, many passages are highly ambiguous and can be interpreted in multiple valid ways, which brings me back to the question I asked earlier in this thread...

Who decides which interpretation is the correct one?

 

[RandFan]

p1 is unnecessary, it plays no part in the conclusion.

The conclusion contains an If clause containing two conditions, these should be regarded as two extra premises and removed from the conclusion.

The "There is a god" premise is unnecessary - it is implied by "According to the Bible, god...." and "The Bible is correct in this instance."

We can rewrite this as:

(p1) According to the Bible, god ordered the stoning to death of a man for gathering sticks.
(p2) The Bible is correct in this instance (p1).
(p3) The order to kill the man for gathering sticks is immoral.
(C) God is immoral.

Yes, I agree. This is a better argument.

Thank you.

 

[skeptical]

Is there any one that was killed because of that law and show where it is today, in our books of law.

Unfortunately the records for those murdered for sabbath violations thousands of years ago were not as carefully kept as one might hope. Today our laws are of course not based on bronze age mythology, so it is no where to be found, something that is generally thought of as an improvement.

I can however point to many people that were killed in historical times due to "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Will that due as a proxy for your answer? If so, what is/was your point?

 

[RandFan]

Is there any one that was killed because of that law and show where it is today, in our books of law.

Given that others have responded in ways I might have let me avoid the redundancy.

Let's assume that no one was killed because of that law. Never mind the story in the bible. Let's assume that was a lie... er, I mean figurative, yeah, that's it, figurative.

Would you answer the question?

Is it moral to kill a man for gathering sticks on the sabbath?

If you find the question uncomfortable you could always pull Radrook's stunt.

 

[Arthur Denton]

Radrook has compared biblical interpretation to playing chess. I think that this is a very fair and accurate comparison.

Chess is a game. Games have a set of rules which must be agreed upon and followed in order to play.
...
To people who do not play the games, it is clear that the rules are arbitrary and that all games are equal in this feature.

Joobz, man, this post of yours is just perfect. You have been enlightened to post such powerful stuff in such few words.

I'm still lurking in this thread, though, for a little while more. I'll reply... later!

 

[ferd burfle]

Radrook, are you a scientist? I am. I have a degree in the sciences and I use science daily in my work. If you are a scientist, please post your credentials so I may evaluate them and decide whether you are doing science right or not.

If you are not a scientist, please refrain from posting anything on the subject of science. You probably didn’t realize it, but I am the final word on all things scientific and I don’t have the time or energy to deal with scientifically illiterate postings from the likes of you.

Thanking you in advance,

Ferd

 

[Moochie]

Radrook, are you a scientist? I am. I have a degree in the sciences and I use science daily in my work. If you are a scientist, please post your credentials so I may evaluate them and decide whether you are doing science right or not.

If you are not a scientist, please refrain from posting anything on the subject of science. You probably didn’t realize it, but I am the final word on all things scientific and I don’t have the time or energy to deal with scientifically illiterate postings from the likes of you.

Thanking you in advance,

Ferd

I like it.


M.

 

[Toke]

Could any of the christians tell me whether is ok to test your good.

Jesus is quoted for saying something about the ones who belive without seeing, beeing particular holy/happy, whatever. (salige)

And does that make creationists HERETICS.

If there are 20-30.000 christian sects, does that mean all the others are scriptural illiterate.?

 

[Arthur Denton]

If there are 20-30.000 christian sects, does that mean all the others are scriptural illiterate.?

No, it means that they're just confused. God writes ok through not ok lines, and therefore, everyone may think something about the same thing and yet be considered enlightened. Or heretic.

Evangelists, bogomils, catholics, jeovah witnesses, all of them think different, and wrong. According to each other. Our man Radrook here is the living proof of it. And he's not afraid to debate, as long as we all agree systematically to whatever he says.

 

[ferd burfle]

I like it.


M.

Thanks!

Ferd

 

[RandFan]

No, it means that they're just confused. God writes ok through not ok lines, and therefore, everyone may think something about the same thing and yet be considered enlightened. Or heretic.

Evangelists, bogomils, catholics, jeovah witnesses, all of them think different, and wrong. According to each other. Our man Radrook here is the living proof of it. And he's not afraid to debate, as long as we all agree systematically to whatever he says.

We will all get a long much better if we all would simply realize that Radrook is right.

 

[Moochie]

We will all get a long much better if we all would simply realize that Radrook is right.

Not that Radrook is dogmatic, or anything...

I'd better stop before I get slapped. (Peace, Radrook!)


M.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Radrook has compared biblical interpretation to playing chess. I think that this is a very fair and accurate comparison.

Chess is a game. Games have a set of rules which must be agreed upon and followed in order to play.
The rules to games are effectively arbitrary, in that there is no externally verifiable governing principle deciding how to play each game. For instance, there is no explicitly universal reason why chess is played the way it is. It could easily have been invented to be played with all knights except a king.

If you change the rules you have a variation of the game. You may even call it by another name. Replace all pieces with red and black discs which move and attack like pawns but can do it multiple times and you have checkers. But you still have a game.

Biblical Interpretation is exactly like this. You must agree upon a set of ground rules to accept the interpretation as valid. With each set of ground rules, you end up with a different denomination of christianity.

The difference comes in when each game player claims that their game is the only one true way to play games and that all other games are evil and false.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove which game IS the true game. It's not like in physics, when things are forced to work by only one set of rules. We can not experiment to find the "true game".

To people who do not play the games, it is clear that the rules are arbitrary and that all games are equal in this feature.

To further your point. When beginners are first learning the game of chess, it's not uncommon to set up mock games that use only one type of piece, or a certain set of pieces, in order to help familiarize them with the big picture. There are pawn games, queen promotion games, endgames where you have to find the checkmate combination, etc. So while I would not disagree with him that context is important, I would not go so far as to insist that someone who is playing a pawn game or a game of checkers is an evil lying cheating bastard who can't understand plain English and is in no position to be discussing the rules of chess.

Also, to reiterate what I said before, chess is like biblical interpretation in that the rules and notations have in fact changed and revised over time. For someone to rant and rave about sticking to only his version of the game, in light of this, is arrogant and childish.

 

[joobz]

To further your point. When beginners are first learning the game of chess, it's not uncommon to set up mock games that use only one type of piece, or a certain set of pieces, in order to help familiarize them with the big picture. There are pawn games, queen promotion games, endgames where you have to find the checkmate combination, etc. So while I would not disagree with him that context is important, I would not go so far as to insist that someone who is playing a pawn game or a game of checkers is an evil lying cheating bastard who can't understand plain English and is in no position to be discussing the rules of chess.

Also, to reiterate what I said before, chess is like biblical interpretation in that the rules and notations have in fact changed and revised over time. For someone to rant and rave about sticking to only his version of the game, in light of this, is arrogant and childish.

exactly. The bible presents logical problems (e.g., god killing first born, permissibility towards slavery..) for which rules have been established in order to explain. It is possible to highlight these problems and remain in context with the text of the bible. The rules Radrook has placed on interpretation is most definitely NOT context.

 

[Arthur Denton]

We will all get a long much better if we all would simply realize that Radrook is right.

What is the point of posting such questions on a discussion forum anyway, if you don't want to argument, but to be recognized? He should make another kind of event, like... a congress of people who're right about the bible or something. A christian congress, or something.

See, Rad, my opinion is also that you should be able to accept the hacking once you wield the sword, I mean, you're in a discussion forum, you know you'll be discussed once placing an idea. It is only weird when people post something and everyone agrees. That's not a discussion forum, that's a commitment forum, or what the hell, I don't know what would that be.

Peace, man!

 

[volatile]

A believer and philologist in one!

I didn't know Radrook collected stamps!