This one, however, does belong to this blog. I commented under a youtube along it, and one of the comments sparked a short debate (if it lengthens, I'll be happy to update, perhaps even to make a new post). Here:
Taking the Bible literally is disrespecting Christianity
Brother Karaviro | added 10th Dec. 2014
- You should not thank God for living in a country where the Bible is not taken literally.
It should be.
- What exact Scriptural text is not fundamental for your faith?
The one you have not read.
The Church is fundamental, and it has pronounced Scriptures, all 73 books, as true.
This means, whatever part of it I read, whatever part of it I even don't understand, I still must accept it is true. Once I read it, it becomes part of the ecclesiastic fundament of faith, as per Trent.
- While the Scriptures can lead YOU to encounter God, they do so on condition you believe as the Church does.
Their literal meaning is how OTHERS, way before you, did in fact encounter God, like Adam and Eve in perfect harmony, and then, after the forbidden fruit, in disharmony, meeting Hid anger.
No, the foundation of faith is not personal experience, of each believer, the foundation is and remains the teaching of the Church, which includes the Bible, and which tells you how to differentiate good from bad in personal experiences.
Suppose you had gone into a hypnotic state and personally experienced a "previous life" - would you accept you are reincarnated because of that? No.
I might not care as much about "spirituality" as about faith, about orthodoxy.
No, spirituality is not a requirement for religion. Some things which normally should help you to have one, like praying the rosary or fasting or at least abstaining on fridays, are requirements or recommendations of religion, but "be spiritual" is not, per se.
- Look here, God is certainly more than human, but not, unlike the Stoics, less than fully human.
Jealous is a bad description from some viewpoints, not from others, if it had been, it would not have been there.
- Zen masters are not as such very spiritual. Not in the right way : they are not orthodox.
- Different kind of language, well, sentences are short, probably so the chapters could, one after another be learned by heart and transmitted from Adam, or from Seth or Cain, or Lamech or Noah to Moses who wrote them down, until we get to an environment in which chapters could be written. And writings preserved.
But that the story is "larger than life" does not mean it is not literally true.
Several stories we know are real life, whether World War II or Kon Tiki, are "larger than life".
I would rather you consider me blind than God consider me a heretic.
- "Historical critical" is unhistorical, since antitraditional.
Pretending Genesis is a novel is as unhistorical as pretending Silmarillion is a documentary.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- No, some possibilities of language do not apply to the Bible.
Silmarillion is a novel. How do we know? Because Tolkien wrote it as a novel.
Genesis is a documentary, and we know that because Moses wrote it as documentary.
We know the intention of Tolkien (as well as his authorship) from tradition, we also know the intention of Moses (as well as authorship) from tradition.
- Brother Karaviro
- No Genesis is not writen by Moses, you are a kid right? With all respect, I hope you will visit some classes in Theology at a State University. What possibliities of language do not apply to the Bible? :)
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "No Genesis is not writen by Moses,"
Pope St Pius X's Bible commission condemned this one. In 1905 even the version saying Moses inerrantly collected stories that were not inerrant in themselves.
On another occasion, the ideas "Pentateuch is not at least substantially by Moses" (in Genesis he is arguably a collector of earlier material, and last chapter of Deuteronomy was written by Joshua after his death).
But for this one, I am not sure what year, and the other idea was "Psalms are not by King David, even if it mentions 'a Psalm by David'."
"you are a kid right?"
I have a blog called
New blog on the kid
But apart from that, I am 49.
"With all respect, I hope you will visit some classes in Theology at a State University."
I did, along with ma, at age 13, she took me out of school one day.
I heard a professor, otherwise apparently sane, defend the Bibel-Babel idiocy by Delitzsch or some other Prussian.
"What possibliities of language do not apply to the Bible?"
Those that are contrary to known fact. For instance, being originally written in English is a possibility of language, it applies for instance to Lord of the Rings or Silmarillion, but not to one single book of the Bible.
Being a novel is also a possibility of language which does not apply very much in the Bible.
The Prodigal Son (in German that would be "der verschwänderische Sohn", but it is usually "der verlorene Sohn") can well be a novel.
Because Jesus used it to make a point, like novelists often do (Momo makes a certain point about men always looking at the wristwatch, as Michael Ende intended it to do, and the Prodigal Son also brings home a point about God's love).
But being a novel is not a possibility which applies to Genesis. One could imagine a parellel universe in which Silmarillion and Lord of the Rings were old books dating from the events and in which Genesis was a novel by Tolkien.
But in our universe, Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion are novels by Tolkien, and Genesis is an old book, dating back (in its parts) to the events. Ergo, in our universe, the possibility of being a novel does not apply to Genesis.
- Brother Karaviro
- Sorry for the wrong assumption on your age, chap.
First of all, english isnt my mother language, so sorry for upcoming inconvenients.
Going once with your ma, is not thinking through a biblical class on a State University.
The word inerrant is obsolete, because language itself can not carry absolute truth, especially not divine truth.
The translation errors that occur, are of corse applicable on the Bible. The word is dead, through the spirit it gets alive.
Genesis is not just a novel, those literature concepts are not applicable to old writings. It is cultural heritage from a specific time and region, with a monotheistic culture. Everywhere the divine is shining through, so also in some bad stories from the Pentateuch.
Your derivation about novels and reality is very weak and makes not much sense.
Listen, you are disrespecting Christianity and betraying Jesus and God if you take the Bible literally.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "Going once with your ma, is not thinking through a biblical class on a State University."
Nope, but she did and she shared my view on Bibel-Babel thesis.
"The word inerrant is obsolete, because language itself can not carry absolute truth, especially not divine truth."
That is false.
"The translation errors that occur, are of corse applicable on the Bible. The word is dead, through the spirit it gets alive."
A translation error or copyist error is of course a possible exception from inerrancy.
I know, as a Latinist (at a State university, though without any final exams, just intermediate ones), fairly much about translations. It is for instance NOT possible that a translation error somewhere in Genesis changed the genre from novel writing to history.
"Genesis is not just a novel, those literature concepts are not applicable to old writings."
As far as I know the meaning of the word novelist (and as an aspiring novelist I know fairly much of it) the word "novel" is unspecific enough to be applicable to any prose narrative that is fiction. For instance, the one definitional obstacle to calling the Prodigal Son a novel is, it is not long enough. It therefore is a micro-novel - supposing Our Lord just made it up, rather than take an example He, as Omniscient God, knew from everyday life somewhere on Earth. Or even perhaps an example from a live story known to the people back there. But a novel (or micro-novel) is a fair guess.
"It is cultural heritage"
Culturally inherited narratives come in two main branches : fiction (i e novels) and history. There is of course also docufiction : this means a documentary would be either too short or too disclosing of vulnerable people, and therefore a fictional fleshing out of detail is preferred over a fully factual one, while story as such is factual.
Genesis stories are simply too short to be docufictions, there is not enough fleshing out. Everything which involves discretion (like saying  And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, rather than recite the whole Mahabharata) or being content with bare genealogies where many of the biographies are lost, that is too short for docufiction.
So, we have the two major branches of culturally inherited narrative : novels, or Märchen, and history, or Sagen. Genesis is either "eine Sage" like Richard Lionheart at Dürnstein (I think it was, if I did not remember wrong what place in Nether Austria) or it is "ein Märchen" like Hänsel und Gretel.
For the choice, we can depend on what those transmitting it have said : it is history.
"from a specific time and region, with a monotheistic culture."
Every historic narrative is from a specific time and region, and has a specific culture. Trojan war is narrated by Homer at a time when Hittites were forgot or one was trying to forget them. He was perhaps even the ideal poet for the transmission, because he was blind and could not see the obvious difference in Hittite hieroglyphs when visiting certain places. Therefore not ask who made that, therefore very honestly never hear about Hittites.
A Communist narrative about Stalingrad is also this, it is for instance formulated in an atheistic culture. And a very anti-German one too. The same Commies who celebrate the "heroic resistance at Teruel" are also considering the "heroic resitance at Stalingrad" as folly - even if getting out of the way at Teruel was easier for the reds and capitulation was more likely to result in spared life in captivity.
"Everywhere the divine is shining through, so also in some bad stories from the Pentateuch."
Everywhere in any false religion some truth or some divine is shining through in some way. This does not make them true religions, therefore giving this to the Bible is not being a Christian.
"Your derivation about novels and reality is very weak and makes not much sense."
I hope my answer has made it clearer.
"Listen, you are disrespecting Christianity and betraying Jesus and God if you take the Bible literally."
No, I am not "listening" to you as to a Guru, and I do not believe what you are saying. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself took Genesis literally, in Mark 10:6, for instance.
- Brother Karaviro
- "The word inerrant is obsolete, because language itself can not carry absolute truth, especially not divine truth."
That is true. [In other words, he contradicts my "that is false"]
Thank you for your distinguished insights, we are totally not on the same page :).
With "listen" i didn't wante to implicate some status of mine, we are writing to each other on the same eye height hopefully.
I hope at least we can be on the same page for the following:
I wish us, you and me, in the name of Jesus, Gods blessing, and may his healing lifeforce shine through us and heal us and our surroundings. At the end what counts is the love we live towards our Sisters and Brothers and not how good we write words.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- In some ways yes, but when it comes to writing about this subject, writing well or ill does matter for the welfare of brothers and sisters.