1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeSo are you asking: are those sections (Genesis, for example) metaphor, history, or are they merely meant to be incomprehensible?
Was referring to those parts of the bible that are difficult for many to take as literal. Genesis for example.
I would say metaphor and history. Genesis was written for the lowest common denominator, so that all men can understand it, from ancient man, who, in general, was not very educated about the world, to modern man, whose casual knowledge is more than ancient man could comprehend. It is an attempt at history, but told in such a way as to be "comprehensible" by anyone. For that ancient man, the stories are told in a basic form so they are understandable, and as such, even modern children can understand the concepts, and so they function as a sort of basic history for the "less learned". And modern man can understand them if he understands this relationship between God and "everyman". The details don't have to be "spot on" to understand what the author meant to be understood, so in that way, they function more as metaphor. The Word of God is flexible in this way, so as to be understood by the largest number of people, who vary in their basic ability to understand.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneYou are the one still lying [or at best misinterpreting] about our exchange, and the consequences of it.
So that's how you're able to sleep at night. A combination of a redefinition of terms and an ability to believe that your agenda turns your sins into "righteousness". It's no wonder you ceased being a Christian. Your "god"-complex doesn't allow it.
I emphatically and demonstrably did not say what you claimed I said, or mean what you said I meant.
Can you really not see that my posts do not say what you claim that they say??
It's one thing to have a disagreement over what we actually mean and think.
It's another thing entirely to have a disagreement over a misinterpretation of what we say and mean.
EDIT: Page 4 of this thread for the post you didn't respond to with all the info in it.
Originally posted by SuzianneIn fairness, my 'incomprehensibility' remark was made in explicit and clear reference to Hinds who befuddles me on a daily (*dairy) basis.
So are you asking: are those sections (Genesis, for example) metaphor, history, or are they merely meant to be incomprehensible?
As clearly stated, i find it hard to remember who here takes the bible literally and who allows for a degree of metaphor. (On this occasion i was unsure if JWs viewed the entire bible as literal history).
As an aside, where the Dickens did Cain's wife come from?
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou really must think I am a bumpkin of the lowest caliber.
You are the one still lying [or at best misinterpreting] about our exchange, and the consequences of it.
I emphatically and demonstrably did not say what you claimed I said, or mean what you said I meant.
Can you really not see that my posts do not say what you claim that they say??
It's one thing to have a disagreement over what we actually mea ...[text shortened]... an.
EDIT: Page 4 of this thread for the post you didn't respond to with all the info in it.
You're a lot like divegeester, in that you really couldn't be arsed to care much about what people say in this thread, unless they are talking about you, and then you become inflamed about the slightest inaccuracy of speech.
The problem here is not that I do not understand what you meant, but it is that you have a marked inability to remember some things you did say.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneI posted the link to what I actually said.
You really must think I am a bumpkin of the lowest caliber.
You're a lot like divegeester, in that you really couldn't be arsed to care much about what people say in this thread, unless they are talking about [b]you, and then you become inflamed about the slightest inaccuracy of speech.
The problem here is not that I do not understand what ...[text shortened]... eant[/i], but it is that you have a marked inability to remember some things you did say.[/b]
I don't have to remember it, it's on the record, I can go read it, as can you and everyone else.
And this is not a 'slightest inaccuracy of speech'.
Your entire beef with me is a fiction of your imagination. [well this beef at least]
Go read again the conversation we had without presupposing you know what I was saying and
you can see for yourself.
From this thread.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=163832&page=4
From the last thread.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=162623&page=&page=11
The original dispute.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=158865&page=1
If you want to keep claiming I said what you think I said, go find me saying it and quote me with
a link to that thread.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneWell that's convenient for you, that this imagined slight has mysteriously vanished and
And you never did find (don't worry, I cannot find it myself) your original response to my original post.
So your "demonstrably" conveniently fails.
cannot be found.
I suggest that this is because it doesn't exist.
The exchange I posted WAS the dispute you remember. You just remember it wrong.
You do not have the infallible memory you wrongly believe yourself to have.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeSee my edit to my post. I wasn't quite finished. 🙂
In fairness, my 'incomprehensibility' remark was made in explicit and clear reference to Hinds who befuddles me on a daily (*dairy) basis.
As clearly stated, i find it hard to remember who here takes the bible literally and who allows for a degree of metaphor. (On this occasion i was unsure if JWs viewed the entire bible as literal history).
As an aside, where the Dickens did Cain's wife come from?
And yes, RJH is the king of incomprehensibility here, to be sure.
In my edit, I think he's also more akin to the "ancient man" than the "modern man" in that he takes the creation story literally, and so believes it to be a totally true record, instead of being a version he can understand. I think those who can fold the Bible together with Science to form a more complete view of the world are more apt to consider stories like the creation story and the story of the flood to be metaphor, or, if not true metaphor, then at least to understand that it's aimed at a less learned audience and therefore acts as metaphor.