More on fundamentalism

[RachelBibleStudent]

Ummm ... this is just plain wrong.

There are dozens of writings concurrent with the Old Testament that are allegorical. Ancient China and India had deeply spiritual writings thousands of years ago, and there is no reason to believe that some of those influences didn't make it as far west as Mesopotamia.

I'm not sure where you got the above idea, if this was something that was taught to you in a lecture, or you read it in a book, or what, but it is absolutely and categorically wrong. I'm really sorry to be the one to break it to you, but you've been lied to.


Fascinating. Allegory was "invented" by Greek Philosophers who were trying to hearken back to the days of Homer?

Have you ever read Homer? Do yourself a favor: sit down and read Odysseus. You don't even have to read it in the original language. There are lots of excellent translations out there. Read it, and tell me that that isn't allegory. That alone should prove to you that this nut-case who is trying to tell you that allegorical writing didn't come until after that is snorting some strange substance. And, by the way, anything else this "teacher" has told you should also be questioned thoroughly. I wouldn't trust anything that came from that source.


huh-a-wha?!?!?

You're trying to tell me (and anyone else on this board) that Italian citizens today actually believe the Roman Myths are true? That Olav, my friend from Olso, Norway, actually assumes that the Norse gods are all literal?

If anything, the Biblical creation story is the only one where you have anyone trying to insist on taking it literally still today.

Come on, Rachel. I've seen you in other boards, and you're WAY too intelligent for this. It sounds to me like someone you respect a lot and look up to has really been pulling the wool over those lamb-eyes of yours. Hon, think. Do you know anyone who believes that the stars come out at night because Artemis shoots his arrow into the night sky? Literally?

That there may have been ancients, 4-6 thousand years ago, who read these myths and thought they were true, that is correct. There were ancient Hebrews who thought the Creation story was literal, just as there were ancient civilizations who believed all of their mythical stories. We know there were, because we have records of these arguments, 4-6 thousand years ago, between scholars who took them literally and scholars who took them allegorically. A little less than two thousand years ago, the "myth" school won out, and the prevailing interpretation ever since then (at least until the late 1800s) was allegorical.

all ancient cultures read their writings literally...in many cases kings derived their authority and entire nations even derived their origins from writings which they took quite literally for obvious reasons...

greek and roman and babylonian and egyptian and norse mythology were taken as literal history...the iliad was taken as literal history...the mahabharata was taken as literal history...the epic of gilgamesh was taken as literal history...and the old testament was taken as literal history...

none of these were written or read as allegory because allegorical interpretation hadn't even been dreamed up yet... allegorical interpretation was invented by greek philosophers in alexandria who attempted to show that their philosophical notions could be obtained from authoritative sources such as the epics of homer...which up until that point had only been interpreted literally...

allegorical interpretation was not applied to the old testament until around the second century BC...culminating in the detailed allegorical commentaries of philo of alexandria in the first century AD and later clement of alexandria and origen of alexandria... before that the old testament was interpreted the only other way possible...the way it was written...literally...

so allegorical interpretation was a comparatively recent development...and it was mainly a pagan thing... allegorical interpretation of the bible was an even more recent development...and it was a mainly alexandrian thing...

all of the ancient cultures interpreted their texts literally...anything in a text that was not literally true was regarded as simply wrong... there was no attempt made to draw a spiritually true argument out of a factual false text...

even nowdays when we look back at ancient writings...we regard ancient writings that don't line up with reality as simply incorrect... there is no effort made to find any hidden spiritual truth in the egyptian notion that the sun was ra's boat sailing across the sky...we just acknowledge that the ancient egyptians were wrong about the sun...

i suppose it is understandable that professing christians don't want to reject the bible entirely...but the bible is the only ancient text that isn't simply dismissed as wrong when it contains statements that don't line up with the modern scientific perception of reality...instead attempts are made to find hidden spiritual truths using interpretive schemes that the authors knew nothing of...

i guess a little cognitive dissonance is excusable if it keeps you from becoming an atheist...but this literary double standard is still irrational...

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

all ancient cultures read their writings literally..... {snip}

So, I have provided several articles, links, and support for my assertion that the Old Testament was understood as allegory for thousands of years.

You have rejected all of this support, and stated, "No, you're wrong, I'm right." You have provided no support but your own ramblings. You claim no authority but your own statements.

And you really expect any educated person to take you seriously, that a story where the main character's name is "Trouble" and he comes from a place called "Nowhere" -- that this was intended as historical fact?

Really?

Next thing you'll tell me that the text with a man named "Man" and a woman named "Life" was supposed to be taken literally.

If you feel like providing any backup for your claims, I'd be very interested in seeing it. Until then, you're no more correct than you were before. You've just said the same falsehoods with more words.

 

[GreenNnice]

all ancient cultures read their writings literally...in many cases kings derived their authority and entire nations even derived their origins from writings which they took quite literally for obvious reasons...

greek and roman and babylonian and egyptian and norse mythology were taken as literal history...the iliad was taken as literal history...the mahabharata was taken as literal history...the epic of gilgamesh was taken as literal history...and the old testament was taken as literal history...

none of these were written or read as allegory because allegorical interpretation hadn't even been dreamed up yet... allegorical interpretation was invented by greek philosophers in alexandria who attempted to show that their philosophical notions could be obtained from authoritative sources such as the epics of homer...which up until that point had only been interpreted literally...

allegorical interpretation was not applied to the old testament until around the second century BC...culminating in the detailed allegorical commentaries of philo of alexandria in the first century AD and later clement of alexandria and origen of alexandria... before that the old testament was interpreted the only other way possible...the way it was written...literally...

so allegorical interpretation was a comparatively recent development...and it was mainly a pagan thing... allegorical interpretation of the bible was an even more recent development...and it was a mainly alexandrian thing...

all of the ancient cultures interpreted their texts literally...anything in a text that was not literally true was regarded as simply wrong... there was no attempt made to draw a spiritually true argument out of a factual false text...

even nowdays when we look back at ancient writings...we regard ancient writings that don't line up with reality as simply incorrect... there is no effort made to find any hidden spiritual truth in the egyptian notion that the sun was ra's boat sailing across the sky...we just acknowledge that the ancient egyptians were wrong about the sun...

i suppose it is understandable that professing christians don't want to reject the bible entirely...but the bible is the only ancient text that isn't simply dismissed as wrong when it contains statements that don't line up with the modern scientific perception of reality...instead attempts are made to find hidden spiritual truths using interpretive schemes that the authors knew nothing of...

i guess a little cognitive dissonance is excusable if it keeps you from becoming an atheist...but this literary double standard is still irrational...

So, I have provided several articles, links, and support for my assertion that the Old Testament was understood as allegory for thousands of years.

You have rejected all of this support, and stated, "No, you're wrong, I'm right." You have provided no support but your own ramblings. You claim no authority but your own statements.

And you really expect any educated person to take you seriously, that a story where the main character's name is "Trouble" and he comes from a place called "Nowhere" -- that this was intended as historical fact?

Really?

Next thing you'll tell me that the text with a man named "Man" and a woman named "Life" was supposed to be taken literally.

If you feel like providing any backup for your claims, I'd be very interested in seeing it. Until then, you're no more correct than you were before. You've just said the same falsehoods with more words.

Please be nice to rache, and, this is not for defending her , nor you, in this, hopefully, Spirit-led debate, just saying she speaks Truth and, I believe you do, too, milady, and, wow! diez God ever personally lead you in this thread to present your thoughts so well, literally and figuratively.

Remember, the power in His name, and, will for our lives, is only crystally clear to the one He is directly speaking too
The Lord leads ALL believers, argue in Love, for we want to ALL strive for being perfecto like Him, right.
And, as He argues/states His points it is in Love, of which GD you've 'turned your cheeks' quité a many times, including admitting a point put wrongedly.

'Well done, My child.'

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Please be nice to rache, and, this is not for defending her , nor you, in this, hopefully, Spirit-led debate, just saying she speaks Truth and, I believe you do, too, milady, and, wow! diez God ever personally lead you in this thread to present your thoughts so well, literally and figuratively.

Remember, the power in His name, and, will for our lives, is only crystally clear to the one He is directly speaking too
The Lord leads ALL believers, argue in Love, for we want to ALL strive for being perfecto like Him, right.
And, as He argues/states His points it is in Love, of which GD you've 'turned your cheeks' quité a many times, including admitting a point put wrongedly.

'Well done, My child.'

You are right.

Rachel, I'm sorry I was snarky. I can (and ought to) disagree with you without being a snot about it. Please forgive me.

I am seriously interested in seeing any scholarship you have to back up your claims that Homer was not considered as "allegorical" until centuries later. Everything I've ever seen or read about him indicate that Homer himself (or, whomever wrote the epics ... there's a lot of scholarship now that questions the authorship, I know) intended them to be allegories. Like I said, writing where the protagonist is named "Trouble" kinda gives the impression that you know you're not being literal. At least to me, it does.

 

[GreenNnice]

You are right.

Rachel, I'm sorry I was snarky. I can (and ought to) disagree with you without being a snot about it. Please forgive me.

I am seriously interested in seeing any scholarship you have to back up your claims that Homer was not considered as "allegorical" until centuries later. Everything I've ever seen or read about him indicate that Homer himself (or, whomever wrote the epics ... there's a lot of scholarship now that questions the authorship, I know) intended them to be allegories. Like I said, writing where the protagonist is named "Trouble" kinda gives the impression that you know you're not being literal. At least to me, it does.

Yup, must have Love

[Youtube]E06cXUgI9_s[/YouTube]