@fmf saidThe Bible uses it's own 'religious language' which consistently relies on metaphors, allegory and figurative speech, even when describing factual (and therefore 'literal' } events.
Surely "messages told in an allegory style" are, by definition, not "literal", right? You can't describe "allegorical messages" as being "literal messages".
This is the reason it is often difficult to decipher whether or not a particular passage was meant to be taken literally and why there is perpetual disagreements of interpretation. - I don't think it is helpful to view the Bible as you would a history book where all literal events are obvious to the reader.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidLanguage that uses metaphors, allegory and figurative speech to describe ideas is, by definition, not saying anything literal. If all we have is metaphorical literature, there is no way of knowing what the "factual events" were. Indeed, there is no particular reason to believe there were any "factual events" in the first place or that the prophecies were anything other than florid imaginings..
The Bible uses it's own 'religious language' which consistently relies on metaphors, allegory and figurative speech, even when describing factual (and therefore 'literal' } events.
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidPersonally, I don't think it is helpful to view the Bible as a source of anything other than metaphors, allegories, and folklore that might have some value as a code for living but certainly not as a source of "facts" that are "literally" true about supernatural events.
This is the reason it is often difficult to decipher whether or not a particular passage was meant to be taken literally and why there is perpetual disagreements of interpretation. - I don't think it is helpful to view the Bible as you would a history book where all literal events are obvious to the reader.
What is the intellectual or academic benefit of pretending that the visions attributed to John of Patmos are "literally true"... aside from for the purpose of understanding the psychology that underpins credulity?
-Removed-Would you say then that it is not a good idea to create doctrine based on the vision a man had 20 centuries ago.
If that were all that was written on the subject I may agree, but you seem to be ignoring the remaining 65 books in the bible, many of whom speak of the end times as well.
I would say then that it is not a good idea to create doctrine based on cherry picking. 🙂
@fmf saidAs I said, 'the Bible uses it's own 'religious language' which consistently relies on metaphors, allegory and figurative speech, even when describing factual (and therefore 'literal' } events.'
Language that uses metaphors, allegory and figurative speech to describe ideas is, by definition, not saying anything literal. If all we have is metaphorical literature, there is no way of knowing what the "factual events" were. Indeed, there is no particular reason to believe there were any "factual events" in the first place or that the prophecies were anything other than florid imaginings..
'Describing ideas' is something you have added. The bible isn't 'describing ideas' it is recounting events, often told with the use of figurative speech that wouldn't be used in non-religious writing. The bible should be read with this in mind. It uses it's own kind of language that renders your definition moot.
@fmf saidThe bible often uses metaphor and figurative speech to recount factual events. (Think of it more akin to poetry than biography). And this is where I think you are missing the point. The reason it 'IS' helpful to understand the way the bible deploys metaphor and allegory is so as not to immediately dismiss it all all figurative and miss the fact that it may still be trying to convey a factual event, beneath the symbolism.
Personally, I don't think it is helpful to view the Bible as a source of anything other than metaphors, allegories, and folklore that might have some value as a code for living but certainly not as a source of "facts" that are "literally" true about supernatural events.
What is the intellectual or academic benefit of pretending that the visions attributed to John of Patmos ar ...[text shortened]... erally true"... aside from for the purpose of understanding the psychology that underpins credulity?
And the 'intellectual or academic benefit' of understanding the way John used language and metaphor helps to decipher whether or not what he wrote related to events 'he' believed were literally true. - Your starting position that metaphor and literal events are entirely separate animals prevents a true understanding of what John was writing about.
Edit: A good modern day equivalent would be the 'Life of Pi' where animals and symbolism are used to recount actual events.
2 edits
-Removed-This is true. I've just posted this lot on the other thread, where we strayed into "Hell" but I'll partially repeat.
There is no word "Hell" in the bible at all; this is a misconception. The route words sometimes translated as hell are "Sheol"; "Hades"; "Gehenna"; and Tarturus. Sheol in the Hebrew Scriptures was the common grave, and in the Greek Scriptures Hades is the equivalent. Both in some translations incorrectly tanslated (62 times in some translations) as "Hell". The word "Tarturus" (also translated as Hell) is used in connection with fallen Angels e.g 2 Peter:4
Now we come onto the final word Gehenna, as this is the smoke that gives rise to the lengend of the fires of hell.
There are several instances in the Bible where the Israelites are expressly forbidden to pass their children through the fires of Moloch (child sacrifice by incinerating the child), one of the many is found at Lev 18:21 "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God." (KJV)
Please note that there are several varitations of the spelling of Molek including Molech; and Moloch.
Outside of Jurusalem was Gehenna; essentially an ongoing bonfire in the Valley of Hinnom were everthing was dumped including bodies, and kept stoked up by the use of sulphur (brimstone. Is this starting to sound familiar?)
As the Encyclopeadia America notes - "Gehenna" in the New Testament, where it is described as a place where both soul and body could be destroyed (Matthew 10:28) in "unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43).
But this was not the orginal use, which takes us back to the prohibition on child sacrifice by fire to Moloch.
The Encyclopedia Britannica notes on Gihenna "Named in the New Testament in Greek form (from the Hebrew Ge Hinnom, meaning “valley of Hinnom” ), Gehenna originally was a valley west and south of Jerusalem where children were burned as sacrifices to the Ammonite god Moloch"
The question therefore arises "If god forbade the Jews to incinerate their children, then sets up a system of eternal firey torment, doesn't that make him a hypocrite?"
The answer would be yes, but as he doesn't then "not guilty" as charged.
It is unthinkable that a god of love, whose qualities were reflected by the very compassionate and caring figure of his son Jesus, would do such a terrible thing.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe words "literal" and "allegorical" don't suddenly lose their meaning just because there are people who believe that allegories are literally true.
As I said, 'the Bible uses it's own 'religious language' which consistently relies on metaphors, allegory and figurative speech, even when describing factual (and therefore 'literal' } events.'
'Describing ideas' is something you have added. The bible isn't 'describing ideas' it is recounting events, often told with the use of figurative speech that wouldn't be us ...[text shortened]... ould be read with this in mind. It uses it's own kind of language that renders your definition moot.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThere may well be historical facts in the Bible but when the writers are using metaphors and allegories to refer to supernatural things, they are neither describing historical facts nor are those metaphors and allegories literally true.
The bible isn't 'describing ideas' it is recounting events, often told with the use of figurative speech that wouldn't be used in non-religious writing.