Bible Study

[_Stormy Waters]

Why in the world do you keep talking about "narrative"? Isn't it blatantly obvious that since Genesis attempts to speak through this so-called "narrative" that it is blatantly false? Science does not speak through "narrative", it just recounts the cold hard facts. I would have thought you were smart enough to conclude that this is prima facie evidence that this Bible stuff is all crap. Why are you even wasting your time by looking at this stuff. You need to do what I do and get back to reading Complex Variables: Harmonic and Analytic Functions. Unlike that imaginary "narrative" stuff in Genesis, there's nothing imaginary about that. Or choose any scientific or mathematical treatise you want, you can't go wrong.

But whatever you do, don't try and look into how the Bible has been interpreted in the past or how current research tries to put Genesis in context in the Ancient Near East. That's all bunk, they are trying to understand "narrative" (so-called), which as we all know is complete crap. Stick with something scientific.

I know that truth can be related through figurative stories. All I'm saying is that it's dishonest to take a story literally, and shift gears to interpret it figuratively when the only reason to do so is because the evidence against the literal version is rising. If it's always been taken figuratively, that's fine, that's consistent.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I know that truth can be related through figurative stories. All I'm saying is that it's dishonest to take a story literally, and shift gears to interpret it figuratively when the only reason to do so is because the evidence against the literal version is rising. If it's always been taken figuratively, that's fine, that's consistent.

I see that you are one of the gifted ones. You are part of that special club of people destined to rule the world. One of those who has seen through the veil of Mormonism and lived to tell the tale! Thinking your way out of a very odd and idiosyncratic, highly American religion has taught you one of the fundamental truths of existence: Only science is allowed to change. It's part of the charter statement of science. "Religion," that filthy den of the toothless country bumpkin, is never allowed to change, learn, or grow. It's part of the charter statement of "Religion." I'm going to quote from said charter statement now:

We are all complete dumbasses. We never change or evolve. We never read the Bible differently when circumstances change or when humans discover new things. We certainly will never try and figure out what it meant in its original context. My context is the only valid context for reading the Bible, and anyone who thinks otherwise is by definition wrong.

Perhaps there is hope for you after all, since you now know that religionists must by definition always act, think, and be the same. In fact, any religionist who isn't herding goats in the Arabian desert is de facto in apostasy. I mean why would "God" bother to give laws about herding animals in Exodus if he did not intend for everyone who believes in him to always herd animals. Do most most modern believers herd animals? No. Therefore, they are all hypocrites who can be dismissed without further argument.

Well played sir, well played.

And just for clarification, none of the above contained any literary or rhetorical devices, it was straightly literal.

[_Stormy Waters]

I see that you are one of the gifted ones. You are part of that special club of people destined to rule the world. One of those who has seen through the veil of Mormonism and lived to tell the tale! Thinking your way out of a very odd and idiosyncratic, highly American religion has taught you one of the fundamental truths of existence: Only science is allowed to change. It's part of the charter statement of science. "Religion," that filthy den of the toothless country bumpkin, is never allowed to change, learn, or grow. It's part of the charter statement of "Religion." I'm going to quote from said charter statement now:

Comparing science to religion is comparing apples to oranges. One is the accumulated knowledge of humanity, which is bound to change when new evidence is presented. The other is divine revelation from God.

If Mormons changed their position on the Book of Mormon and started to teach that it was figurative, wouldn't we think it was a cop out? Why is it different when Bible stories are reinterpreted to be figurative? Especially if it's not done based on a new understanding of the text, but solely as an attempt to rescue it from the evidence.

Also, declaring parts of the Bible to be figurative raises interesting questions. For example, if the story of Noah's ark is figurative, then is Noah himself figurative? Or is he a real person, but the stories told about him are figurative? Or is it just the part where he built the ark? Noah is the ancestor of Abraham, and eventually of Christ himself. So unless they are all figurative, it has to go back to a literal story at some point. Where does the transition from figurative to literal occur?