The Bible is Rediculous!

[_Doctor Scratch]

CC--- What is your reason for viewing the Bible as a literal text?

Here is a representative sample:

Luke1

1Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah...

So what? Frankenstein has an epistolary structure just like this. Do you read Frankenstein as a "literal" text?

Luke 2

2In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Luke 3

3In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, 2during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

What's your point, CC? What is it about this text that convinces you that it *must* be literal? Have you read One Hundred Years of Solitude? Because it also lists off lineage like this.

They're all texts. If you'd care to delineate the differences, I'm all ears.

Your inability to distinguish among texts of different types and milieux is noted. Unlike the New Testament, none of the texts you cited claims to be a historical account. All three are known fiction.

There are millions of people who would tell you that the Bible is "known fiction." Simply saying it's not doesn't cut it. You haven't provided any actual analysis or argument. You haven't even said why you treat one text as a "known fiction," and why you treat another as a "historical account." Books like The Naked and the Dead and The Red Badge of Courage can also be treated as "historical accounts," and indeed they both make claims on historical accuracy and authenticity.

Can you come up with some actual evidence, rather than your silly insistence that gullibility is a positive trait in terms of reading?

[_Doctor Scratch]

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.

Sure thing, my dear friend:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-RGbES ... t&resnum=7

(Sorry: I'm a Luddite and I don't know how to make the link go into a one-word "click.")

[_Calculus Crusader]

Scratch, you inimitable moron, how many times do I have to tell you that modern works of "historical" fiction are irrelevant? Do I have to resort to Dick, Jane, and Spot with you? Unless you can produce ancient "historical" fiction then STFU. Got it?

[_Calculus Crusader]

I'm afraid there is no nice way to say this but I think your advanced degree in "critical theory" is as useful and relevant as an advanced degree in Mormon Scripture.

But a degree in "real" scripture would be so much more useful.

Yes, actually, it would be.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch, you inimitable moron, how many times do I have to tell you that modern works of "historical" fiction are irrelevant? Do I have to resort to Dick, Jane, and Spot with you? Unless you can produce ancient "historical" fiction then STFU. Got it?

LOL! Gee, you're not upset, are you? You must have an iron-clad argument, if you have to resort to this sort of name-calling and profanity.

As Blixa rightly pointed out, "historical fiction" predates even the Bible: Native American origin stories; Greek myths; Asian mythology, etc., etc.

But by all means: keep getting angrier, CC. I'm sure that'll make your argument more persuasive.

[_rcrocket]

The Bible is not really one book.

But, the books within them distinguish themselves from Frankenstein in that they purport internally to be authentic and literal. (Whether they are or not is a different question.) I could cite many passages to that effect.

A novel could, as well, say or imply that it is a "true story," but a novel such as Frankenstein comes out under such circumstances as to convey meaning to the general public that it is merely a novel. The Bible didn't emanate that way. Scribes transmitting the early mss never treated the books of the Bible as anything but authentic.

I suppose that two thousand years from now somebody could find both the Bible and Frankenstein in an archeological dig and wonder whether one or the other is really a true story. That would presume that all history was erased, an unlikey event. But, following the argument that all history was erased, the Bible still differs from Frankenstein in that it purports to contain utterances of God.

The Bible thus as inspired literature claiming to contain the authentic words of God stands at a level of the Koran and Bhagavad Gita, but not Frankenstein.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Scratch,

I don't suffer fools gladly. As for Blixa's examples and appeals to analogy, I've already shanked her(?) jengaship.

Quit while you are behind Scratch. Your b.s. postmodernism and pretense of learning will not prevail against my knowledge of Biblical scholarship.

[_gramps]

Dr. Scratch wrote:

Sure thing, my dear friend:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-RGbES ... t&resnum=7

(Sorry: I'm a Luddite and I don't know how to make the link go into a one-word "click.")

Thank you, Sir. Disregard my PM response. Like I said there, I am a little drunk and so it is hard to follow every post right now. ;) Damn, this 8% beer here in Bavaria can make things a little difficult.

Cheers!

[_Doctor Scratch]

The Bible is not really one book.

But, the books within them distinguish themselves from Frankenstein in that they purport internally to be authentic and literal. (Whether they are or not is a different question.) I could cite many passages to that effect.

A novel could, as well, say or imply that it is a "true story," but a novel such as Frankenstein comes out under such circumstances as to convey meaning to the general public that it is merely a novel. The Bible didn't emanate that way. Scribes transmitting the early mss never treated the books of the Bible as anything but authentic.

I suppose that two thousand years from now somebody could find both the Bible and Frankenstein in an archeological dig and wonder whether one or the other is really a true story. That would presume that all history was erased, an unlikey event. But, following the argument that all history was erased, the Bible still differs from Frankenstein in that it purports to contain utterances of God.

The Bible thus as inspired literature claiming to contain the authentic words of God stands at a level of the Koran and Bhagavad Gita, but not Frankenstein.

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.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Scratch,

I don't suffer fools gladly. As for Blixa's examples and appeals to analogy, I've already shanked her(?) jengaship.

Quit while you are behind Scratch. Your b.s. postmodernism and pretense of learning will not prevail against my knowledge of Biblical scholarship.

If you've got a real point, then make it. Boasting does you no favors. I'll just say that you're going to have a very, very hard time making a case for the Bible as a totally literal document based solely authorial intent. If you want to bring in other kinds of evidence.... Well, then, that's cool. My point here all along has simply been to obliterate The Nehor's dumb and ineffective authorial intent argument. And I've done that.