Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Taking Genesis literally vs. figuratively

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 7:06:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.

It would require extreme stupidity for any entity who wished to be clearly understood, to utilize a figurative approach to providing a message, vital to it's proper interpretation. Figurative language opens itself to a multitude of means for interpretation. What's worse, Christians claim that some parts of the Bible are literal, while arguing about what other parts may be figurative. If Genesis is figurative, then it is pointless. And if one insists that the stories in Genesis are figurative, then anyone can make the same claim of God, Jesus, Heaven, and an afterlife.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 2:01:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Yeah....no.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 2:04:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 2:01:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Yeah....no.

I think he summed it up pretty well

(a) If you take it literally, you are considered an idiot by any normal standard of judgement and logic

(b) If you take it metaphorically or figuratively, it opens up a continuum where people can decipher and justify the bible however they want

Even with hermenutics and text interpretation (finding the intent of the author) By admitting that some parts of it are metaphors and not literal(which the bible claims they are), you are substantially weakening the claims within the bible.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 3:31:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 2:04:43 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:01:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Yeah....no.

I think he summed it up pretty well


I don't. I suppose if one wooden understanding of how to read any sort of literature whatsoever then that would be a pretty good summation though.

(a) If you take it literally, you are considered an idiot by any normal standard of judgement and logic


I wouldn't say an idiot but I would say misguided or ignorant.

(b) If you take it metaphorically or figuratively, it opens up a continuum where people can decipher and justify the bible however they want


Nope.

Even with hermenutics and text interpretation (finding the intent of the author) By admitting that some parts of it are metaphors and not literal(which the bible claims they are), you are substantially weakening the claims within the bible.

"the bible" isn't one book. it's a collection of books and documents written in all sorts of different literary tropes and themes and a multiplicity of literary genres. To treat them, or read them all of them the same way, or with uniform expectations as to whether they should be "literal" or "metaphors" is absurd.

the slippery slope arguments are weak as they stand. it'd be like seizing upon me saying "it's raining cats and dogs" (obviously intended to not be taken literally) and then say since that is open to interpretation as a metaphor/idiom whatever follows is also legitimately open to be interpreted as metaphor/idom.

I'm not sure why you guys are insisting on the same sort of binary understanding of hermeneutics that fundamentalists do.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 3:35:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 3:31:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:04:43 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:01:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Yeah....no.

I think he summed it up pretty well


I don't. I suppose if one wooden understanding of how to read any sort of literature whatsoever then that would be a pretty good summation though.

(a) If you take it literally, you are considered an idiot by any normal standard of judgement and logic


I wouldn't say an idiot but I would say misguided or ignorant.

(b) If you take it metaphorically or figuratively, it opens up a continuum where people can decipher and justify the bible however they want


Nope.

Even with hermenutics and text interpretation (finding the intent of the author) By admitting that some parts of it are metaphors and not literal(which the bible claims they are), you are substantially weakening the claims within the bible.

"the bible" isn't one book.

eh stop right there, because that is flat wrong

The bible is not manuscripts or texts. The bible is the compilation of all of those manuscripts/ texts. The manuscripts/texts are anything from pauls letters to the churches , revelations, or accounts.

The bible is the bible and yes it is one book, it is a book that is comprised of those texts
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 3:45:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 3:35:27 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:31:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:04:43 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:01:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Yeah....no.

I think he summed it up pretty well


I don't. I suppose if one wooden understanding of how to read any sort of literature whatsoever then that would be a pretty good summation though.

(a) If you take it literally, you are considered an idiot by any normal standard of judgement and logic


I wouldn't say an idiot but I would say misguided or ignorant.

(b) If you take it metaphorically or figuratively, it opens up a continuum where people can decipher and justify the bible however they want


Nope.

Even with hermenutics and text interpretation (finding the intent of the author) By admitting that some parts of it are metaphors and not literal(which the bible claims they are), you are substantially weakening the claims within the bible.

"the bible" isn't one book.

eh stop right there, because that is flat wrong

The bible is not manuscripts or texts. The bible is the compilation of all of those manuscripts/ texts. The manuscripts/texts are anything from pauls letters to the churches , revelations, or accounts.


The bible is the bible and yes it is one book, it is a book that is comprised of those texts

Not sure how that's germane to my main point, but ok, I'll concede that for the sake of argument.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 3:53:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 3:45:38 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:35:27 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:31:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:04:43 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:01:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Yeah....no.

I think he summed it up pretty well


I don't. I suppose if one wooden understanding of how to read any sort of literature whatsoever then that would be a pretty good summation though.

(a) If you take it literally, you are considered an idiot by any normal standard of judgement and logic


I wouldn't say an idiot but I would say misguided or ignorant.

(b) If you take it metaphorically or figuratively, it opens up a continuum where people can decipher and justify the bible however they want


Nope.

Even with hermenutics and text interpretation (finding the intent of the author) By admitting that some parts of it are metaphors and not literal(which the bible claims they are), you are substantially weakening the claims within the bible.

"the bible" isn't one book.

eh stop right there, because that is flat wrong

The bible is not manuscripts or texts. The bible is the compilation of all of those manuscripts/ texts. The manuscripts/texts are anything from pauls letters to the churches , revelations, or accounts.


The bible is the bible and yes it is one book, it is a book that is comprised of those texts

Not sure how that's germane to my main point, but ok, I'll concede that for the sake of argument.

Because it adds to the point, that when you "read" them the context of text interpretation varies. Hermeneutics is based on the art of deciphering the authors intent. Meaning you would have to know what the author intended for any given verse to mean for that verse to have a classified objective meaning.

That does not change the fact there is an objective meaning, but it adds credibility to the point that what any given verse means will always remain subjective based on the thought process of the person deciphering due to us not being aware of the authors actual intent.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 8:25:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.
Genesis is a literal account of history, but it doesn't mean the author doesn't use figure of speech just like we do today.

Part of Genesis involves pre-human history ("In the beginning...."), so we have take into account the information would have had to have been conveyed by revelation from God. So although the information is accurate, it's being presented with the limited vocabulary of that time. And this has left many people to believe or assume that the author believed that the sky is a solid dome.

However, as far as a literal tree is concerned, there's not any valid reason to assume they were not referring to a literal tree since we're not talking about pre-human history.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 8:47:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 8:25:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.
Genesis is a literal account of history, but it doesn't mean the author doesn't use figure of speech just like we do today.

Part of Genesis involves pre-human history ("In the beginning...."), so we have take into account the information would have had to have been conveyed by revelation from God. So although the information is accurate, it's being presented with the limited vocabulary of that time. And this has left many people to believe or assume that the author believed that the sky is a solid dome.

However, as far as a literal tree is concerned, there's not any valid reason to assume they were not referring to a literal tree since we're not talking about pre-human history.

So you believe in the flood that killed humanity off and leaving a couple's kids to reproduce later on in life (incest)? do you believe that a giant tower was built and soon destroyed, sending people to fall from the sky and unto different lands where they changed languages in an instant?

Let me ask a much simpler question. If the bible told you 2 plus 2 equals 5, would you say "I'm not going to question tbe bible and will believe it." Would you agree with that.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 8:55:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 8:47:07 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 8/2/2014 8:25:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.
Genesis is a literal account of history, but it doesn't mean the author doesn't use figure of speech just like we do today.

Part of Genesis involves pre-human history ("In the beginning...."), so we have take into account the information would have had to have been conveyed by revelation from God. So although the information is accurate, it's being presented with the limited vocabulary of that time. And this has left many people to believe or assume that the author believed that the sky is a solid dome.

However, as far as a literal tree is concerned, there's not any valid reason to assume they were not referring to a literal tree since we're not talking about pre-human history.

So you believe in the flood that killed humanity off and leaving a couple's kids to reproduce later on in life (incest)? do you believe that a giant tower was built and soon destroyed, sending people to fall from the sky and unto different lands where they changed languages in an instant?

Let me ask a much simpler question. If the bible told you 2 plus 2 equals 5, would you say "I'm not going to question tbe bible and will believe it." Would you agree with that.
You can't really compare a faulty math equation to events described that you don't think happened. And I'm not really sure what you mean by people falling from the sky. As far as we know they were attempting to build a very tall ziggurat. Maybe the equivalent of the Sears Tower, although we don't know because it doesn't go into that detail.

Why do you believe that a man who was crucified can actually atone for your sins?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 9:08:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 3:53:35 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:45:38 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:35:27 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:31:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:04:43 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:01:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Yeah....no.

I think he summed it up pretty well


I don't. I suppose if one wooden understanding of how to read any sort of literature whatsoever then that would be a pretty good summation though.

(a) If you take it literally, you are considered an idiot by any normal standard of judgement and logic


I wouldn't say an idiot but I would say misguided or ignorant.

(b) If you take it metaphorically or figuratively, it opens up a continuum where people can decipher and justify the bible however they want


Nope.

Even with hermenutics and text interpretation (finding the intent of the author) By admitting that some parts of it are metaphors and not literal(which the bible claims they are), you are substantially weakening the claims within the bible.

"the bible" isn't one book.

eh stop right there, because that is flat wrong

The bible is not manuscripts or texts. The bible is the compilation of all of those manuscripts/ texts. The manuscripts/texts are anything from pauls letters to the churches , revelations, or accounts.


The bible is the bible and yes it is one book, it is a book that is comprised of those texts

Not sure how that's germane to my main point, but ok, I'll concede that for the sake of argument.

Because it adds to the point, that when you "read" them the context of text interpretation varies. Hermeneutics is based on the art of deciphering the authors intent. Meaning you would have to know what the author intended for any given verse to mean for that verse to have a classified objective meaning.

That does not change the fact there is an objective meaning, but it adds credibility to the point that what any given verse means will always remain subjective based on the thought process of the person deciphering due to us not being aware of the authors actual intent.

And that's true for any sort of literature and any sort of reader of said literature. I don't see how that impinges or how that's a strike on any thing really. Are you saying we don't ever know the authorial intent with any of the literature in the bible?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 9:18:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 8:55:22 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/2/2014 8:47:07 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 8/2/2014 8:25:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.
Genesis is a literal account of history, but it doesn't mean the author doesn't use figure of speech just like we do today.

Part of Genesis involves pre-human history ("In the beginning...."), so we have take into account the information would have had to have been conveyed by revelation from God. So although the information is accurate, it's being presented with the limited vocabulary of that time. And this has left many people to believe or assume that the author believed that the sky is a solid dome.

However, as far as a literal tree is concerned, there's not any valid reason to assume they were not referring to a literal tree since we're not talking about pre-human history.

So you believe in the flood that killed humanity off and leaving a couple's kids to reproduce later on in life (incest)? do you believe that a giant tower was built and soon destroyed, sending people to fall from the sky and unto different lands where they changed languages in an instant?

Let me ask a much simpler question. If the bible told you 2 plus 2 equals 5, would you say "I'm not going to question tbe bible and will believe it." Would you agree with that.
You can't really compare a faulty math equation to events described that you don't think happened. And I'm not really sure what you mean by people falling from the sky. As far as we know they were attempting to build a very tall ziggurat. Maybe the equivalent of the Sears Tower, although we don't know because it doesn't go into that detail.

Why do you believe that a man who was crucified can actually atone for your sins?

I believe it because I want to. But I don't go around saying I know that with scientific evidence that we are saved by grace. It's my faith. Just like Muslims with Sharia. How do they explain? Their faith.

Fair enough, but if the tower was built high enough, it would be logical that that's how they would be in different lands because of their language. Scatter them. Or scatter as in make them run from fear.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:09:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Well it all depends on what the Bible is saying on a particular subject, not all subjects in the Bible are meant to be taken literally. You get that from looking at the text itself and the type of literature. Genesis can be historical, but it's also poetical.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:24:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.

If taken literally, other creation stories would have to be taken literally such as creation stories from Africa, the native american peoples, south american peoples, Australian Aborigines, etc. There can not be any exclusivity among creation stories since all of them either come from a book or folklore.

Even though I dismiss the genesis story, it would make more sense to take it figuratively.

The reason why I dismiss it is that there really is no evidence. The bible itself is not evidence for said creation stories since it is the claim and not the evidence. Almost like a Lord of the Rings book, making claims about hobbits, goblins, and superstitions without evidence.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:26:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 2:04:43 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:01:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Yeah....no.

I think he summed it up pretty well

(a) If you take it literally, you are considered an idiot by any normal standard of judgement and logic

(b) If you take it metaphorically or figuratively, it opens up a continuum where people can decipher and justify the bible however they want

Even with hermenutics and text interpretation (finding the intent of the author) By admitting that some parts of it are metaphors and not literal(which the bible claims they are), you are substantially weakening the claims within the bible.

I would disagree, it's only a metaphor if it's specified in the text. I think you can find out what the author probably thought. For example, the account in Genesis has parallels of other people. Same with the garden of Eden, creation of man, and tree of knowledge of good and evil. In those kinds of stories, metaphorical and allegorical devices are introduced, so you can conclude that some of it is probably not literal. While the Psalms are metaphorical, the message is consistent with all time periods: past, present, and future.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:31:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 8:25:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.
Genesis is a literal account of history, but it doesn't mean the author doesn't use figure of speech just like we do today.

Part of Genesis involves pre-human history ("In the beginning...."), so we have take into account the information would have had to have been conveyed by revelation from God. So although the information is accurate, it's being presented with the limited vocabulary of that time. And this has left many people to believe or assume that the author believed that the sky is a solid dome.

However, as far as a literal tree is concerned, there's not any valid reason to assume they were not referring to a literal tree since we're not talking about pre-human history.

I don't think you yourself interpret Genesis literally. For example, Is the Serpent in Genesis literally a talking snake?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 11:00:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 7:06:53 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.

It would require extreme stupidity for any entity who wished to be clearly understood, to utilize a figurative approach to providing a message, vital to it's proper interpretation. Figurative language opens itself to a multitude of means for interpretation. What's worse, Christians claim that some parts of the Bible are literal, while arguing about what other parts may be figurative. If Genesis is figurative, then it is pointless. And if one insists that the stories in Genesis are figurative, then anyone can make the same claim of God, Jesus, Heaven, and an afterlife.

^This
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 1:38:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
^ lol

You guys are worse than fundamentalists. As if there were no conceivable option in between the two extremes of reading everything literally or everything figuratively. Do ya'll even literary criticism bros?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 2:11:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 9:08:46 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:53:35 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:45:38 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:35:27 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:31:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:04:43 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:01:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Yeah....no.

I think he summed it up pretty well


I don't. I suppose if one wooden understanding of how to read any sort of literature whatsoever then that would be a pretty good summation though.

(a) If you take it literally, you are considered an idiot by any normal standard of judgement and logic


I wouldn't say an idiot but I would say misguided or ignorant.

(b) If you take it metaphorically or figuratively, it opens up a continuum where people can decipher and justify the bible however they want


Nope.

Even with hermenutics and text interpretation (finding the intent of the author) By admitting that some parts of it are metaphors and not literal(which the bible claims they are), you are substantially weakening the claims within the bible.

"the bible" isn't one book.

eh stop right there, because that is flat wrong

The bible is not manuscripts or texts. The bible is the compilation of all of those manuscripts/ texts. The manuscripts/texts are anything from pauls letters to the churches , revelations, or accounts.


The bible is the bible and yes it is one book, it is a book that is comprised of those texts

Not sure how that's germane to my main point, but ok, I'll concede that for the sake of argument.

Because it adds to the point, that when you "read" them the context of text interpretation varies. Hermeneutics is based on the art of deciphering the authors intent. Meaning you would have to know what the author intended for any given verse to mean for that verse to have a classified objective meaning.

That does not change the fact there is an objective meaning, but it adds credibility to the point that what any given verse means will always remain subjective based on the thought process of the person deciphering due to us not being aware of the authors actual intent.

And that's true for any sort of literature and any sort of reader of said literature. I don't see how that impinges or how that's a strike on any thing really. Are you saying we don't ever know the authorial intent with any of the literature in the bible?

Somewhat yea. We can assume what the author is trying to to say, but that does not mean its objectively correct. Its speculation. That's is true with almost any type of literature, but no other type of literature is claiming to be the infallible word of God
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 8:41:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 2:11:00 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 9:08:46 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:53:35 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:45:38 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:35:27 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:31:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:04:43 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:01:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Yeah....no.

I think he summed it up pretty well


I don't. I suppose if one wooden understanding of how to read any sort of literature whatsoever then that would be a pretty good summation though.

(a) If you take it literally, you are considered an idiot by any normal standard of judgement and logic


I wouldn't say an idiot but I would say misguided or ignorant.

(b) If you take it metaphorically or figuratively, it opens up a continuum where people can decipher and justify the bible however they want


Nope.

Even with hermenutics and text interpretation (finding the intent of the author) By admitting that some parts of it are metaphors and not literal(which the bible claims they are), you are substantially weakening the claims within the bible.

"the bible" isn't one book.

eh stop right there, because that is flat wrong

The bible is not manuscripts or texts. The bible is the compilation of all of those manuscripts/ texts. The manuscripts/texts are anything from pauls letters to the churches , revelations, or accounts.


The bible is the bible and yes it is one book, it is a book that is comprised of those texts

Not sure how that's germane to my main point, but ok, I'll concede that for the sake of argument.

Because it adds to the point, that when you "read" them the context of text interpretation varies. Hermeneutics is based on the art of deciphering the authors intent. Meaning you would have to know what the author intended for any given verse to mean for that verse to have a classified objective meaning.

That does not change the fact there is an objective meaning, but it adds credibility to the point that what any given verse means will always remain subjective based on the thought process of the person deciphering due to us not being aware of the authors actual intent.

And that's true for any sort of literature and any sort of reader of said literature. I don't see how that impinges or how that's a strike on any thing really. Are you saying we don't ever know the authorial intent with any of the literature in the bible?

Somewhat yea. We can assume what the author is trying to to say, but that does not mean its objectively correct. Its speculation. That's is true with almost any type of literature, but no other type of literature is claiming to be the infallible word of God

And what do you mean by "infallible"? Inerrant?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 8:49:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 8:41:23 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:11:00 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 9:08:46 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:53:35 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:45:38 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:35:27 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 3:31:43 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:04:43 AM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/2/2014 2:01:11 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/1/2014 7:15:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
Either you take Genesis literally, and run face first into science on virtually every single one of it's claims

Or you take it figuratively, and undermine what the book says, and also leave it open for a plastic interpretation that means it can literally say anything.

In either case, it isn't good for God.

Yeah....no.

I think he summed it up pretty well


I don't. I suppose if one wooden understanding of how to read any sort of literature whatsoever then that would be a pretty good summation though.

(a) If you take it literally, you are considered an idiot by any normal standard of judgement and logic


I wouldn't say an idiot but I would say misguided or ignorant.

(b) If you take it metaphorically or figuratively, it opens up a continuum where people can decipher and justify the bible however they want


Nope.

Even with hermenutics and text interpretation (finding the intent of the author) By admitting that some parts of it are metaphors and not literal(which the bible claims they are), you are substantially weakening the claims within the bible.

"the bible" isn't one book.

eh stop right there, because that is flat wrong

The bible is not manuscripts or texts. The bible is the compilation of all of those manuscripts/ texts. The manuscripts/texts are anything from pauls letters to the churches , revelations, or accounts.


The bible is the bible and yes it is one book, it is a book that is comprised of those texts

Not sure how that's germane to my main point, but ok, I'll concede that for the sake of argument.

Because it adds to the point, that when you "read" them the context of text interpretation varies. Hermeneutics is based on the art of deciphering the authors intent. Meaning you would have to know what the author intended for any given verse to mean for that verse to have a classified objective meaning.

That does not change the fact there is an objective meaning, but it adds credibility to the point that what any given verse means will always remain subjective based on the thought process of the person deciphering due to us not being aware of the authors actual intent.

And that's true for any sort of literature and any sort of reader of said literature. I don't see how that impinges or how that's a strike on any thing really. Are you saying we don't ever know the authorial intent with any of the literature in the bible?

Somewhat yea. We can assume what the author is trying to to say, but that does not mean its objectively correct. Its speculation. That's is true with almost any type of literature, but no other type of literature is claiming to be the infallible word of God

And what do you mean by "infallible"? Inerrant?

both bearing the same content "without error" , and no I meant infallible. Inerrant can be applied in the same context though
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:00:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wait, so you shouldn't take the Bible figuratively because then you can justify it to mean pretty much anything? lol

I guess people have never read literature before.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:40:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.

Genesis is to be read literally within the bounds of reason. E.g. when it says God repented of making man, that's an anthropomorphism because only people can repent. It means God saw that the evil of men was so great that God acted *as if* he repented of making them.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:46:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 10:00:34 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Wait, so you shouldn't take the Bible figuratively because then you can justify it to mean pretty much anything? lol

I guess people have never read literature before.

Even in poetry, you must follow the same rules to correctly interpret it...
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:46:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 10:40:49 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.

Genesis is to be read literally within the bounds of reason. E.g. when it says God repented of making man, that's an anthropomorphism because only people can repent. It means God saw that the evil of men was so great that God acted *as if* he repented of making them.

My point exactly :)
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,379
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 11:30:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 9:18:45 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 8/2/2014 8:55:22 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/2/2014 8:47:07 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 8/2/2014 8:25:45 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 8/1/2014 5:47:25 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I'm trying to ask DDO members on here whether to take Genesis literally or figuratively. Do you consider it to be all literal or figurative and why? I used to consider it as all literal until i did some research and some thinking, finally coming to the conclusion that not all of it is literal. Like, how can a tree give knowledge of good and evil? I don't think the author would've written it like that. I think it's all based on the history of the Jewish people and eventually how it leads to the Messiah.
Genesis is a literal account of history, but it doesn't mean the author doesn't use figure of speech just like we do today.

Part of Genesis involves pre-human history ("In the beginning...."), so we have take into account the information would have had to have been conveyed by revelation from God. So although the information is accurate, it's being presented with the limited vocabulary of that time. And this has left many people to believe or assume that the author believed that the sky is a solid dome.

However, as far as a literal tree is concerned, there's not any valid reason to assume they were not referring to a literal tree since we're not talking about pre-human history.

So you believe in the flood that killed humanity off and leaving a couple's kids to reproduce later on in life (incest)? do you believe that a giant tower was built and soon destroyed, sending people to fall from the sky and unto different lands where they changed languages in an instant?

Let me ask a much simpler question. If the bible told you 2 plus 2 equals 5, would you say "I'm not going to question tbe bible and will believe it." Would you agree with that.
You can't really compare a faulty math equation to events described that you don't think happened. And I'm not really sure what you mean by people falling from the sky. As far as we know they were attempting to build a very tall ziggurat. Maybe the equivalent of the Sears Tower, although we don't know because it doesn't go into that detail.

Why do you believe that a man who was crucified can actually atone for your sins?

I believe it because I want to. But I don't go around saying I know that with scientific evidence that we are saved by grace. It's my faith. Just like Muslims with Sharia. How do they explain? Their faith.

I think many Genesis literalists give little attention if any to the scientific aspect of the issue.

What would be the difference between a Genesis literalist believing because he wants to, and you believing in the resurrection because you want to?

(For the record, I don't take any particular pleasure taking any portion of Genesis literally. It's just that I don't see any reason to doubt any of it is literal unless we're talking about obvious figures of speech).

Fair enough, but if the tower was built high enough, it would be logical that that's how they would be in different lands because of their language. Scatter them. Or scatter as in make them run from fear.
I'm not really sure what you're saying here.