More on fundamentalism

[TheGrungeDiva]

Several months ago, one of my colleagues here in Christian Chat was asking me for "support" for my assertion that a literal interpretation is not traditional; that taking Scripture literally is something relatively recent (200 years or so) in the span of Judeo-Christian history (4-6 thousand years). I provided a few, but not enough to satisfy most readers here, which is understandable.

I'm not sure if >>>>THIS LINK<<<< is exactly on that topic, but it is certainly a related tangent.

I would love to hear others' comments on the blog, or on the article that it quotes.

 

[d2adiction]

Several months ago, one of my colleagues here in Christian Chat was asking me for &quot;support&quot; for my assertion that a literal interpretation is not traditional; that taking Scripture literally is something relatively recent (200 years or so) in the span of Judeo-Christian history (4-6 thousand years). I provided a few, but not enough to satisfy most readers here, which is understandable.

I'm not sure if >>>>THIS LINK<<<< is exactly on that topic, but it is certainly a related tangent.

I would love to hear others' comments on the blog, or on the article that it quotes.

I followed that link and to bad for me I just did not have a clue what it is talking about. I guess it is ok to say what I think about the subject if the subject is this, do i believe what the bible says or is there a hidden meaning. I grew up a Baptist and attended church for most of my younger years but as an adult I kinda wanted to do my own thing.For many years I did just that but one day I thought how good God had been to me and how little I showed him I cared about what he did for me and how he gave me a wonderful life. I went back to the Baptist church and one Sunday something got a hold of me and from that time I wanted to dedicate my efforts to pleasing God. I had never read the bible and what I knew about what it said was what I had learned as a Baptist in Sundayschool and had heard preached from the pulpit. The gospels were familliar to me but mostly the rest of the book I had never ever looked at. In my effort to please God I knew I had to read the bible for myself. This was taught to me all along but I never ever made the effort. Now is the surprising part! Of course the old testimate is full of symbolism and is hard to understand those things but, the new was simple however there were things there contrary to much I was taught. When I read the book Paul wrote to Corinth I was shocked to find the things he said were so contrarty to my understanding. What was I to do? Here is my best effort to please God but he is telling me my church is way off on some things especially the place of women and the conduct of women in the church. I went to the pastor and ask for an explanation and he said if he were to preach that it would empty the church. Well every time I read the bible it said the same thing. Eventually and after much study of church history I found out the church has evolved away from the things written to attract more members, but at the same time it is going through a reformation that started with Martin Luther and will end with the church believing the bible just as it is. I decided every man is a liar and God is true. If god wanted the women in that order then of course he would have said it in the church as the church was first being formed. I imagine when he comes for his church he will look for those qualities and guidelines he first set up, like the master who said work in the vinyard and when he returns he will expect the servent to be working in the vinyard.

 

[chip]

I think the author of the Blog as a point, the Bible is certainly a collective of the history and struggles of God's relationship with mankind. However, the Jews viewed the Torah as God's word and as a rule book to live by - that would make them fundamentalist according to his definition and what he was arguing the believer should not be. As an OT scholar I am sort of surprised that he missed that point in his lifelong effort!

Personally, I believe the Bible is very literal and all parts are worthy of my study and to gain knowledge through. No, I am not a fundamentalist by even a fundamentalist Christian's definition - I see the Bible is being both black and white (do's and don'ts) but also governed by God's permissive and determinative wills (what He allows or will not allow). So, say a fundamentalist states that drinking alcohol is wrong. Okay, but my Bible says it is okay in moderation. So, the fundamentalists appeals to the "not doing this because it shows others alcohol is okay" (Bible says if your friend is a drunk). Then show me the drunk where I am and I will not drink in front of them. This is real simple here.

So the author's strike out against fundamentalism, fails for the Jewish usage of God's word and it fails for the New Testament believer whom does what to follow what is being said, but not attach man's reasoning to their belief. It however does work in its argument against those whom would impose their will on others and call it the Word of God.

Just for the record, I do not drink, I am diabetic, so a real no-no!

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

I think the author of the Blog as a point, the Bible is certainly a collective of the history and struggles of God's relationship with mankind. However, the Jews viewed the Torah as God's word and as a rule book to live by - that would make them fundamentalist according to his definition and what he was arguing the believer should not be. As an OT scholar I am sort of surprised that he missed that point in his lifelong effort!

The author's point, and one which many scholars have argued fairly convincingly, there is a history dating back long before Jesus ... so yes, that would be the Jews ... of understanding Scripture as symbolic rather than literal. To say it is not literal is not saying it isn't the word of God. I am constantly confused by people who, when they hear about my understanding of the Bible, say, "But don't you believe in the Word of God?" Jesus told parables, didn't he? And if you believe that Jesus is God, then why would you think God not capable of telling parables?

In fact, if you are an OT scholar, I am surprised that you haven't heard about this argument: For thousands of years before Jesus, and for almost 2,000 years after Jesus, the accepted interpretation of Scripture -- at least of the Old Testament -- was primarily symbolic. I know not all OT scholars accept that argument, but it has a pretty strong following in the Biblical Studies community.

The author of this blog did not "miss that point." In fact, the author of the blog was a fundamentalist for many years, and through learning and study began to realize (not unlike your own journey, it seems) that such interpretations were just not true to the Bible.

Personally, I believe the Bible is very literal and all parts are worthy of my study and to gain knowledge through.

And I -- as well as thousands, perhaps millions, of devout Christians -- believe that the Bible is primarily allegorical, and all parts are worthy of study and to gain knowledge.

See, why would an allegory be less worthy than a literal story? That's like saying Jesus wasn't a very good teacher, because he used Parables to teach about his Father.

I just don't understand why literalists insist that a literal interpretation is somehow "more true" or "better" than any of the possible allegorical, symbolic, and mythical understandings that have been offered for millennia. It's like saying "Origin of the Species" is a better book than "Romeo and Juliet" because the first is non-fiction and the other is fiction. Do you really believe that?

 

[moment_of_faith]

reason for the parables

Matthew 13:

10 His disciples came and asked him, &#8220;Why do you use parables when you talk to the people?&#8221;
11 He replied, &#8220;You are permitted to understand the secrets[a] of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others are not. 12 To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them. 13 That is why I use these parables,
For they look, but they don&#8217;t really see.
They hear, but they don&#8217;t really listen or understand.

14 This fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah that says,
&#8216;When you hear what I say,
you will not understand.
When you see what I do,
you will not comprehend.
15 For the hearts of these people are hardened,
and their ears cannot hear,
and they have closed their eyes&#8212;
so their eyes cannot see,
and their ears cannot hear,
and their hearts cannot understand,
and they cannot turn to me
and let me heal them.&#8217;[b]

16 &#8220;But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. 17 I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but they didn&#8217;t see it. And they longed to hear what you hear, but they didn&#8217;t hear it.

 

[moment_of_faith]

The Lord Said Thy Word Is TRUE

 

[Closemyeyes2cU]

"The Bible is primarily alligorical"

Let me google translate this for you.....

"The Bible doesn't fit my liberal ideas, so I have to either abandon it or allegorize it."

 

[moment_of_faith]

So since the bible doesn't fit you then you change it? You don't see a problem here?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

The Lord Said Thy Word Is TRUE

And I have not indicated or argued otherwise.

Saying something is symbolic, allegorical, or a parable is not saying it is not true.

If you say something that isn't literal is by definition false, you're calling Jesus a liar, because he spoke in parables (a non-literal form).

Jesus' parables are true. So is Genesis. So is Job. That doesn't mean any of them are literal.

I just don't understand this cognitive dissonance.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

"The Bible is primarily alligorical"

Let me google translate this for you.....

"The Bible doesn't fit my liberal ideas, so I have to either abandon it or allegorize it."

Nope, sorry, that's not what I am saying at all.

I understood the Bible as allegorical long before I had liberal ideas. Back when I was a conservative, with very conservative ideas, I still understood that Genesis was primarily symbolic. The symbolism of Genesis supports neither "liberal" nor "conservative" ideas. Or, perhaps more accurately, it supports both "liberal" and "conservative" ideas, because it supports is God's ideas, and some of God's ideas are liberal, and some of them are conservative. I admit, now that I'm a liberal, I don't like the conservative ones so much, but I know they're still God, and I still have to follow them.

Do you follow the liberal ones that God commands? Or do you figure, since they disagree with your worldview, you can ignore them?

Hint: you don't have to answer that one.

You seem to be saying that either the Bible is literally true or it is a complete fabrication with no "Truth" at all. Your implication is that if something is not literal, it is a lie. Do you really believe that?

Hint: think hard before you answer this one.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

So since the bible doesn't fit you then you change it? You don't see a problem here?

Yes, I see a problem that you took someone else's twisting and went with it, rather than hearing what I actually said.

Now, would you like to comment on what the blog I quoted at the beginning says, or on what I specifically have said?

 

[Crossfire]

The author's point, and one which many scholars have argued fairly convincingly, there is a history dating back long before Jesus ... so yes, that would be the Jews ... of understanding Scripture as symbolic rather than literal.

For thousands of years before Jesus, and for almost 2,000 years after Jesus, the accepted interpretation of Scripture -- at least of the Old Testament -- was primarily symbolic. I know not all OT scholars accept that argument, but it has a pretty strong following in the Biblical Studies community.

And that's exactly how the oral traditions of the pharisees and saduccees that Jesus opposed in His day (now known as the Talmud) came into existence.

 

[Closemyeyes2cU]

Nope, sorry, that's not what I am saying at all.

I understood the Bible as allegorical long before I had liberal ideas. Back when I was a conservative, with very conservative ideas, I still understood that Genesis was primarily symbolic. The symbolism of Genesis supports neither "liberal" nor "conservative" ideas. Or, perhaps more accurately, it supports both "liberal" and "conservative" ideas, because it supports is God's ideas, and some of God's ideas are liberal, and some of them are conservative. I admit, now that I'm a liberal, I don't like the conservative ones so much, but I know they're still God, and I still have to follow them.

Do you follow the liberal ones that God commands? Or do you figure, since they disagree with your worldview, you can ignore them?

Hint: you don't have to answer that one.

You seem to be saying that either the Bible is literally true or it is a complete fabrication with no "Truth" at all. Your implication is that if something is not literal, it is a lie. Do you really believe that?

Hint: think hard before you answer this one.

I'm actually not a STRICT literalist but to say that most of the Bible is allegorical is flat out absurd.

Enlightenment me on Gods "liberal" ideas?

 

[moment_of_faith]

Did you understand the reason for the parables?

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

And that's exactly how the oral traditions of the pharisees and saduccees that Jesus opposed in His day (now known as the Talmud) came into existence.

This is a good point.

It should be noted, however, that it was not just the Pharisees and the Sadducees that held to the oral traditions. All Jews accepted the Talmudic teachings, including Jesus. The arguments Jesus had against the P & S was not that they were interpreting Scripture allegorically, but that they were forgetting the allegorical meanings that were there to start with. "Love God, love your neighbor." The Two Great Commandments are there in the Old Testament, if you understand it allegorically. (In fact, it's harder to see them if you're too caught up in the literal interpretation.)

 

[Closemyeyes2cU]

This is a good point.

It should be noted, however, that it was not just the Pharisees and the Sadducees that held to the oral traditions. All Jews accepted the Talmudic teachings, including Jesus. The arguments Jesus had against the P & S was not that they were interpreting Scripture allegorically, but that they were forgetting the allegorical meanings that were there to start with. "Love God, love your neighbor." The Two Great Commandments are there in the Old Testament, if you understand it allegorically. (In fact, it's harder to see them if you're too caught up in the literal interpretation.)

"including Jesus"

Jesus was constantly REBUKING the pharisees for holding to traditions of men which were rooted in the talmud.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Enlightenment me on Gods "liberal" ideas?

Happy to oblige:

"When I was hungry, you fed me; when I was thirsty, you gave me something to drink; when I was a stranger, you invited me in."

"Forgive your brother, not 7 times, but 7 times 70 times."

Other examples include the parable of the workers in the field, the lost sheep, the Good Samaritan,

You want more?

 

[Closemyeyes2cU]

Happy to oblige:

"When I was hungry, you fed me; when I was thirsty, you gave me something to drink; when I was a stranger, you invited me in."

"Forgive your brother, not 7 times, but 7 times 70 times."

Other examples include the parable of the workers in the field, the lost sheep, the Good Samaritan,

You want more?

Conservatives dont do these things?

We just dont believe in feeding lazy people

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

 

[chip]

if scripture is only symbolic or allegory, then it is open to your interpretation, not as a standard to measure against.

it is correct that the Jews often failed and forgot the truth behind their texts, if anything, the Bible proves that through their history.

but, David was not looking at the Books of Moses as being bedtime stories, Daniel realizing that Jeremiah's writings were literal, nor did Nehemiah and Zerubbabel on the temple step as the scrolls were read. Peter commented that Paul's writings were difficult - not if they were just allegorical.

truth does not begin and end with each one of us, truth must be a standard - or there is nothing by which we can be measured by come judgement day, after-all, the 693 commands, and Jesus' 1, are not allegorical.

 

[Closemyeyes2cU]

if scripture is only symbolic or allegory, then it is open to your interpretation, not as a standard to measure against.

it is correct that the Jews often failed and forgot the truth behind their texts, if anything, the Bible proves that through their history.

but, David was not looking at the Books of Moses as being bedtime stories, Daniel realizing that Jeremiah's writings were literal, nor did Nehemiah and Zerubbabel on the temple step as the scrolls were read. Peter commented that Paul's writings were difficult - not if they were just allegorical.

truth does not begin and end with each one of us, truth must be a standard - or there is nothing by which we can be measured by come judgement day, after-all, the 693 commands, and Jesus' 1, are not allegorical.

If the Bible can mean anything, then it means nothing.