The Bible is Rediculous!

[_JohnStuartMill]

Scratch, I don't think you quite understand the point of Crusader's argument. You see, Crusader really, really loves Jesus (in what sense, I won't comment), but almost all of the evidence for the specific Jesus Crusader believes in is in the same set of books as all those ridiculous stories about the Earth being created 6,883 years ago, the Tower of Babel, Jonah and the "fish", etc. This poses a consistency problem for him, so Crusader has to come up with some reason to read the New Testament "Jesus pulled a rabbit out of a hat" stories as literal, but not the Old Testament stories that geology and physics have been proving wrong for the last few centuries. He thinks he's found a rationale with his whole "the New Testament was intended to be read literally, while the Old Testament was not" shtick. Whether other documents are intended to be read literally doesn't really matter for this analysis, because Crusader's argument here does not purport to prove that the Bible is reliable -- it's merely a counterargument to skeptics' claims that the Bible is necessarily unreliable because of the antediluvian horse crap in the Old Testament.

But Crusader's position is still problematic for a couple of reasons. First, his warrant for reading the New Testament as literal also applies to a hell of a lot of the Old Testament. He thinks we should read Luke literally because it references historical events and persons, for example. Well, the Book of Exodus references the Egyptian pharaohs; if Crusader wanted to maintain consistency, he'd say that turning a staff into a snake should be read literally as well. (Although maybe he does, I dunno -- the point is, we should laugh at him either way.)

Another problem for Crusader is that in all the millennia that the Bible's been around, it's only since the advent of modern geology that Bible believers have tried to interpret any significant part of it as non-literal. Crusader wants to say that the forebears of his religion, the ancient Hebrews (who divided up their society into classes based on who was descended from which of Noah's descendants) were naïvely reading their texts, because the story of Noah wasn't intended to be read literally. He'd also have us believe that Jesus didn't find this pervasive and fundamental misinterpretation of God's word worthy of comment when he teleported to Earth to tell everyone that they'd been damned up his religion. Crusader's view of OT-as-not-necessarily-literal doesn't fit in with the Jesus story at all.

If all this reminds you of LGT-theory Mopologetics, it should: both are unconvincing ad hoc patches of religious beliefs that were once universally held by their adherents until science demolished them and made the unconvincing patches necessary.

[_rcrocket]

You're right, Bob, but this isn't due to anything internal to the Bible's text. (Or, at least, not *only* or *mainly* due to implicit or explicit authorial intent, as The Nehor was trying to argue.) Neither you nor any other halfway knowledgeable reader treats the Bible---or any text---as "literal" simply because the author tells you to.

The books of the Bible do make the claim to be reporting about the activities of God's ministers, teachers and prophets who claim to be proclaiming the the "only" authoritative text about God's relationship with man. Exclusively so.

Exodus 34:14: "thou shalt worship no other god"

Matthew 22:29 "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures" [meaning the Septuagint]

Romans 14:11 [citing Isaiah 45:34]: "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."

Now, of course, these internal Biblical claims don't make authenticity automatic. But the Bible is a collection of books far different than a mere novel. The Bible as we have it today demands to be taken literally and demands to be considered authentic.

[_rcrocket]

[quote="Doctor Scratch"]Boasting does you no favors. [quote]

I agree. But you are the king of boasting. In addition to often demanding apologies, you boast that you have kicked so-and-so's ass frequently. Those who must proclaim victory to convince folks are destined to be losers in the end. (A play on the last sentence.)

[_The Nehor]

Your own citations do this!

No, Scratch, no they don't. Continue to claim victory based on a Fallacy most serious scholars either don't use or use only in a very limited sense. Though if this is what is to expected from the esteemed faculty of Cassius you need to stop knocking FARMS. You probably shouldn't knock middle school newspapers.

My arguments are not based on Google, they're based on articles I read when I was doing actual literary criticism. So I'll continue to wait for you to cough up something about calling arguments fallacious in historical texts using your pet fallacy. Otherwise you should probably take your ball and go home.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Now, of course, these internal Biblical claims don't make authenticity automatic. But the Bible is a collection of books far different than a mere novel. The Bible as we have it today demands to be taken literally and demands to be considered authentic.

Maybe so, but it would be foolish---fallacious, even---to take in literally purely on the basis of the internal claims.

[_The Nehor]

Dr. Scratch, help an old man out. I haven't followed The Nehor's links, but I can get everything here at work. Which is the link that deals with IF and legal documents. That is right up my alley.

You wrote:

For heaven's sake, The Nehor, one of your links is to a book dealing with how the I.F. applies to legal texts and documents!

Thanks, bro.

That's not my link. I did not supply it.

[_rcrocket]

Now, of course, these internal Biblical claims don't make authenticity automatic. But the Bible is a collection of books far different than a mere novel. The Bible as we have it today demands to be taken literally and demands to be considered authentic.

Maybe so, but it would be foolish---fallacious, even---to take in literally purely on the basis of the internal claims.

The Bible's demand to be taken literally does not rest upon its internal claims, St. Augustine and Luther notwithstanding. The inerrancy doctrine is a man-made fiction.

[_The Nehor]

Now, of course, these internal Biblical claims don't make authenticity automatic. But the Bible is a collection of books far different than a mere novel. The Bible as we have it today demands to be taken literally and demands to be considered authentic.

Maybe so, but it would be foolish---fallacious, even---to take in literally purely on the basis of the internal claims.

The standard method of dealing with historical documents is to assume that they are true and test the claim.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Your own citations do this!

No, Scratch, no they don't. Continue to claim victory based on a Fallacy most serious scholars either don't use or use only in a very limited sense.

"Most scholars" don't "use" the Intentional Fallacy? We've already been over this, The Nehor: nobody, in their right mind, is going to "use" a fallacy. The I.F. is actually referring to something that's pretty commonsensical: that you shouldn't take something as fact just because somebody tells you to. That was the point of the alien abductee analogy: you wouldn't believe the story just because the author of that story insisted that it was authentic. Likewise: you have got no business claiming that the Bible needs to be taken literally just because the authors say it should be. This is a very simple, obvious point, but you're so clueless and naïve that it continues to sail over your head. You can try to claim that this was never a part of your argument, in which case I'll just bring up your verbatim quotes once again, wherein you did indeed claim that the authors intended to treat the Bible as authentic.

My arguments are not based on Google, they're based on articles I read when I was doing actual literary criticism. So I'll continue to wait for you to cough up something about calling arguments fallacious in historical texts using your pet fallacy. Otherwise you should probably take your ball and go home.

You're still showing a basic misunderstanding of what the Fallacy is all about. Bob gets it; CC seems to get it; Blixa gets it; Gramps gets it. Do you get it, though? No---it really doesn't seem like you do.
I've asked you probably half a dozen times for a scholar who says that historical texts are exempt from the principles of the I.F. There's already a link up showing that it applies to legal texts, so I don't see how or why you're going to be able to argue that historical texts are exempt. (Come to think of it, I seem to recall a pretty thorough, albeit confusing, deconstruction of Triste Tropiques---is that a "historical text"?---by Derrida in Of Grammatology. So: there you go. Application of the principles of the I.F. to a historical text. It's hard to imagine another critic caring less about authorial intention than Derrida.) What you've been arguing is so stupid that it's tough to fathom.

You may quibble with the seeming extremism of the I.F., and that's fine. That *is* something that scholars legitimately argue over---i.e., how much one should discount or include authorial intention. But nobody, and I mean *nobody*, in their right mind, is going to be making the sweepingly dunder-headed argument that you made, which is that is perfectly kosher and okay to base the bulk of your interpretation an authorial intent. Nor is anyone going to try and say that this basic principle is "only limited" to certain texts or certain instances. This is where you have gotten pwned again and again.

[_The Nehor]

But nobody, and I mean *nobody*, in their right mind, is going to be making the sweepingly dunder-headed argument that you made, which is that is perfectly kosher and okay to base the bulk of your interpretation an authorial intent.

If I was doing that I would rightly be completely embarrassed. I have no doubt you could pwn that argument. I know I could. My argument is that when a text purports to be literal it either is or is not literal. Are you arguing with this?