Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyS
I would also say that there is a difference between arguing "literal" interpretation of the actual grammar/language used in some translation, and a "literal" interpretation of the idea/fact/concept described, after weighing against similar texts elsewhere in the Bible and original language. Interestingly enough, the focus of most people that attack the idea that the Bible is the inspired and without contradiction is typically on linguistic minutia and other similar items that real scholarship would immediately clarify. You never see an objective look at the remarkable consistency and persistence of a document that spans multiple millennia, several civilizations, dozens of writers, and all of the linguistic and grammatical issues that go along with that.
|
The earth was not created in a week, there was no great flood, women were not created from a dude's rib, etc. etc. etc x 100's. This is not literary minutia. It is fine to believe in it, but believing in it does not make it true no matter how hard one tries. It is more reasonable IMHO to take it as parable or mythology. Do not confuse faith with fact - they are not the same thing and often do not coincide. Faith is fine, beneficial even... to many of those who can believe, but it is not science, and it is not history, and in my opinion is not truth. Having lived in the Southeast most of my life I had literal Christian interpretation shoved at me daily, so I learned to shove back. If somebody wants to quote the Bible literally to put down or condemn others or to otherwise support their twisted worldview, then I am there to quote it back at them to contradict it, because quite frankly it is pretty easy.
None of this negativity is directed personally at Juice, HighDesert, Scotty... You guys seem pretty knowledgable, enlightened, and reasonable, though I personally disagree with you on many or most things religious.