Alan B wrote:My REB might have an error!

For what it is worth, I find the English Standard Version to be a good translation

Passer wrote:

Alan B wrote:My REB might have an error!

For what it is worth, I find the English Standard Version to be a good translation

Is there a link to a site that contains the bits which are to be taken literally separate from the bits which are not to be taken literally?

Passer wrote:
I'm not being dishonest.

Yes, yes you are. The worst of it is that you are being dishonest with yourself.

Passer wrote:I probably didn't do a good job of explaining what I mean but there you go.

You didn't do a bad job of explaining it, which is to say your explanation is that of countless biblical apologists before you. Some of it is literal where it suits and where it doesn't suit, it isn't literal and you shoehorn in whatever meaning you like to see what you want to see.

newolder wrote:

Passer wrote:

Alan B wrote:My REB might have an error!

For what it is worth, I find the English Standard Version to be a good translation

Is there a link to a site that contains the bits which are to be taken literally separate from the bits which are not to be taken literally?

Not that I am aware of

Passer wrote:The Book of Revelation is highly symbolic, so we have to keep that in mind when reading it....

That's not dishonest, Passer, but it is a pretty clueless remark. This is nothing more than parroting the boilerplate stuff that other people say about interpreting the bible, because lots of people think they have to read the bible, but we don't have to keep anything in mind. If you have some good reason for reading Revelation besides "because it's there", now would be a good time to disclose it.

You're just bringing in a boatload of assumptions about the value of the biblical texts to set behind your 'urge' to interpret it, but you're really just tagging along with a big crowd of people who take the bible seriously, and there's really no reason for you to expect to find any of them here on this forum.

If all you can do is chatter away using expression that is in no way original with you, you should not be surprised that no one takes your questions seriously.

Sendraks wrote:

Passer wrote:
I'm not being dishonest.

Yes, yes you are. The worst of it is that you are being dishonest with yourself.

Passer wrote:I probably didn't do a good job of explaining what I mean but there you go.

You didn't do a bad job of explaining it, which is to say your explanation is that of countless biblical apologists before you. Some of it is literal where it suits and where it doesn't suit, it isn't literal and you shoehorn in whatever meaning you like to see what you want to see.

I guess it boils down to whether or not I think the ancients believed the earth was a flat square. I don't. So that is in my mind when I read the scriptures.

I can see how others might think they believed the earth was a flat square, but I don't see it. At best I am wrong but I am not being dishonest with myself or others. Do I KNOW for definite they believed the earth was a globe? No. But that is what I believe.

Passer wrote:

newolder wrote:

Passer wrote:

Alan B wrote:My REB might have an error!

For what it is worth, I find the English Standard Version to be a good translation

Is there a link to a site that contains the bits which are to be taken literally separate from the bits which are not to be taken literally?

Not that I am aware of

What have you guys been doing for the last few hundred years? How do you remember which is which? Do the guys in long frocks just make it up as they go along? Who's in charge of this ridiculous book?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:The Book of Revelation is highly symbolic, so we have to keep that in mind when reading it....

That's not dishonest, Passer, but it is a pretty clueless remark. This is nothing more than parroting the boilerplate stuff that other people say about interpreting the bible, because lots of people think they have to read the bible, but we don't have to keep anything in mind. If you have some good reason for reading Revelation besides "because it's there", now would be a good time to disclose it.

You're just bringing in a boatload of assumptions about the value of the biblical texts to set behind your 'urge' to interpret it, but you're really just tagging along with a big crowd of people who take the bible seriously, and there's really no reason for you to expect to find any of them here on this forum.

I'm not tagging along with others. I don't belong to any Christian Church. When I read Revelation I read it alone, and I know it is replete with symbology and figurative meaning. Anyone who reads just the first chapter could see that. My point Cito, is that I read Revelation differently to how I might read, for example, Psalms, or Mark or Job. There's a certain style to the writing you just cannot ignore. Not if you want to try to understand what the text is saying.

Passer wrote:My question was whether or not the Bible was informing people 3000 years ago of something we did not know about until much later.

Well, that question is easily answered on its own terms, without any external knowledge needed. If you'll pardon the tautology: If something is informing someone, then those who are the recipients of this information must be informed at the time of the informing. If no one knew this information until "much later", then they were not informed of it by the Bible, were they?

Passer wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:The Book of Revelation is highly symbolic, so we have to keep that in mind when reading it....

That's not dishonest, Passer, but it is a pretty clueless remark. This is nothing more than parroting the boilerplate stuff that other people say about interpreting the bible, because lots of people think they have to read the bible, but we don't have to keep anything in mind. If you have some good reason for reading Revelation besides "because it's there", now would be a good time to disclose it.

You're just bringing in a boatload of assumptions about the value of the biblical texts to set behind your 'urge' to interpret it, but you're really just tagging along with a big crowd of people who take the bible seriously, and there's really no reason for you to expect to find any of them here on this forum.

I'm not tagging along with others. I don't belong to any Christian Church. When I read Revelation I read it alone, and I know it is replete with symbology and figurative meaning. Anyone who reads just the first chapter could see that. My point Cito, is that I read Revelation differently to how I might read, for example, Psalms, or Mark or Job. There's a certain style to the writing you just cannot ignore. Not if you want to try to understand what the text is saying.

That's an inadequate response as far as I am concerned. All you're saying, then, is that you read the bible because it interests you personally. What the fuck is up with all your other questions? I already asked you whether you're asking here because you expect to find ex-theists who'll give you their reminiscences about what they thought something from the bible meant when they thought it meant something. Is there something about the reminiscences of ex-theists that you find attractive? Maybe you're just bored stiff, and are trying to find ways to pass the time, Passer, but mainly it looks like you've picked your audience specifically for their capacity to become irritated at your silly questions.

People who study biblical history, professors of religious studies, and so on, have written tons of commentary on the cultures of the communities responsible for the scripture you are trying to read. I think you should read what they have to say as a student instead of bothering people who are not interested in scripture as anything but a touchstone of people's obsession with religious traditions. Tradition for the sake of tradition is all you're offering when you suggest that anyone would want to try to understand what the text is 'saying'. You really can interpret it any way you like, as long as you find enough people to agree with you on the interpretation. If you prefer to read the bible alone, why are you asking other people to help you?

Passer wrote:
I guess it boils down to whether or not I think the ancients believed the earth was a flat square. I don't. So that is in my mind when I read the scriptures.

So you're ignoring the context in which the scriptures were written.

Passer wrote:I can see how others might think they believed the earth was a flat square, but I don't see it.

This is an appeal to incredulity.

Passer wrote: Do I KNOW for definite they believed the earth was a globe? No.

You could do a little research, rather than holding beliefs based purely on conjecture. But, that really depends on how honest you're prepared to be in tackling the subject material.

Passer wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Passer wrote:
I'm not being dishonest.

Yes, yes you are. The worst of it is that you are being dishonest with yourself.

Passer wrote:I probably didn't do a good job of explaining what I mean but there you go.

You didn't do a bad job of explaining it, which is to say your explanation is that of countless biblical apologists before you. Some of it is literal where it suits and where it doesn't suit, it isn't literal and you shoehorn in whatever meaning you like to see what you want to see.

I guess it boils down to whether or not I think the ancients believed the earth was a flat square. I don't. So that is in my mind when I read the scriptures.

I can see how others might think they believed the earth was a flat square, but I don't see it. At best I am wrong but I am not being dishonest with myself or others. Do I KNOW for definite they believed the earth was a globe? No. But that is what I believe.

You have the distinct advantage over the biblical authors of living in a time where we know exactly what shape the earth is. We've got it mapped and observed from space etc.

There is clear evidence within written history that people used to generally believe it was flat. It's why people circumnavigating it was such big thing.

Have a look at what happened when the scholars of old started suggesting to the pious that the world was round. I seem to remember the church didn't take too kindly to the authority of the bible/god being challenged.

Passer wrote:When I read Revelation I read it alone, and I know it is replete with symbology and figurative meaning.

Well, golly, that fits right the fuck in with a thread on Science and the Bible, doesn't it just?

It's already been remarked that you don't have a vademecum that tells you which parts to read as 'science' and which as 'literature'. I guess it's down to whatever you can interpret the hell out of, right?

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth around 200 BC to within 1% accuracy, iirc - I'm sure a quick wiki search would bear me out... Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Shrunk wrote:

Passer wrote:My question was whether or not the Bible was informing people 3000 years ago of something we did not know about until much later.

Well, that question is easily answered on its own terms, without any external knowledge needed. If you'll pardon the tautology: If something is informing someone, then those who are the recipients of this information must be informed at the time of the informing. If no one knew this information until "much later", then they were not informed of it by the Bible, were they?

God being omnipotent might have revealed to the ancients what others took many years to figure out. Not sure but in this case I think it was sea levels rising. I see the error I'm making here though. To whit, am I to believe the ancients never shared the knowledge about why sea levels did not rise or am I to believe the knowledge did not just, by chance, get out to others, over the span of 3000 years.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Passer wrote:When I read Revelation I read it alone, and I know it is replete with symbology and figurative meaning.

Well, golly, that fits right the fuck in with a thread on Science and the Bible, doesn't it just?

The two are not mutually exclusive. Each book is different. One might be full of symbology, the next, not so much.

Cito di Pense wrote:It's already been remarked that you don't have a vademecum that tells you which parts to read as 'science' and which as 'literature'. I guess it's down to whatever you can interpret the hell out of, right?

Not really. You have to interpret what the text is saying. If you read Revelation believing it is literal, then you may well get confused. The thing is we interpret stuff every second of the day. Reading books is no different.

Passer wrote:You have to interpret what the text is saying.

No, I fucking don't. You do. Try using the first person pronoun if you just want to talk about yourself.

Passer wrote:...
God being omnipotent might have revealed to the ancients what others took many years to figure out. Not sure but in this case I think it was sea levels rising. I see the error I'm making here though. To whit, am I to believe the ancients never shared the knowledge about why sea levels did not rise or am I to believe the knowledge did not just, by chance, get out to others, over the span of 3000 years.

Nope. Sea levels have not risen much in the last 3000 years, vis.:

wiki source
The error you make is to believe the scribblings of ancient goat-roasters and not having a clue when they were taking the piss or being literal, when the data from modern methods are easily available.

Passer wrote:God being omnipotent might have revealed to the ancients what others took many years to figure out.

He may have "revealed" it, but he clearly did not inform them of it since, by your own account, they were as ignorant of it at their death as they were on the day they were born. I don't really see the point in The Almighty making "revelations" that are unable to convey the information they supposedly contain. But I guess that's a question for practitioners of Biblical interpretation.

Not sure but in this case I think it was sea levels rising. I see the error I'm making here though. To whit, am I to believe the ancients never shared the knowledge about why sea levels did not rise or am I to believe the knowledge did not just, by chance, get out to others, over the span of 3000 years.

You're not quite considering all the options here.

I remember one fundy saying "All Ah need to know is in this here book!" (patting his well thumbed Babble). I said that's great, can you look up the head bolt torque for a '70 Chevy 350 4-bolt?