Support NeoGAF

[zethren]

Ok, I'm curious.

Here is a video that touches on the complexity of the Genesis creation poem. The whole video is about it.

I would encourage anyone to watch this, even if you are atheist, because I find it fascinating. http://youtube.com/watch?v=i2rklwkm_dQ

 

[zethren]

3 happens to be an extremely important number in a great number of works from many different cultures.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfThree



I think I've had this conversation with zethren before and basically got "well some stuff is obviously real and others obviously allegory" spiel. Though I don't recall getting his (I'm sure - rigorous) methodology used to determine which is what.

The Bible isn't a book. It's a library. Think of it like that. Its a collection of books. Not every book is biography, or history. Some are poems. Some are songs. Some are fantastical stories created to prove moral points.

It isn't my personal methodology, it is the conclusion of countless biblical scholars throughout history. You should probably look into that.

 

[CornBurrito]

The Bible isn't a book. It's a library. Think of it like that. Its a collection of books. Not every book is biography, or history. Some are poems. Some are songs. Some are fantastical stories created to prove moral points.

It isn't my personal methodology, it is the conclusion of countless biblical scholars throughout history. You should probably look into that.

And how do they determine which is literal and which isn't? You do realize Googling "how to know what in the Bible is supposed to be literal" leads to some rather sketchy sites do you not? How about you throw me a bone?

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

In science you discard old ideas. In religion you also discard old ideas but this means losing faith in those ideas you discard.

Do you have faith in that religious interpretation? The answer must be yes. Therefore changing that interpretation means losing faith in it and replacing it with something else.

So your argument is? I'm not trying to be rude I just want to know if someone were to "lose faith in a religious interpretation" then what?

 

[KHarvey16]

So your argument is?

Changing your interpretation is necessarily losing faith in the previous interpretation.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

Changing your interpretation is necessarily losing faith in the previous interpretation.

Kharvey why do you do this to me.

 

[Final Boss]

Post of the year

 

[KHarvey16]

Kharvey why do you do this to me.

(Saw your edit above)

The sentiment that began all this was that the story in the OP demonstrated the difference between science and faith in religion. Science, when presented with new evidence, can change readily and eagerly in many cases to accommodate the new understanding. It's constructed specifically to allow this, and more than allow actually necessitates it. In contrast, faith cannot be maintained if a person were to modify their beliefs based on new information.

 

[zethren]

And how do they determine which is literal and which isn't? You do realize Googling "how to know what in the Bible is supposed to be literal" leads to some rather sketchy sites do you not? How about you throw me a bone?

Basically how any form of ancient literature might be scrutinized. Compared with other work of the day, which they can then put the work into historical context and determine intended audience.

The intended audience of most, if not all, of the Bible is not 21ist century English speaking people. Things become vastly different when looked upon in the light of the day.

The accounts of Jesus' apostles are personal descriptions of things they've witnessed as they walked with Jesus. Romans, Philippians, Colossians, etc are letters to those respective people.

Psalms consists of poetic songs.

There are other sections of the Bible that are instructional, how to build a Temple for instance.

Some biblical books were not even intended as written works to be compiled in a whole.

Within it consists several genres, like a library. And those genres can be determined by scholars who sometimes spend their entire lives studying the Bible. I would suggest you read it some time, even simply for the purposes of gaining a better understanding of where others are coming from when they talk about their beliefs. NLV is the easiest translation to read, ive found. KJV is the opposite end, much more confusing.

 

[Tookay]

New evidence arrives, scientists adjust their understanding of history. Even in pretty significant ways, as in this case.

It would be so much cheaper if scientific textbooks required no revision and no editing. If only they could avoid costly revision and editing like many religious texts do, I'm sure my Biochem textbook from Sophomore year would have been noticeably cheaper.

I'm not sure what kind of thought process you have to have to go from a scientific discovery to bring up religion but it seems to happen all the time on gaf. Even from normally logical posters and mods.

 

[FunkyPajamas]

 

[Air]

This stuff is bound to happen I think. There's so much ancient stuff that's lost that I think it would be impossible to paint a 100% accurate picture of human evolution.

That said, of course the thread would evolve into a science vs. faith based argument, but I do think the original thread is what incited it (of course with the obvious creationism joke).

 

[Tesseract]

fundamentalists gonna uh, be fundamental?

 

[CornBurrito]

Within it consists several genres, like a library. And those genres can be determined by scholars who sometimes spend their entire lives studying the Bible. I would suggest you read it some time, even simply for the purposes of gaining a better understanding of where others are coming from when they talk about their beliefs. NLV is the easiest translation to read, ive found. KJV is the opposite end, much more confusing.

I thought KJV was the preferred translation with NLV being derided as being an overly liberal translation. Is that not true?

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I would argue that religion was conceived to explain the world around us as well, just a different aspect of the world. Morality, purpose, meaning, and all of these grey areas. Many people do not turn to science to answer such questions. Recently, however, this has been changing.

Historically, this is just not true. We have archeological and historical evidence that points to the origin of many religions in trying to explain and understand the physical world around us. I feel like it has only become "metaphysical" in more recent history, as a convenient way of moving the goal posts as more pertinent information explaining the universe has become available via alternative, reality-based avenues such as science and mathematics.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

(Saw your edit above)

The sentiment that began all this was that the story in the OP demonstrated the difference between science and faith in religion. Science, when presented with new evidence, can change readily and eagerly in many cases to accommodate the new understanding. It's constructed specifically to allow this, and more than allow actually necessitates it. In contrast, faith cannot be maintained if a person were to modify their beliefs based on new information.

Right, science and mathematics are human intellectual tool sets that we leverage to help describe the physical universe/reality around us. We reevaluate our conclusions when new or better information becomes available using these tool sets.

I'd like to throw out that there that there actually is no "metaphysical" or "ethereal" realm. There is only the physical universe/reality. My best guess with the information available is that the physical universe/reality always has been around and always will be around in some form or another.

 

[zethren]

I thought KJV was the preferred translation with NLV being derided as being an overly liberal translation. Is that not true?

Personally I find KJV difficult to read. I do know it is popular, yes.

As far as that view of NLV, I've not heard that criticism. But I believe it stands to reason that a fundamentalist who only reads KJV could view it that way.

I have two: one is NLV, which is my standard Bible. And I have a NIV, which is more literal but not quite as much so as KJV.

If I come across a verse I have trouble with while reading my NLV, I will check that same verse in NIV and see where the differences in translation lie. I find that effective. I also have an app on my phone with most supported translations, so I could go to KJV if I needed to.

The ideal would be to learn Hebrew and then read the Hebrew translations.

 

[Air]

fundamentalists gonna uh, be fundamental?

Tis true.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

 

[Mario]

The accounts of Jesus' apostles are personal descriptions of things they've witnessed as they walked with Jesus. Romans, Philippians, Colossians, etc are letters to those respective people.

While the naming of those parts of the Bible implies it, you should be made aware that there are no direct accounts in the Bible from the Apostles themselves. Those accounts are second hand at best and written years, mostly decades, after the fact. They are therefore not "personal accounts".

 

[Lothar]

The Bible isn't a book. It's a library. Think of it like that. Its a collection of books. Not every book is biography, or history. Some are poems. Some are songs. Some are fantastical stories created to prove moral points.

It isn't my personal methodology, it is the conclusion of countless biblical scholars throughout history. You should probably look into that.

So why aren't the Jesus parts fantastical stories created to prove moral points? I mean, obviously it is a fantastical made up story since people do not rise from the dead. It's just a matter of whether or not the person who made it up meant for it to prove moral points or tell a great story or make a great lie. Same as with Genesis.

 

[Epcott]

/slayed

 

[theJohann]

Historically, this is just not true. We have archeological and historical evidence that points to the origin of many religions in trying to explain and understand the physical world around us. I feel like it has only become "metaphysical" in more recent history, as a convenient way of moving the goal posts as more pertinent information explaining the universe has become available via alternative, reality-based avenues such as science and mathematics.

Yes, religion has always aimed to explain both the physical and intangible aspects of the world. Science developed and eventually obviated religion as the go-to answer for our physical reality. Religion didn't just suddenly decide to establish moral codes after science came into the picture, that's what religion has always been doing, so I wouldn't call that moving the goal posts in any way. Even so, I was referring to the purpose of religion, which is to understand the world and find meaning in it. It just so happens that this wide scope encompasses certain aspects of the physical sciences, and I agree with you that religion is currently more relevant in its metaphysical contributions than anything else.

 

[Javaman]

I just hope they didn't have feathers instead of skin.