In the story of Adam and Eve I find the lesson of individual responsibility a thousand times more relevant than details of the story.
I think we could label the "moral' of the story as insight and not short sighted at all.
Last edited:
Tested For Ten Days
- Thread starter Motar
- Start date
Reading history as allegory equally derails understanding:
"One of the most important aspects of the human side of the Bible is that, in order to communicate his Word to all human conditions, God chose to use almost every kind of available communication: narrative history, genealogies, chronicles, laws, poetry, proverbs, prophetic oracles, riddles, drama, biographical sketches, parable, letters, sermons, and apocalypses. To interpret properly the "then and there" of the biblical texts, you must not only know some general rules that apply to all words of the Bible, but you also need to learn the special rules that apply to each of these literary forms (genres)."
Fee, Gordon D. and Douglas, Stuart. (2003). How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Whether physical food or spiritual fare, we are what we eat.
So when we read the story concerning Joshua and the sun stopping it's rotation around the earth, what classification do we put that under, considering that the sun does not circle the earth. What spiritual food do we derive from the ignorance of facts.
To me the word Emic comes to mind.
"There are many other verses in the Bible that talk about the Sun “going down” or “rising up.” This hardly should be surprising, however, since events in the Bible often are written in accommodative or “phenomenal” language—i.e., the language used to express phenomena as man sees them. Even today we teach our children that “the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west,” and astronomers and navigators use the Earth as a fixed point for purposes of simple observation, expressing distances and directions in relation to it. The weatherman on the evening news often will state that the Sun is going to “rise” at a certain time the following morning and “set” at a certain time the following evening. Why does no one accuse him of scientific error? Because we all are perfectly aware of, and understand, the Copernican view of the solar system, and because we likewise understand that our weatherman is using “phenomenal” language."
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1151
The terms accommodative and phenomenal come to my mind, LL.
I prefer cultural context . What bothers me at times is that the writings in themselves are objects of worship in as much as they are considered infallible. This in itself could be called idolatry. When something questionable in those writings is brought to light, the process of justification and defense of the object of worship, "the books", goes into full effect. We all are human. We make mistakes. We can only understand things relative to our circumstantial experience. Our time, place and culture. We can only transpose what we can understand which is limited to what we have been able to learn. There are several stories that relay a good message in some of those writings. It is my belief, that the "moral" of the story is the objective of the writings, not the historicity and factuality of the story itself.
Last edited:
Agree, LL, cultural context is important. But whose culture matters, too.
Some view the Bible as being penned by about 40 different men of diverse backgrounds (Isaiah was a prophet, Ezra was a priest, Matthew was a tax-collector, John was a fisherman, Paul was a tentmaker, Moses was a shepherd, Luke was a physician) and locales over the historical course of approximately 1500 years.
Others acknowledge the contexts of the human scribes, while recognizing the inspired divine authorship of a supreme being whose context is knowable through Immanuel (God with us) and His interactions with the scribes and others throughout human history.
Are you familiar with Immanuel, LL?
I've read that scripture. Why don't you tell us about Immanuel.
One thing I would say Motar. Many ascribe authorship to certain writings when it is more of a labeling of material.
We have very different beliefs Motar. But there is one thing we have in common. An admiration of the one you claim to follow. When it comes to writings, the words attributed to him are what I'm interested in. Not so much the others.
erm If I were a goddess and was omnipotent, I would simply hardwire the info I wanted into people's instincts. There would be no need for different language translations, no need for anyone to write down what they think I meant, etc.
That adage always made me chuckle when I considered vegans and vegetarians. Two-legged turnips and cabbages, as it were.
I've known that for some time Motar. I thought you might have more to add to that particular name.
Literally, "with us is God", LL. Hebrew word for God "El" occurs at the end of the word.
yes I'm familiar with El. As it is in Is Ra El
Interesting how a conversation will take a different direction at times. Kind of like hitting a fork in the road.
Speaking of context, LL, I hail from a heavily language-based education system, so my interest in studying and manipulating language is deeply rooted : )
I'm a woodworker who went to the library now and then.
Religious discussions puzzle me AnnaG. I always leave the conversation more confused than when I began.
.
Consider, Immanuel, "God with us".
"God" embodies every ultimate, worthy, personal characteristic.
"With us" implies willful personal presence in our circumstances.
Now try to reconcile this Supreme Being inhabiting our reality.
This is the glory of God: Not that He is everything, but in spite of being everything, He elects to be with us. Have you encountered this Immanuel in your life, LL? I have.
Please stay and add to the enlightenment, AG.
I'm fine Motar. Thanks.
.Incidentally ma'am I don't think this Moses wrote a thing
Recalling the OP, I think that GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) applies to physical as well as spiritual food. What do you think?
This little fellow is so cute, Cliffy, I am inclined to keep him in the conversation : )