|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 11, 2021 4:22:35 GMT
I doubt it is symbolic. The Bible was incredibly specific is how Noah was to construct the ark. Aren’t symbolic stories more generalized? Maybe not. But whether or not it is historically factual, it's "symbolic" either way. Genesis doesn't say the account is allegory (meaning not true). Jesus said the Flood is true. The Apostles said its true. Their successors said its true. If you want to know correct exegesis you go to the ancients on the matter. Never trust 20th and 21st century Darwinists with exegesis. The account is also recorded in all ancient antiquity. The details of the account may differ but the main story is the same. When ancient history and modern science agree on something why would you want to question it? Does it mean that much to you to dismiss the Flood as true history? If so, then why? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 11, 2021 14:13:28 GMT
Maybe not. But whether or not it is historically factual, it's "symbolic" either way. Genesis doesn't say the account is allegory (meaning not true). Jesus said the Flood is true. The Apostles said its true. Their successors said its true. If you want to know correct exegesis you go to the ancients on the matter. Never trust 20th and 21st century Darwinists with exegesis. The account is also recorded in all ancient antiquity. The details of the account may differ but the main story is the same. When ancient history and modern science agree on something why would you want to question it? Does it mean that much to you to dismiss the Flood as true history? If so, then why? As long as you misuse words, you cannot get to mutual understanding with others. "Allegory" does not mean "not true." Neither is it the only alternative to "historical fact." I'm wondering if English is not your first language? If it's not, good for you for communicating in a second language. If it is, I don't mean to be insulting, but you're simply misusing the word. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2021 18:13:59 GMT
Genesis doesn't say the account is allegory (meaning not true). Jesus said the Flood is true. The Apostles said its true. Their successors said its true. If you want to know correct exegesis you go to the ancients on the matter. Never trust 20th and 21st century Darwinists with exegesis. The account is also recorded in all ancient antiquity. The details of the account may differ but the main story is the same. When ancient history and modern science agree on something why would you want to question it? Does it mean that much to you to dismiss the Flood as true history? If so, then why? As long as you misuse words, you cannot get to mutual understanding with others. "Allegory" does not mean "not true." Neither is it the only alternative to "historical fact." I'm wondering if English is not your first language? If it's not, good for you for communicating in a second language. If it is, I don't mean to be insulting, but you're simply misusing the word. Yeah, maybe you should stop jumping to conclusions, especially when they are the wrong ones. An allegory is essentially a story that isn't true, otherwise it's not an allegory, it's a statement of fact, JERK!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 12, 2021 20:43:37 GMT
But this illustrated that much of what "we evangelicals" take as a "given" isn't so. As much as we can cherry-pick early Church Fathers to justify our hermeneutic positions, a hardline literalist interpretation only really became a "marker of (evangelical) orthodoxy" sometime in the past 100 years. I think this also underscores what might be the central issue: what is scripture for? Getting this right likely bypasses the arguments that insist on fundamentalist interpretations—both "for" and "against." It's remarkable how many "anti-Christians" insist on literal interpretations (probably so they can easily dismantle them). That may be, but I think it's because literal interpretation has been the dominant Bible hermeneutics in Protestant Christianity for centuries, and most of us anti-Christians* are ex-Protestants or reacting to Protestantism. Catholics don't place the same emphasis on Bible reading and interpretation, so anti-Catholic criticism doesn't focus on the Bible. * I suppose that's what I am, but I want to state unequivocally that I have not healed a monstrous beast of a grievous head wound. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 13, 2021 1:08:52 GMT
But this illustrated that much of what "we evangelicals" take as a "given" isn't so. As much as we can cherry-pick early Church Fathers to justify our hermeneutic positions, a hardline literalist interpretation only really became a "marker of (evangelical) orthodoxy" sometime in the past 100 years. I think this also underscores what might be the central issue: what is scripture for? Getting this right likely bypasses the arguments that insist on fundamentalist interpretations—both "for" and "against." It's remarkable how many "anti-Christians" insist on literal interpretations (probably so they can easily dismantle them). That may be, but I think it's because literal interpretation has been the dominant Bible hermeneutics in Protestant Christianity for centuries, and most of us anti-Christians* are ex-Protestants or reacting to Protestantism. Catholics don't place the same emphasis on Bible reading and interpretation, so anti-Catholic criticism doesn't focus on the Bible. * I suppose that's what I am, but I want to state unequivocally that I have not healed a monstrous beast of a grievous head wound. By "Protestants," do you mean evangelicals? Because I'm pretty sure Anglicans don't hold such a literalistic interpretation (although whether they are technically "Protestant" is a point of quibbling), and I'm not sure about more mainline like Lutheran, Episcopalian (United Church in Canada), etc. Further, some of these other means of interpreting are finding favour with younger Christians, not only because of respect for scientific interpretations, but also because of the influence of some of today's pastors and theologians (I'm thinking of the likes of N.T. Wright, Tim Keller, etc.). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2021 17:05:58 GMT
But this illustrated that much of what "we evangelicals" take as a "given" isn't so. As much as we can cherry-pick early Church Fathers to justify our hermeneutic positions, a hardline literalist interpretation only really became a "marker of (evangelical) orthodoxy" sometime in the past 100 years. I think this also underscores what might be the central issue: what is scripture for? Getting this right likely bypasses the arguments that insist on fundamentalist interpretations—both "for" and "against." It's remarkable how many "anti-Christians" insist on literal interpretations (probably so they can easily dismantle them). That may be, but I think it's because literal interpretation has been the dominant Bible hermeneutics in Protestant Christianity for centuries, and most of us anti-Christians* are ex-Protestants or reacting to Protestantism. Catholics don't place the same emphasis on Bible reading and interpretation, so anti-Catholic criticism doesn't focus on the Bible. * I suppose that's what I am, but I want to state unequivocally that I have not healed a monstrous beast of a grievous head wound. Indeed, the "anti-catholics" have more than enough material to criticize with the more than questionable actions of the catholic church for the past... one thousand years... up to right now!!! As they still protect pedophiles from the law... among other things. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 13, 2021 20:48:59 GMT
That may be, but I think it's because literal interpretation has been the dominant Bible hermeneutics in Protestant Christianity for centuries, and most of us anti-Christians* are ex-Protestants or reacting to Protestantism. Catholics don't place the same emphasis on Bible reading and interpretation, so anti-Catholic criticism doesn't focus on the Bible. * I suppose that's what I am, but I want to state unequivocally that I have not healed a monstrous beast of a grievous head wound. By "Protestants," do you mean evangelicals? Because I'm pretty sure Anglicans don't hold such a literalistic interpretation (although whether they are technically "Protestant" is a point of quibbling), and I'm not sure about more mainline like Lutheran, Episcopalian (United Church in Canada), etc. No, I meant Protestants. It's true that Mainline and liberal Protestants have largely abandoned literal interpretation of things like Genesis, the Flood, Exodus, etc., while Evangelicals have not. But that's been a pretty recent development. 100 years ago, I doubt you would find very many Mainline and liberal Protestants who believed the Flood and the Exodus were myths. It's a welcome but quite recent development. Obviously I have no dog in the fight over which interpretations of Christianity are correct. But I do have one in respecting the scientific process and relying on scientific models to understand the physical world. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jul 20, 2021 7:16:24 GMT
Or course some of the Old Testament is allegorical.
Take the part about Methuselah living 969 years,
which is hard enough to believe. But that for 830
of those years he was married to the same broad?
That strains my credulity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2021 17:50:26 GMT
Or course some of the Old Testament is allegorical. Take the part about Methuselah living 969 years, which is hard enough to believe. But that for 830 of those years he was married to the same broad? That strains my credulity. You are a fucking moron! |
|
