The Bible is Rediculous!

[_asbestosman]

There are also elements that were meant to be both literal and metaphorical: Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Moses lifting up the snake and the children of Israel refusing to look and live, various ordinances, etc.

I wonder though, what about Greek/Roman/Norse mythology? Did they intend it to be taken literally (I don't know since I'm no expert)? Should the author's intent mean I should toss them if the authors meant them to be taken literally?

I'm not saying that the Bible should be taken metaphorically. I think such is a greater insult to God's word than simply rejecting it outright.

[_Doctor Scratch]

There are also elements that were meant to be both literal and metaphorical: Abraham sacrificing Isaac, Moses lifting up the snake and the children of Israel refusing to look and live, various ordinances, etc.

You're quite right, ABman. The question is: Why should one get to pick and choose which parts are metaphorical, and which are literal? Is the parable of the wheat and the tares a literal guide on farming practices? Or is it something else? Or is it both? Is the story of the Resurrection a literal account of a man rising from the dead? Or is it a parable about the human soul? Or both? Or something else entirely?

My issue on this thread has been with the dogmatic insistence that the text itself somehow demands that it be read as "literal," and that if one does not read it is being totally "literal," one is "insane" or an "idiot."

I wonder though, what about Greek/Roman/Norse mythology? Did they intend it to be taken literally (I don't know since I'm no expert)? Should the author's intent mean I should toss them if the authors meant them to be taken literally?

The Intentional Fallacy teaches us that a text's meaning is never purely reliant on the author's intent. And obviously, the answer here is "No." The enjoyment, elucidation, wisdom, and so on that we gain from mythology is not in any way dependent on authorial intention.

I'm not saying that the Bible should be taken metaphorically. I think such is a greater insult to God's word than simply rejecting it outright.

????? How do you know that God wanted you to read it literally? Perhaps that's the test: the elected are those who understand that it is all an extended parable, and those who read it in that fashion are really the ones who are doing God's will. Or are you claiming here to know God's will?

[_The Nehor]

In your above examples, you're (apparently) trying to argue that there is something intrinsic to language that will or will not demand a literal interpretation, and that's just not the case.

It's called common sense.

How do you figure? And, again, what makes you so sure that you "understand the code," as it were, in the case of the Bible? As I said earlier: you've now removed all rationale from your argument.

Oh, no the master or rationality and logic says I've lost mine.

I'm sure I "understand the code" because there is no code. The books were written in common Greek to a wide audience, not all of them even belonging to the same religion. If the phrases in the Gospels of a historical nature were of an obscure code then four at least partially independent writers all used the same code that no one in the sect they were targeting understood because they were all fooled.

It's the same with the New Testament. It makes a claim to be a factual account.

Where? You have never pointed to this, despite being asked to do so multiple times.

Have you read the Gospels?

1 Forasmuch as bmany have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

(Luke 1: 1-4, emphasis mine)

If Luke did not mean this to be a factual account then he starts lying right off the bat.

Whether you accept that account is another question entirely. However say you listen to the abductee and insist on a non-literal interpretation and insist that he is using a non-literal metaphor to suggest that mankind must become free of this earthly sphere. Both the UFO believer and the UFO skeptic will look at you like you are nuts and rightly so.

What if that's the interpretation that the UFO believer intended? That's my point, The Nehor: you cannot know this based solely on "the text."

Scratch, how do you know the intention of anyone communicating anything to you? You seem quite able to draw conclusions from what President Packer meant or was thinking while discussing the integration of FARMS while seeing nothing but a second-hand account. I tend to take writers and speakers at their word when they tell me something unless I have some reason to think otherwise. I don't see what 'out' the biblical writers give you on this score. What leads you to believe they're not literal accounts when the writers say they are?

If you were to tell an atheist and Jesus that the account of his life was non-literal but still 'meant something' you're doing the same thing as the insane man in the UFO example. They'd both think you were nuts.

Huh? There are plenty of scholars who see meaning in the life of Jesus, and in the story of the Resurrection, without necessarily believing that the Resurrection literally happened. This is sort of a separate issue anyways (i.e., the issue of whether or not one can extract meaning from a story that is non-literal. Obviously, one *can,* which is one of the reasons why we read canonical works of fiction.)

Yes, and those scholars assume the writers to be liars though they don't come out and say so. If the Gospels lie about the miracles and the resurrection when the text itself insists that the story is an accurate account then the account is a lie. Either it happened or it didn't happen.

The issue here all along has been: Why should we assume that the New Testament is meant to be taken absolutely literally? (And let's face it: this is really quite a fundamentalist position.) You have argued from the outset there there is something intrinsic in the text that demands a literal interpretation. And my response again and again has been: What is that "something"? At first you said it was authorial intent; then you said "genre." Now you've backed away entirely from naming a rationale, or a "something." You keep reverting to the false dichotomy: "Either it's literal or it's a lie!" Well, not necessarily. Are the parables of Jesus either "literal or a lie"? You're treating the whole issue in a very simplistic and reductive way. There is no reason why the New Testament has to be read only in one of those two ways.

It's not a fundamentalist position. It's a basic measure of trust. The writers don't give it to us as a fable or an allegory or a symbolic story. They ram it into the text repeatedly with historical references and people in the story dividing between those who literally believe it and those that don't. They don't give us that option. If you want a mystical text for allegorical meaning then the Christians had tons of it. I like the hymn of the Pearl myself. The Gospels make it clear throughout that they are NOT that kind of text.

It does have to be read in one of those two ways. When you insist that DCP is making money off apologetics it either did or did not happen. There is no fuzzy area where it didn't literally happen but it is in some sense 'true'. If you believe there is though that would explain a lot of your posting here. When a text claims to be historical and an account of things that happened it is either TRUE or FALSE.

If you disbelieve in the supernatural and the supernatural elements in the New Testament then I would encourage you to toss the book to the side. I would say that insisting on giving it non-literal meaning when the account it fradulent is pretty loony.

Your position is the stance of the zealot and the fundamentalist. Is One Hundred Years of Solitude "fraudulent" because it tells of magical happenings?

My position is the stance of the realist. If you want to pretend the Resurrection both did and did not happen go ahead but you're nuts. Fiction by definition is not factual. A good fiction writer is at heart a convincing and entertaining liar. The difference is he lets the audience in on the fact that he's lying. You can ascribe whatever meaning you want to it without labeling it true or false. Everyone knows that the story itself is false.

True, however the divide is obvious. When Jesus tells his people to be like doves you know he doesn't mean for them to lay eggs. However, trying to give a non-literal understanding of Caesar Augustus calling for all the world to be taxed is ridiculous.

Gee, did you not take macro-economics?

I actually assisted in research on several macroeconomic papers and still study it as a hobby. No macroeconomic theory I know accounts for non-literal taxation. Feel free to enlighten me if you have heard of such a thing.

Obviously there is metaphor but the actual historical elements in the Gospels (birth of Jesus, miracles, travels, preaching, death, resurrection) either happened as they said or they didn't.

Or, they happened in the minds, hearts, and souls of the authors. Once again, your rigidly dogmatic approach to the issue is standing in the way of plain common sense, The Nehor.

[/quote]

That would be great if they told me it was happening in their mind, heart, and soul or even if they gave me a hint that this was the case. They dragged reality into it from page one....all four of them writing about the same thing. I'm not going to try to dodge the issue of whether it's True or False. If being willing to see fact as fact and false as false makes me dogmatic then I'm proud to be dogmatic.

I now understand why I prefer the atheist who is willing to call it all a load of bunk. He sees that the story is either true or false. Does he lack common sense?

[_The Nehor]

The question is: Why should one get to pick and choose which parts are metaphorical, and which are literal? Is the parable of the wheat and the tares a literal guide on farming practices? Or is it something else? Or is it both? Is the story of the Resurrection a literal account of a man rising from the dead? Or is it a parable about the human soul? Or both? Or something else entirely?

Because being unwilling to make any such distinction generally would lead to it being logical for someone to imagine that the Roman Empire, the Magna Carta, and World War II were all metaphorical allegories about the human soul while the same person sails ships looking for Numenor, spends their time trying to use the light side of the Force, and tries to catch owls to send off their application to attend Hogwarts.

[_asbestosman]

Or are you claiming here to know God's will?

Isn't that what a testimony is?

[_asbestosman]

The Intentional Fallacy teaches us that a text's meaning is never purely reliant on the author's intent. And obviously, the answer here is "No." The enjoyment, elucidation, wisdom, and so on that we gain from mythology is not in any way dependent on authorial intention.

I don't agree with you very often, but what you're saying here makes sense to me, not that I'm much of one for literature.

[_Doctor Scratch]

In your above examples, you're (apparently) trying to argue that there is something intrinsic to language that will or will not demand a literal interpretation, and that's just not the case.

It's called common sense.

It's "common sense" to believe in coming back from the dead, among other things? You are obviously picking and choosing, The Nehor. And you still have not identified anything intrinstic to the Bible's language that demands a literal reading.

How do you figure? And, again, what makes you so sure that you "understand the code," as it were, in the case of the Bible? As I said earlier: you've now removed all rationale from your argument.

Oh, no the master or rationality and logic says I've lost mine.

Right: more ad hominem attack. You must have supreme confidence in your argument.

I'm sure I "understand the code" because there is no code. The books were written in common Greek to a wide audience, not all of them even belonging to the same religion. If the phrases in the Gospels of a historical nature were of an obscure code then four at least partially independent writers all used the same code that no one in the sect they were targeting understood because they were all fooled.

This is staggeringly presumptuous. You are engaging in mind reading that extends across thousands of years and millions of readers.

Where? You have never pointed to this, despite being asked to do so multiple times.

Have you read the Gospels?

1 Forasmuch as bmany have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

(Luke 1: 1-4, emphasis mine)

If Luke did not mean this to be a factual account then he starts lying right off the bat.

This doesn't cut it, The Nehor. Alien abductees also make the same sort of pleas. Furthermore "believe" is not the same thing as "know for certain, in a concrete and empirical fashion." Also, what does "eyewitnesses" mean? Does it mean the same thing in English that it meant in the writers' original text?

I asked you to cite something specific to the text which would require it to be read as literal, but we can find similar features in works like Robinson Crusoe, Frankenstein (an epistolary work!), and the short stories of Borges.

Scratch, how do you know the intention of anyone communicating anything to you?

I do my best, The Nehor, but you're changing the subject. See: my argument is that there is nothing in the text that requires a "literal" reading. I have pointed this out to you again and again and again, and each time you have dodged the fundamental issue. If you want to argue that context, or conditioning, or tradition, or whatever else---ABman's moral imperative, for example---demand a literal reading, then go ahead. I probably won't disagree with you. But you have been making fallacious claims on this thread, and you've done little to correct them besides shift your argument and toss out sophomoric personal attacks.

You seem quite able to draw conclusions from what President Packer meant or was thinking while discussing the integration of FARMS while seeing nothing but a second-hand account.

???? How is this relevant to our discussion about whether or not there is something in the Bible that demands a literal reading? Are comments of Elder Packer's a text?

I tend to take writers and speakers at their word when they tell me something unless I have some reason to think otherwise.

If that were the case then you would believe people who've supposedly seen the Loch Ness monster, and people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. You aren't treating these things equally.

I don't see what 'out' the biblical writers give you on this score. What leads you to believe they're not literal accounts when the writers say they are?

It's simple: authorial intent does not determine a text's final meaning.

Huh? There are plenty of scholars who see meaning in the life of Jesus, and in the story of the Resurrection, without necessarily believing that the Resurrection literally happened. This is sort of a separate issue anyways (i.e., the issue of whether or not one can extract meaning from a story that is non-literal. Obviously, one *can,* which is one of the reasons why we read canonical works of fiction.)

Yes, and those scholars assume the writers to be liars though they don't come out and say so.

What? You are engaging in the same kind of mind reading you've been accusing me of doing. You are asking me to agree with you that the New Testament accounts must be read as literal, and yet.... You are putting words into the mouths of scholars such as Harold Bloom?

If the Gospels lie about the miracles and the resurrection when the text itself insists that the story is an accurate account then the account is a lie. Either it happened or it didn't happen.

More oversimplification and fundamentalist reductionism.

It's not a fundamentalist position. It's a basic measure of trust.

Well, then, that is a very different thing than claiming that there is something intrinsic to the text. If you want to say that you simply "trust" that the text is literal, then that's fine, The Nehor. I can't disagree with you there.

The writers don't give it to us as a fable or an allegory or a symbolic story.

And you know this....how? As I've pointed out, there are other texts that contain all these same features---texts which I'm pretty sure you treat as fictional. Why not just stick with your "trust" argument?

They ram it into the text repeatedly with historical references and people in the story dividing between those who literally believe it and those that don't. They don't give us that option.

Where? How? Cite the textual features, The Nehor.

If you want a mystical text for allegorical meaning then the Christians had tons of it. I like the hymn of the Pearl myself. The Gospels make it clear throughout that they are NOT that kind of text.

Maybe so, but that still does not provide a logical argument for why the Gospels should (nay, must!) be treated as literal---at least not an argument based on textual interpretation.

It does have to be read in one of those two ways.

No, it does not. Very few texts are as you describe this.

When you insist that DCP is making money off apologetics it either did or did not happen. There is no fuzzy area where it didn't literally happen but it is in some sense 'true'.

This is a red herring, and an ad hominem argument, but in actuality DCP's "moneymaking" is kind of "fuzzy." He has made some small amounts of money here and there, and the $20,000 was actually part of his salary... But, as I've said, this has nothing to do with textual interpretation of the Bible.

If you believe there is though that would explain a lot of your posting here. When a text claims to be historical and an account of things that happened it is either TRUE or FALSE.

"TRUE" or "FALSE" in what sense? Is a dream "TRUE"? Is it "literal"? Is it "corporeal"? When a person is in love, is that experience "TRUE" or "FALSE"? Is it "literal"? You are thinking about all of this in a very dualistic, fundamentalist way, as I've said.

Your position is the stance of the zealot and the fundamentalist. Is One Hundred Years of Solitude "fraudulent" because it tells of magical happenings?

My position is the stance of the realist. If you want to pretend the Resurrection both did and did not happen go ahead but you're nuts.

Where did I ever claim that? I've merely been arguing that there is nothing in the text that demands that we treat this stuff as literal. The resurrection could have "happened" without it be "literal."

Fiction by definition is not factual. A good fiction writer is at heart a convincing and entertaining liar. The difference is he lets the audience in on the fact that he's lying.

Ah. Here we go. Where does he do this, and how? Again: I'll ask you to identify textual features. If you can do this, I'll be blown away, and I'll advise you to submit your theory to Yale, or Columbia, or Stanford, or any other prominent department of English or Comparative literature because you will have overturned decades of literary theory with your findings.

You can ascribe whatever meaning you want to it without labeling it true or false. Everyone knows that the story itself is false.

No, not everyone. Think about how many people view the Bible as false. Or, think about Orson Welles's War of the Worlds. This was meant to be a fictional entertainment (right?), but a lot of people thought it was real. Why was that? How do we know in the end that it *was* purely fictional? Probably the first clue is that aliens don't invade earth. But, you have already swept aside supernatural occurrences as a hinderance to your acceptance of something as literal. But, as I've pointed out, this is a hypocritical attitude, since you'll tolerate some supernatural things, but not others.

Or, they happened in the minds, hearts, and souls of the authors. Once again, your rigidly dogmatic approach to the issue is standing in the way of plain common sense, The Nehor.

That would be great if they told me it was happening in their mind, heart, and soul or even if they gave me a hint that this was the case. They dragged reality into it from page one....all four of them writing about the same thing.

So what? The narrators of As I Lay Dying are all "writing" about the same thing. And that's a "realistic" novel. Do you treat it as "literally" true? Did Addie Bundren actually die? There are historically accurate elements in that novel, too. Why not treat it as a literal account?

You may as well stick with trust, The Nehor. That's really the best argument you've so far offered for treating the New Testament text as literal.

I'm not going to try to dodge the issue of whether it's True or False. If being willing to see fact as fact and false as false makes me dogmatic then I'm proud to be dogmatic.

You cannot establish the Resurrection as a fact, though. No one can. That's why it's a matter of faith.

I now understand why I prefer the atheist who is willing to call it all a load of bunk. He sees that the story is either true or false. Does he lack common sense?

The Nehor: you seem to think I'm challenging you on some separate issue. I see nothing wrong with reading the Bible as literal. I see nothing wrong with rejecting it as a lie. I see nothing wrong with reading it as a wholly spiritual account. I see nothing wrong with reading it as a myth.

What I object to is claiming dogmatically that it must be read as literal based on some textual feature. You *still* (and we're on what, pg. 6 or 7 of the thread?) have not defined an intrinsically textual feature of the New Testament that would require a literal reading. Luckily, you seem at last to be admitting that you read it this way based primarily on "trust," and if that's the case, then good for you. At least you have let go of the fundamentalist fallacy that it "must" be read in one way or another.

[_The Nehor]

This doesn't cut it, The Nehor. Alien abductees also make the same sort of pleas. Furthermore "believe" is not the same thing as "know for certain, in a concrete and empirical fashion." Also, what does "eyewitnesses" mean? Does it mean the same thing in English that it meant in the writers' original text?

I asked you to cite something specific to the text which would require it to be read as literal, but we can find similar features in works like Robinson Crusoe, Frankenstein (an epistolary work!), and the short stories of Borges.

I KNOW alien abductees make the same sort of claims. That's why you have to decide whether you believe them or not.

The reason I treat the Bible different then Robinson Crusoe or Frankenstein? I know the authors didn't intend them as literal. There were no worries that Frankenstein would create another monster or that another would steal his work (I prefer the Jewish story of the golem myself which it is based on). There was no rush out to find Robinson Crusoe and collect his memoirs or a search to find the island in the story. With the Bible you have people within one generation dying for it and all the writings of those around it insist it was REAL. However, I've already beat this horse to death.

I tend to take writers and speakers at their word when they tell me something unless I have some reason to think otherwise.

If that were the case then you would believe people who've supposedly seen the Loch Ness monster, and people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. You aren't treating these things equally.

No, I wouldn't have to. I'd have to treat them like I insist the Gospels be treated. As true or false. Either they saw the Loch Ness monster or they did not. They weren't spinning a fictional account to entertain; they're trying to convince us.

It's simple: authorial intent does not determine a text's final meaning.

What the hell is final meaning?

If the Gospels lie about the miracles and the resurrection when the text itself insists that the story is an accurate account then the account is a lie. Either it happened or it didn't happen.

More oversimplification and fundamentalist reductionism.

It's called reality.

It's not a fundamentalist position. It's a basic measure of trust.

Well, then, that is a very different thing than claiming that there is something intrinsic to the text. If you want to say that you simply "trust" that the text is literal, then that's fine, The Nehor. I can't disagree with you there.

I don't TRUST that the text was literal. I TRUST them at their word when they said it was. I trust that they were either telling a real story or they were pulling off a fraud through a lie.

The writers don't give it to us as a fable or an allegory or a symbolic story.

And you know this....how? As I've pointed out, there are other texts that contain all these same features---texts which I'm pretty sure you treat as fictional. Why not just stick with your "trust" argument?

Because the writers said it wasn't and nothing about the text suggests it's meant as fiction. If you think the Bible can be taken as a kind of symbolic historical fiction then it's a terrible anachronism.

They ram it into the text repeatedly with historical references and people in the story dividing between those who literally believe it and those that don't. They don't give us that option.

Where? How? Cite the textual features, The Nehor.

Mention of real historical figures. Jesus driving home repeatedly that this was real. Appearing before real courts. Showing up at real historical religious festivals. I'm beginning to suspect you've never read the Gospels if you have to ask for this.

When you insist that DCP is making money off apologetics it either did or did not happen. There is no fuzzy area where it didn't literally happen but it is in some sense 'true'.

This is a red herring, and an ad hominem argument, but in actuality DCP's "moneymaking" is kind of "fuzzy." He has made some small amounts of money here and there, and the $20,000 was actually part of his salary... But, as I've said, this has nothing to do with textual interpretation of the Bible.

It's not a red herring. I'm trying to drive into your skull that it either happened or it didn't.

If you believe there is though that would explain a lot of your posting here. When a text claims to be historical and an account of things that happened it is either TRUE or FALSE.

"TRUE" or "FALSE" in what sense? Is a dream "TRUE"? Is it "literal"? Is it "corporeal"? When a person is in love, is that experience "TRUE" or "FALSE"? Is it "literal"? You are thinking about all of this in a very dualistic, fundamentalist way, as I've said.

TRUE or FALSE as in it happened or it didn't. A dream is true/real if the person actually had it. It is a literal dream. It is coporeal only in the sense that the recipient's brain experienced it and it's stored in it's memory. Love is real, it is both the hormone rush and the actual experience of the love. Love is literal, yes. If you claim you love someone you either do or you don't.

However, you're dodging the issue. The resurrection and life of Jesus were not a dream.

My position is the stance of the realist. If you want to pretend the Resurrection both did and did not happen go ahead but you're nuts.

Where did I ever claim that? I've merely been arguing that there is nothing in the text that demands that we treat this stuff as literal. The resurrection could have "happened" without it be "literal."[/quote]

No, no it couldn't. Reality. It either did happen or did not happen. Either the body reanimated or it did not. Please don't embarrass yourself with fuzzy thinking.

Fiction by definition is not factual. A good fiction writer is at heart a convincing and entertaining liar. The difference is he lets the audience in on the fact that he's lying.

Ah. Here we go. Where does he do this, and how? Again: I'll ask you to identify textual features. If you can do this, I'll be blown away, and I'll advise you to submit your theory to Yale, or Columbia, or Stanford, or any other prominent department of English or Comparative literature because you will have overturned decades of literary theory with your findings.

You're serious here? You can't tell the difference? There are decades of literary theory on how to distinguish reporting from fiction? I never read any of it.

You can ascribe whatever meaning you want to it without labeling it true or false. Everyone knows that the story itself is false.

No, not everyone. Think about how many people view the Bible as false. Or, think about Orson Welles's War of the Worlds. This was meant to be a fictional entertainment (right?), but a lot of people thought it was real. Why was that? How do we know in the end that it *was* purely fictional? Probably the first clue is that aliens don't invade earth. But, you have already swept aside supernatural occurrences as a hinderance to your acceptance of something as literal. But, as I've pointed out, this is a hypocritical attitude, since you'll tolerate some supernatural things, but not others.

Yes, there are many people who view the Bible as false. This is a valid view. War of the Worlds was presented in a way that made it seem real to many. It happened due to confusion of context. If it was sold as a recording or published as a story there would have been no hysteria.

I did sweep aside the supernatural as a hindrance to whether something is fiction or an actual account. This does not mean I believe every account, just that I treat it as such. How to judge whether an account is accurate or not is a different proposition entirely and I do have a harder time accepting a supernatural account then a natural one. If my neighbor insists that angels came down last night and rearranged his furniture I'd have a harder time believing him then if he told me he rearranged his furniture. One I'd believe only after investigation; one I'd accept as fact right away.

Both are accounts though and I would accept that both are either TRUE or FALSE.

That would be great if they told me it was happening in their mind, heart, and soul or even if they gave me a hint that this was the case. They dragged reality into it from page one....all four of them writing about the same thing.

So what? The narrators of As I Lay Dying are all "writing" about the same thing. And that's a "realistic" novel. Do you treat it as "literally" true? Did Addie Bundren actually die? There are historically accurate elements in that novel, too. Why not treat it as a literal account?

You may as well stick with trust, The Nehor. That's really the best argument you've so far offered for treating the New Testament text as literal.[/quote]

Thanks for twisting my words AGAIN. I said I trust that the author meant what he said when he claimed he was an eye-witness, not that I trusted on some supernatural level.

Exactly, it's a "realistic novel". Everyone who reads it knows that. The Bible is not a realistic novel. It's claim and it's history are all based around it being very, very literal. Faulkner's work is not.

I'm not going to try to dodge the issue of whether it's True or False. If being willing to see fact as fact and false as false makes me dogmatic then I'm proud to be dogmatic.

You cannot establish the Resurrection as a fact, though. No one can. That's why it's a matter of faith.

DUH!!!!! I can, however, say it did or did not happen. There is no in-between.

You *still* (and we're on what, pg. 6 or 7 of the thread?) have not defined an intrinsically textual feature of the New Testament that would require a literal reading. Luckily, you seem at last to be admitting that you read it this way based primarily on "trust," and if that's the case, then good for you. At least you have let go of the fundamentalist fallacy that it "must" be read in one way or another.

If you're unwilling to accept that the author insisting that the text is real as a textual feature then I have no idea what could convince you. Historical fiction of the type you're comparing it to didn't exist then. While there are some modern authors who have written tongue-in-cheek that the account is real talking with them would lay the issue to rest fast. Tolkien wrote in the first edition of the Lord of the Rings that it was a translation of ancient documents. However, if you'd asked Tolkien if you could see the original document he would have laughed at you. If the Gospel writers had meant anything of that kind then their contemporaries would have known. They didn't. They took it as real. They either meant it or they intentionally deceived more people then War of the Worlds ever did.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I asked you to cite something specific to the text which would require it to be read as literal, but we can find similar features in works like Robinson Crusoe, Frankenstein (an epistolary work!), and the short stories of Borges.

I KNOW alien abductees make the same sort of claims. That's why you have to decide whether you believe them or not.

The reason I treat the Bible different then Robinson Crusoe or Frankenstein? I know the authors didn't intend them as literal. [/quote]

No, you do not "know" that, The Nehor. You are again committing the Intentional Fallacy.

There were no worries that Frankenstein would create another monster or that another would steal his work (I prefer the Jewish story of the golem myself which it is based on). There was no rush out to find Robinson Crusoe and collect his memoirs or a search to find the island in the story. With the Bible you have people within one generation dying for it and all the writings of those around it insist it was REAL. However, I've already beat this horse to death.

Oh, so that's your test for authenticity? That the text leads to real world consequences? So: should we therefore treat Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Catcher in the Rye, and The Satanic Verses as "literal," because of the consequences/deaths, etc. that resulted from them? Again: you are being inconsistent, and giving the Bible a free pass.... And not for anything that is intrinsic to the text.

If that were the case then you would believe people who've supposedly seen the Loch Ness monster, and people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. You aren't treating these things equally.

No, I wouldn't have to. I'd have to treat them like I insist the Gospels be treated. As true or false. Either they saw the Loch Ness monster or they did not. They weren't spinning a fictional account to entertain; they're trying to convince us.

Or: they saw the Loch Ness monster only in their minds. Or, they did not see it, but they feel that telling you about it is revelatory in a different sense. Once again you are committing the fallacy of the false dichotomy.

It's simple: authorial intent does not determine a text's final meaning.

What the hell is final meaning?

Exactly. So don't try to say that there is some ultimate, final, "TRUE" or "FALSE" "final meaning."

More oversimplification and fundamentalist reductionism.

It's called reality.

Whose? Yours and other believers'?

Well, then, that is a very different thing than claiming that there is something intrinsic to the text. If you want to say that you simply "trust" that the text is literal, then that's fine, The Nehor. I can't disagree with you there.

I don't TRUST that the text was literal. I TRUST them at their word when they said it was. I trust that they were either telling a real story or they were pulling off a fraud through a lie.

Then you are committing the Intentional Fallacy.

And you know this....how? As I've pointed out, there are other texts that contain all these same features---texts which I'm pretty sure you treat as fictional. Why not just stick with your "trust" argument?

Because the writers said it wasn't and nothing about the text suggests it's meant as fiction.

Again: so what? What about The Catcher in the Rye or The Lord of the Rings "suggests it's meant as fiction"?

Where? How? Cite the textual features, The Nehor.

Mention of real historical figures.

That doesn't cut it. Libra, The Ghost Writer, The Road to Wellville: all these mention "real historical figures," too.

Jesus driving home repeatedly that this was real.

Again: alien abductees, sasquatch witnesses.

Appearing before real courts.

Lee Harvey Oswald was a real criminal (Libra).

Showing up at real historical religious festivals. I'm beginning to suspect you've never read the Gospels if you have to ask for this.

I only ask to illustrate a point, which is that nothing you can cite in the text is without parallel in a work you treat as fictional. Your insistence that the Bible must be either "TRUE" or "FALSE" is based on completely extra-literary considerations. Whether you want to say that you "choose" to read it that way, or that you were taught to do that, or that your faith depends upon it being literal---all of that is fine. But you have so far not shown that there is anything intrinsic to the text that demands a literal reading. And I doubt you ever will.

"TRUE" or "FALSE" in what sense? Is a dream "TRUE"? Is it "literal"? Is it "corporeal"? When a person is in love, is that experience "TRUE" or "FALSE"? Is it "literal"? You are thinking about all of this in a very dualistic, fundamentalist way, as I've said.

TRUE or FALSE as in it happened or it didn't. A dream is true/real if the person actually had it. It is a literal dream.

But do you take the material in the dream literally?

It is coporeal only in the sense that the recipient's brain experienced it and it's stored in it's memory. Love is real, it is both the hormone rush and the actual experience of the love. Love is literal, yes. If you claim you love someone you either do or you don't.

That's an awful oversimplification.

However, you're dodging the issue. The resurrection and life of Jesus were not a dream.

You seem to be conflating things here---trying to insist that the one must be literal because the other has a more believable basis in historical reality. But does that make sense? Are the fantastical elements of Everything is Illuminated made more "realistic" simply on account of the fact that the Holocaust was real?

My position is the stance of the realist. If you want to pretend the Resurrection both did and did not happen go ahead but you're nuts.

Where did I ever claim that? I've merely been arguing that there is nothing in the text that demands that we treat this stuff as literal. The resurrection could have "happened" without it be "literal."

No, no it couldn't. Reality. It either did happen or did not happen. Either the body reanimated or it did not. Please don't embarrass yourself with fuzzy thinking.[/quote]

You just aren't good at sustained substantive conversation, are you? It's a shame that you always have to devolve into attacks like this. In any event, this is still beside the issue, because you aren't sticking to the issue of textual evidence. You're just stamping your foot in frustration.

Ah. Here we go. Where does he do this, and how? Again: I'll ask you to identify textual features. If you can do this, I'll be blown away, and I'll advise you to submit your theory to Yale, or Columbia, or Stanford, or any other prominent department of English or Comparative literature because you will have overturned decades of literary theory with your findings.

You're serious here? You can't tell the difference?

Sure I can. But I'm not going to claim that there are textually intrinsic elements when there aren't any. For the most part, we recognize when things are fictions because (A) they don't fit with our understanding of reality, or (B) we are given context to understand these texts as fiction. That is, we understand that Robinson Crusoe is a fiction because we've been told ahead of time that it's fiction. Is it really qualitatively different from diary-like first person accounts, though? No. There aren't any textual features to distinguish it definitively as a fiction. This is the "fuzzy" area of writing that was plumbed by the postmodernists and metafictionists, notably Borges. For example, in his "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote", the scholar of the story prefers the Don Quixote which was written by Pierre Menard, rather than the one written by Cervantes. But, the scholar doesn't provide any real reason for this---and that's the joke. The two texts are exactly the same, and yet, the scholar prefers the Menard version. This really isn't much different than what you're doing. Here you have got the New Testament, which shares features with all kinds of other texts, and yet you treat these other texts as fictions, while treating the Bible as a literal and realistic account. Why do you do this? You keep trying to cite elements of the text, but, in the end, none of these things---or even all of these things taken together---amount to a fully convincing and logical case. So what are you left with? Extra-literary arguments. You believe the Bible is literally true. You grew up in a community that taught you it was true. You accept some context that allows it all to be literally true (and I can't recall if this is the case with you, whether you also believe in Revelations, or in the global flood, etc).

You can keep fishing all you want, but in the end you are never going to be able to single out any textual elements that demand the reading(s) you've been insisting upon. If your faith rests on this issue, then you are in serious trouble.

There are decades of literary theory on how to distinguish reporting from fiction? I never read any of it.

Obviously not. Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory is a pretty nice place to start. (And you're asking a really strange question. Literary theory is interested primarily in theorizing literature, as its name suggests. Fundamental to theorizing literature is understanding just what, exactly, "literature" is, and also how it is that we extract meaning from texts. So: distinguishing reportage from fiction would be secondary to these two larger questions.) The history of literary theory is largely a history in which assumptions about determinate meaning are undermined and de-stabilized. It's one of the reasons why so many people dislike---if not outright hate---literary theory. Most of us don't like having our beliefs and assumptions challenged in this way.

No, not everyone. Think about how many people view the Bible as false. Or, think about Orson Welles's War of the Worlds. This was meant to be a fictional entertainment (right?), but a lot of people thought it was real. Why was that? How do we know in the end that it *was* purely fictional? Probably the first clue is that aliens don't invade earth. But, you have already swept aside supernatural occurrences as a hinderance to your acceptance of something as literal. But, as I've pointed out, this is a hypocritical attitude, since you'll tolerate some supernatural things, but not others.

Yes, there are many people who view the Bible as false. This is a valid view. War of the Worlds was presented in a way that made it seem real to many. It happened due to confusion of context. If it was sold as a recording or published as a story there would have been no hysteria.

It was a radio program. There were all kinds of fictional radio programs around during that time, The Nehor. And anyways, does this really help your argument? Do you want to claim that some people refuse to view the Bible as literal due to a "confusion of context"? I think you'd have a more convincing case if that was so, but I kind of think that you'll be awfully uncomfortable arguing that.

I did sweep aside the supernatural as a hindrance to whether something is fiction or an actual account. This does not mean I believe every account, just that I treat it as such. How to judge whether an account is accurate or not is a different proposition entirely and I do have a harder time accepting a supernatural account then a natural one. If my neighbor insists that angels came down last night and rearranged his furniture I'd have a harder time believing him then if he told me he rearranged his furniture. One I'd believe only after investigation; one I'd accept as fact right away.

Which is odd, since you'd have a very difficult time "investigating" the supernatural events of the Bible.

So what? The narrators of As I Lay Dying are all "writing" about the same thing. And that's a "realistic" novel. Do you treat it as "literally" true? Did Addie Bundren actually die? There are historically accurate elements in that novel, too. Why not treat it as a literal account?

You may as well stick with trust, The Nehor. That's really the best argument you've so far offered for treating the New Testament text as literal.

Thanks for twisting my words AGAIN. I said I trust that the author meant what he said when he claimed he was an eye-witness, not that I trusted on some supernatural level.

???? All it takes for you to accept events as "non fictional" is for the author to claim that s/he was an "eye witness"?

Exactly, it's a "realistic novel". Everyone who reads it knows that. The Bible is not a realistic novel. It's claim and it's history are all based around it being very, very literal. Faulkner's work is not.

And the textual evidence for this is....what?

You cannot establish the Resurrection as a fact, though. No one can. That's why it's a matter of faith.

DUH!!!!! I can, however, say it did or did not happen. There is no in-between.

On what grounds? That you'd lose your faith if there was an "in-between"? If it (perhaps) "did not happen," then one doesn't have to take it literally. (I wonder if there is some conflation and/or confusion of terms here---i.e., if one of us is trying to make "literal" and "real" mean different and/or similar things.)

You *still* (and we're on what, pg. 6 or 7 of the thread?) have not defined an intrinsically textual feature of the New Testament that would require a literal reading. Luckily, you seem at last to be admitting that you read it this way based primarily on "trust," and if that's the case, then good for you. At least you have let go of the fundamentalist fallacy that it "must" be read in one way or another.

If you're unwilling to accept that the author insisting that the text is real as a textual feature then I have no idea what could convince you.

I'm not willing to accept that, and at heart, neither are you (as you have admitted elsewhere with alien abductees and whatnot).

Historical fiction of the type you're comparing it to didn't exist then.

Are you sure about that? Weren't the libraries at Alexandria burned? You cannot possibly know this for certain.

While there are some modern authors who have written tongue-in-cheek that the account is real talking with them would lay the issue to rest fast. Tolkien wrote in the first edition of the Lord of the Rings that it was a translation of ancient documents. However, if you'd asked Tolkien if you could see the original document he would have laughed at you.

You are kind of in a similar position yourself, since you cannot show us any concrete evidence of Christ's resurrection.

If the Gospel writers had meant anything of that kind then their contemporaries would have known. They didn't. They took it as real.

They did? They had a 100% conversion rate? Would it be worthwhile, I wonder, to compare what you're saying here to the way that the Book of Mormon was accepted?

They either meant it or they intentionally deceived more people then War of the Worlds ever did.

You do not know for certain what they "meant." (Intentional Fallacy.) Nobody does. That's why some people reject it; some people embrace it; some people never bother to read it; some people treat it as myth; some people treat it as fundamentalist, dogmatic fact; some people treat it as spiritual parable; etc., etc., etc. You do not have a monopoly on the Truth---despite what the Church may have told you.

You read this book as a literal account based on your upbringing and context (just as millions of other readers read it as non-literal based on theirs'). There are not any textual features that require us to treat it in the manner you've described.

[_The Nehor]

Okay, I'm getting tired of the caricature. You keep throwing in the insinuation that I need to believe this for some reason when my argument is that the Gospels are true or false.

You seem to think that a statement about a historical event being true or false is an oversimplification. I strongly disagree.

You also continually throw in my face that alien abductees and Loch Ness sightings are in the same category as the Bible as if it proves some kind of point. You miss repeatedly that I agree with you that far. I also contend that both are assertions about events that either happened or didn't happen and to figure out which is which would be a different discussion.

I disagree that the Bible shares elements with many of the fictional pieces you're comparing them to. If I had time and the inclination to do a line by line explanation of how the Gospels differ from fictional pieces I might take up the challenge of showing the difference. I don't. I do admit that the Gospels do share some elements (though not by any means all) with historical fiction but if the Gospels are historical fiction it is a blatant anachronism. Nothing like that kind of writing would appear for over a millenia either before or after. It would be astonishing if four authors all simultaneously created a virtually new type of work for the same purpose.

I have no problem saying that some people try to warp the Bible to a non-literal understanding due to not understanding context. I don't see how anyone who understands the history can claim to adhere to such an understanding and remain logically consistent.

I think I may have confused you on one point due to overemphasis. I think you can create symbolic or metaphorical interpretations of the Bible and add them on top of the literal understanding (whether it is true or false) just as you can with any text. However, to suggest that the text was not meant to be a literal recounting of actual events or a fraud is simply bad history and bad logic. I've read true stories and gotten much out of their meaning that is non-literal. I have read lies and gotten much meaning that is non-literal. I do not think this alters the fundamental point that when someone seriously claims to be reporting historic events they are either faithfully telling what they saw or they are lying.