Scriptural literacy

[Radrook]

Examples of illiteracy? They are splattered all over this forum.

Statements based on not reading what the Bible tells us about lkife in heaven.

Other statements based on not reading what Genesis says in the first few chapters.

Other statements assuming that the whole Bible is one huge Allegory.

Still other statements proposing a host of non-biblical things which cleary show the person never read what he chooses to criticize.

They are easily identifiable. Assuming of course that one has read the Bible studied its basics. Otherwise one might be prone to join in making absurd claims based on the misguided assumptiions of undetectability.

 

[joobz]

Consideration of the context of any given literary work doesn't require that the person apply iron age concepts. It merely requires that he consider context when trying to understand what he's reading. You learn that in grade school.

Then you have falsely stated that you wanted to apply scholarly literary evaluation. Taking the time that was text was written into consideration is the first step in such an evaluation.

 

[Piggy]

That the scriptures have content that must be considered before evaluation is a universally agreed upon principle which isn't open to negotiation as you woud have it be. The very fact that you question sch a basic requirement is sufficient reason to conclude that you are not familiar with the subject matter. Unfamiliarity with the basics of a subject matter makes any attempts at intelligent discussion an exercise in futility.

Who is "you"?

It will be helpful if you use the "Quote" function.

Everyone here agrees that context is relevant.

No one here is disputing that, so you're preaching to the choir, here.

It would be helpful if you gave some examples of mis-interpretation and incorrect analysis, on the one hand, and correct interpretation and analysis on the other hand.

Thanks.

 

[Piggy]

Consideration of the context of any given literary work doesn't require that the person apply iron age concepts. It merely requires that he consider context when trying to understand what he's reading. You learn that in grade school.

Well, it does, if the text you're considering is the Song of Miriam. (You are familiar with this passage of the Bible, I assume.)

 

[Piggy]

Examples of illiteracy? They are splattered all over this forum.

Statements based on not reading what the Bible tells us about lkife in heaven.

Other statements based on not reading what Genesis says in the first few chapters.

Other statements assuming that the whole Bible is one huge Allegory.

Still other statements proposing a host of non-biblical things which cleary show the person never read what he chooses to criticize.

They are easily identifiable. Assuming of course that one has read the Bible studied its basics. Otherwise one might be prone to join in making absurd claims based on the misguided assumptiions of undetectability.

Then you should have no trouble citing these examples.

Certainly I could snoop around and find examples that I thought were misinterpretations.

But I'm asking you for examples of what you consider misinterpretations.

Since this is the topic you are attempting to discuss, this is reasonable to ask, and necessary to do.

Thanks.

 

[Toke]

Consideration of the context of any given literary work doesn't require that the person apply iron age concepts. It merely requires that he consider context when trying to understand what he's reading. You learn that in grade school.

So something written in the iron age should not be understood in the context of its time

Sounds like a non-answer to me.

 

[Piggy]

So something written in the iron age should not be understood in the context of its time

Sounds like a non-answer to me.

Radrook's "context" invariably turns out to be his own contemporary theology (which did not exist when the books of the Bible were composed and redacted) or pseudo-scientific speculation.

If he were to actually provide examples, this would become clear. Which, I suspect, is why he refuses to provide any examples, and prefers instead to hurl baseless insults at everyone instead.

Of course, he could prove me wrong and make me eat crow by actually providing some valid examples.

And really, nothing would please me more than to see Radrook and/or Edge adopt legitimate scholarly approaches to the Bible.

 

[Toke]

And really, nothing would please me more than to see Radrook and/or Edge adopt legitimate scholarly approaches to the Bible.

That is not likely to happen.

In my personal experience real theologians are pretty calm and collected, and do not make agitated accusations. Probably because they know their subject and can argue coherently.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Examples of illiteracy? They are splattered all over this forum.

...snip...

They are easily identifiable. Assuming of course that one has read the Bible studied its basics. Otherwise one might be prone to join in making absurd claims based on the misguided assumptiions of undetectability.

Maybe you can provide specific examples instead of just nebulous generalizations. You pulled the same argument with me when we discussed homosexuality in the bible. And I'd love to hear what you consider the rules of biblical criticism.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Then you should have no trouble citing these examples.

Certainly I could snoop around and find examples that I thought were misinterpretations.

But I'm asking you for examples of what you consider misinterpretations.

Since this is the topic you are attempting to discuss, this is reasonable to ask, and necessary to do.

Thanks.

He listed a few examples of misinterpretations on the first or second page, however they were all examples of arguments that nobody on this forum ever made. Given where he pulled those strawman arguments out from, his use of the word "splattered" seems all the more appropriate.

Most sane people are capable of quoting the arguments they're responding to and addressing those arguments directly. (Look! There's even a button for it at the bottom right of every post!) It doesn't take a lot of scholarship however to sit there and argue with the voices in one's head.

 

[Brian-M]

Consideration of the context of any given literary work doesn't require that the person apply iron age concepts. It merely requires that he consider context when trying to understand what he's reading. You learn that in grade school.

You repeatedly claim The Bible should be approached in the same manner as any other literary work. What kind of literary work are you referring to?

Compared with other ancient texts, the Bible is far closer in nature to Homer's Odyssey than the works of Plato, so should we regard the Bible as a work of historical fiction, and not a work of moral philosophy?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Who is "you"?

It will be helpful if you use the "Quote" function.

Everyone here agrees that context is relevant.

No one here is disputing that, so you're preaching to the choir, here.

It would be helpful if you gave some examples of mis-interpretation and incorrect analysis, on the one hand, and correct interpretation and analysis on the other hand.

Thanks.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for Rad to do this, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Anytime Rad, anytime... if you decide to cite an example of interpretation/misinterpretation, it would move this discussion forward.

 

[Piggy]

Compared with other ancient texts, the Bible is far closer in nature to Homer's Odyssey than the works of Plato

There are sections of Proverbs and of Job which are much closer to Plato than to Homer.

And there are sections of Joshua and Jonah which are much closer to Homer than to Plato.

And there are sections of Exodus and Revelation which bear precious little resemblance to either.

It's very difficult to make any statements about "the Bible", in fact.

 

[Paulhoff]

It's very difficult to make any statements about "the Bible", in fact.

One fact about the bible is, that it is OK to kill for its so-called god.

Paul

 

[Piggy]

Ok, let's go back and look at some earlier examples provided by the OP, and provide some non-polemic scholarship:

Three indications of scriptural illiteracy

1. Ignoring or denying context

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.

In the poem of Genesis 3:14-19 (which, btw, is older than the surrounding text) Adam is told that the ground is cursed because of his transgression and that "thorns and thistles" will thwart his efforts to bring food from the land.

In Genesis 2:15 (which is a later writing) Adam is told to "till... and keep" the garden.

Taken as a whole, as it was later redacted into the book we now know as Genesis, God's punishment (in part) is that Adam and his descendants will now have a much harder time getting their food from the land than they used to.

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.

Yes, it is a common error to think that sex is "original sin". Of course, "original sin" is not a Biblical doctrine, but a modern Church doctrine, so it's not particularly relevant to Biblical scholarship, although it is certainly relevant to the study of modern theology.

2. Ignoring or denying Genre

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,

Well, yes, it would be wrong to claim that all scripture is allegorical, but I don't know anyone who makes this claim, and certainly no Bible scholars -- Christian or Hebrew -- would make such a bizarre claim.

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.

I'll need to see some specifics here.

"Yom" can refer to a 24-hour day, or a period of daylight (sunrise to sunset), or it can be used metaphorically much as we might say "in my grandfather's day".

As I've mentioned above, Genesis 2-3 is not a unitary text, so we can expect that the various verses may not mesh together perfectly.

But in any case, I think Radrook is generally correct that the use of "yom" in Genesis 2:17 is not problematic.

So, on the whole, some hits and misses here, Radrook. You do point out some areas where people who are ignorant of the Bible get tripped up -- e.g., believing that sex is "original sin" or that Genesis 2:17 is a fatal flaw -- but I don't know of any Bible scholars, or serious students of the Bible, who would make those errors.

 

[Radrook]

Inanities proving Biblical Illiteracy

Ummmm, Man wasn't given work until he sinned. [ignores context]
Ummmm, There's nothing to do in heaven except drink wine. [ignores context]
Uummm Claiming to be a Christian makes you one. [ignores context]
Ummmm God tells us he can't be understood. [biblical illiteracy showing]
Ummmm Christians are supposed to follow Mosaic Law. [Profound biblical illiteracy showing]
Ummmm Jews knew nothing about restoration prophecies. [assumes to know]
ummmm How do you know they knew? [assumes it's impossible to know if they knew or not]
Ummmm How do you know Jesus knew? [Silly question showing profound ignorance of Jewish historical context]
Ummmm I see no reason to conclude they knew! [Understandable in view of sloppy scholarship]
Ummmm Where in the Bible does it say they Knew? [Assumes that the exact words They knew! are needed for us to know they knew.]
ummmm The only way the prophets could prophecy that way is of they were drug addicts. [false premise]
ummmm Diversity of opinion means the original work had no opinion. [false premise]
ummmm Anything written during that time is worthless. [false premise]
Ummmm Moral standards are better now because they approve gay sex. [subjective evaluation]
Ummmm No one has a right to tell me what to do! [false premise]
and

Ummmm God raped Mary! So there! [A real humdinger which needs no refutation since it shows profound scriptural illiteracy.]


BTW
Now comes the droning statement of still holding breath while waiting because they still don't see.

 

[Radrook]

So something written in the iron age should not be understood in the context of its time

Sounds like a non-answer to me.

Your premise was that being of an iron age the writing must be somehow of less moral worth. That's the issue I was adressing. You are now shifting ground after setting a false premise. Whether a morality is or isn't good for our present time has to be judged not in accordance with when written but instead on its inherent morality or immorality. You are also assuming that human nature is different now. It isn't. If it were, then we would be much better off morrally-we aren't. And if we were, it wouldn't be because people back then were inherently less moral as you would seem to imply.

 

[Radrook]

That is not likely to happen.

In my personal experience real theologians are pretty calm and collected, and do not make agitated accusations. Probably because they know their subject and can argue coherently.

Sure! They calmly coherently and collectively agree to cooperate with the godless in discrediting the Bible at every turn possible. Those aren't really theologians-they are quacks in the service of Satan.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15
New International Version (NIV)

13. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

BTW
I am assuming these are the theolgians you refer to since you seem too pleased with their methodology.

 

[Mark Felt]

words

Do you agree or disagree with the statement "Slavery of humans is wrong"?

ETA:

Words

Strawman, all he said was that theologians don't lose their temper when trying to convert you.

More will be ETA

ETA: Apparently not.

 

[Toke]

Your premise was that being of an iron age the writing must be somehow of less moral worth. That's the issue I was adressing. You are now shifting ground after setting a false premise. Whether a morality is or isn't good for our present time has to be judged not in accordance with when written but instead on its inherent morality or immorality. You are also assuming that human nature is different now. It isn't. If it were, then we would be much better off morrally-we aren't. And if we were, it wouldn't be because people back then were inherently less moral as you would seem to imply.

What is of "less moral worth" change with the times, what what was good in the iron age can be evil now.

Alot of "inherent morality or immorality" change from society to society.

A god that was good 2000 years ago are quite evil nowadays.

Unless of cource your "Spawns of satan theologists" spend their time modifying the teachings to fit society.
They also spend some time working with the contradictions in the bible.