• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does it matter if its factual ?

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
If you're going to interpret scriptures to get the outcome you want, why not cut out the middleman and set the scriptures aside altogether?

because we have people in this very thread objecting to descriptions of gods as "cosmic supermen" on the grounds that this is "literalist,"

Are you interpreting "literalist" to get the outcome you want?

I think you are misrepresenting the beliefs expressed in this thread.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
I respect your right to think that. But on the basis of what evidence do you think you could persuade me to agree with you?

Thank you. I think Their lives and teachings offer sufficient evidence for me to grasp that They are not of this world but are endowed with an unseen power that enables them, despite opposition, cruelty, torture, imprisonment and even exile and crucifixion and their followers being beheaded and such to eventually influence and win over humanity including kings and Queens to Their Cause and even to this day thousands of years after Their passing still billions model their daily lives on Their teachings.

Studying the lives and teachings of each of these Universal Educators leads me to the belief that They were Divinely guided and endowed with a power not of this world.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Are you talking about this Jesus? You find his message to be one of unity?

Matthew 10:34-36:



Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 10:34-36 - New English Translation

My understanding of that passage is that He is simply stating that His Message will separate the sheep from the goats, those who believe from those who disbelieve. This is not disunity but choices being made by the people.

The choice of people to accept or reject a Him is their own choice.

The essence of His teachings to love even ones enemy shows that he taught no division between people.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I think it is a very important question.
The entire Jewish religion is based on the biblical stories.
I cannot say the same about the NT as i do not know enough about Christianity, but without a doubt,one cannot be a religious Jewish without accepting the stories of the bible as true.
The reason is very simple, all the Jewish "Mizvas" are all from the bible.
Each ritual, tradition, idea are all directly from the bible.

I cannot see how one can say X is true but Y is not. I see it as black or white. either it is all true or it is all false.

I am not an expert. However, many of the Mitzvahs as we see them in the code of Jewish Law are designed to be "fences". The fences were decreed by Rabbis in order to help prevent infractions that were common.

And that's why there is so much various in observance among people who identify themselves as Jewish. Choosing to observe a Mitzvah is not a matter of black-and-white, literal interpretation of the Torah.

Example: It is a Mitzvah to abstain from mixing milk and meat. Jewish Law for this prohibition includes poultry. However this Mitzvah traces its source to the biblical verses: Exodus 23:19 and Exodus 34:26. These verses do not include poultry.

The prohibition was made more strict at some point after the Biblical Mount Sinai Event to address a practical problem of keeping the poultry separate from meat by a butcher who followed Jewish Law.

This was enacted by Rabbinic decree.

Highly devoted Jewish people try to follow all the laws whether they are obviously listed in the Torah or if they are Rabbinic decrees (fences). One source for this is Leviticus 15:31, but there may be others.

There are other Jewish people who believe in the Torah in ( arguably ) a semi-literal way who do not accept all the Rabbinic decrees. For them, Leviticus 15:31 is not followed as a law, and they accept the possibility that the Rabbis in the past do not have absolute authority over what is proper and "kosher" (aka: fit for use by a Jewish person).

In this way, a literal interpretation of the Torah is not connected to observance of the Mitzvahs.
 
Last edited:

Dell

Asteroid insurance?
As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

For me as an ex, I feel sorry for the folks who in my opinion have been hood winked, sadly some of the most closed minded people I know are fundamentalists.
Since the bronze age writers of scriptures had no understanding of physics, they probably meant it to be taken literal. I.e Miracles, God created everything in 6 days, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the tree of life, the temptation, the ages of pre flood humans, the flood, etc...

Interesting how religions of the present day have to explain what the Bible means to say and make it more palatable as humans are becoming more educated.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Their lives and teachings offer sufficient evidence for me to grasp that They are not of this world but are endowed with an unseen power that enables them, despite opposition, [...] to eventually influence and win over humanity including kings and Queens to Their Cause and even to this day thousands of years after Their passing still billions model their daily lives on Their teachings.
My own view is that people are born with a genetic morality which evolved to suit us as a gregarious species, hence that there's a basic decency in nearly everyone. (On top of this morality ─ child protection and nurture, dislike of the one who harms, fairness and reciprocity, group loyalty, respect for authority, and a sense of self-worth/virtue through self-denial ─ are moral overlays from upbringing, culture, education and experience which can differ widely.) Surveys of cultures around the world, and studies of even very small children support this view.
Studying the lives and teachings of each of these Universal Educators leads me to the belief that They were Divinely guided and endowed with a power not of this world.
We may differ on the method, but I suspect we substantially agree on the goal.

Meanwhile, your netname reminds me of >this poem by Leigh Hunt<. If you haven't already come across it, you may enjoy it.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
My own view is that people are born with a genetic morality which evolved to suit us as a gregarious species, hence that there's a basic decency in nearly everyone. (On top of this morality ─ child protection and nurture, dislike of the one who harms, fairness and reciprocity, group loyalty, respect for authority, and a sense of self-worth/virtue through self-denial ─ are moral overlays from upbringing, culture, education and experience which can differ widely.) Surveys of cultures around the world, and studies of even very small children support this view.
We may differ on the method, but I suspect we substantially agree on the goal.

Meanwhile, your netname reminds me of >this poem by Leigh Hunt<. If you haven't already come across it, you may enjoy it.


Beautiful, beautiful, profound poem! I treasure it so much because to me the best way to worship God is to love each other, respect each other, be kind to each other and overlook the shortcomings of each other and look at each other with the eye of forgiveness. Unless we are trying to do this in my eyes we are not religious or befittingly worshipping God and even sometimes not are even human but lower than the animal if we fight and kill each other.

I agree with you that we are born with great potential and that our upbringing, culture and education can affect it for the better or worse.

The Great Being saith: Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom. (Baha’u’llah)
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
Since the bronze age writers of scriptures had no understanding of physics, they probably meant it to be taken literal. I.e Miracles, God created everything in 6 days, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the tree of life, the temptation, the ages of pre flood humans, the flood, etc...
Probably? People have been using symbolic stories and teaching with morals and analogies ever since writing existed. Some writing systems even require symbolism to interpret their meanings from the beginning. Must we think people of Plato's time were stupid, for example? Or were they capable of understanding analogies and have normally functioning brains capable of more complex interpretations...

Interesting how religions of the present day have to explain what the Bible means to say and make it more palatable as humans are becoming more educated.
Are you assuming that religions of the past haven't interpreted books like the Bible? If you are, you would be wrong.
 
The question is along the lines of, 'What did the author of this particular text intend to convey'.

Usually what they intended to convey was not 'objective history'.

I'm aware of that reference, but it's not a clincher for an historical Muhammad, just as 'James the brother of the Lord' is not a clincher for an historical Jesus.

Nothing is ever 100% for that era, just a question of probability. In this case 'hearsay' is very useful in that regard.

With a heavy accent on 'may'.

Not really. Most historical sources would count as 'hearsay' if we wanted to apply the concept (which we shouldn't). Few texts we have today were actually written by eyewitnesses, and even the ones that claim to be have been copied thus are now 'hearsay'.

We don't apply the concept of 'hearsay' to evaluating the credibility of newspaper journalism, so why historical texts?

History does not operate by court rules, but the aim is still the same ─ to get as close as possible to accurate statements about what (if anything) happened. Corroborate, corroborate, corroborate.

But in completely different contexts...

One deals with the present/recent past, involves living people who can be questioned and cross examined and where someone is assumed innocent unless guilt can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence that they have committed a crime.

The other is a probabilistic investigation into ancient historical issues usually covered by a small numbers of (often unreliable) sources written with differing motivations in a context very different from our own and about which numerous (perhaps well reasoned) assumptions often have to be made in order to identify the most likely explanation of this information.

In court you can't convict someone purely on hearsay, yet in historical scholarship you can reach a high level of confidence on an issue based purely on 'hearsay'. In many situations, 'hearsay' can be much more credible than eyewitness testimony or even something straight from the horse's mouth. That something is hearsay in one context is of vital importance, in the other context it's not.

This is why using modern legalistic terminology in a completely different context is specious and an impediment to thought.

Sorry, it's a pet hate of mine :D
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

For me as an ex, I feel sorry for the folks who in my opinion have been hood winked, sadly some of the most closed minded people I know are fundamentalists.

Great novels tell us more about reality than factual history. So with mythology.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Nope.


What have I misrepresented? Please be specific.

Thank you for your reply. I hope that you will clarify and/or correct me if I misunderstood your intent. I don't claim to know what you are thinking. I am only going from what you have written.

No one in this thread has spoken about God as a Cosmic Superman but you. Bringing it up sets up a false equivalency. Believing that the Bible is literal does not equal believing that God is a Cosmic Superman. Believing that the Bible is literal means God can act as a Cosmic Superman but is not at all a Cosmic Superman. A person who identifies themselves as someone who reads the Bible literally would not agree that God = Cosmic Superman.

A more accurate representation of a literal understanding of the Bible stories would be that God is supernatural. If the stories are real, God was acting in a manner that resembles what you are describing as Cosmic and Superhuman. It's a very important distinction. I think people who say that they read the Bible literally would agree with these words and not yours.

The Bible literally prohibits Idolatry and Paganism.

Literal biblical understanding of the God of Abraham cannot coexist with belief that God is a Cosmic Superman. It's by definition. The belief that God is a literal Cosmic Superman is Idolatry or Paganism.

If a person identifies themselves as reading the Bible literally AND that person also admittedly believes God is a Cosmic Superman, they would be a hypocrite. But no one who reads the Bible literally actually believes this.

That is the specific misrepresentation:

The literal Bible does not render God as a Cosmic Superman.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
I am not an expert.
Me neither :)
However, many of the Mitzvahs as we see them in the code of Jewish Law are designed to be "fences".
True. yet they are all based on the "written mizvas" (Dehorayta)
The fences were decreed by Rabbis in order to help prevent infractions that were common.
Agreed.
And that's why there is so much various in observance among people who identify themselves as Jewish.
Only when it comes to the fences. there is no debate on Dehorayta,
Choosing to observe a Mitzvah is not a matter of black-and-white,
It is when it comes to the written ones.
literal interpretation of the Torah.
Example: It is a Mitzvah to abstain from mixing milk and meat. Jewish Law for this prohibition includes poultry. However this Mitzvah traces its source to the biblical verses: Exodus 23:19 and Exodus 34:26. These verses do not include poultry.
True.
But ALL Jewish (religious) people have an agreement about not mixing any for of meat with milk and not only not cooking the lamb in its mother's milk (which is the written mizva).
How come? there is a big explanation surrounding it.

The first has to do with the mizva of foreign gods.
The cooking of meat in milk was practiced by pegan believers.
the second has to do with what milk rep[resents in the jewish religion and what meat represents. it is believed to be a bad mixture to "mix" these two "spiritual forces".
The fences are the amount of time you need to keep between eating meat and milk,or the fact you need to keep a different set of dishes for milk and meat... these are the fences. the fact of not eating milk and meat is accepted by all Jewish "streams" (sorry.. i don't know how to say it otherwise :))
The prohibition was made more strict at some point after the Biblical Mount Sinai Event to address a practical problem of keeping the poultry separate from meat by a butcher who followed Jewish Law.
The fact is quite different, btw. the original law forbids eating animals. the fact we are allowed to eat animals meat was due to a later permission that was given (after the people cried they want to eat meat like they had in Egypt)
This was enacted by Rabbinic decree.
Highly devoted Jewish people try to follow all the laws whether they are obviously listed in the Torah or if they are Rabbinic decrees (fences). One source for this is Leviticus 15:31, but there may be others.
Again, all the fences are ALL based on things written in the Torah. none is a far fetched fence. some are more strict, some are more permissive, none are a new rule.
There are other Jewish people who believe in the Torah in ( arguably ) a semi-literal way who do not accept all the Rabbinic decrees.
I do not accept all of them.
Some are very weird in my POV (even though i understand the reasons behind them)
For them, Leviticus 15:31 is not followed as a law, and they accept the possibility that the Rabbis in the past do not have absolute authority over what is proper and "kosher" (aka: fit for use by a Jewish person).

In this way, a literal interpretation of the Torah is not connected to observance of the Mitzvahs.
It is always connected. the fact some choose to be more strict or less, is something else.
There are literal meanings for each word in the Hebrew Torah.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
I'm stuck on this part. Can you help?
Sure.
All Jewish religion is based on the bible.
Every thing we do as religious is from the stories of the bible.
If one assumes A is true, than B must be True. there is no middle grounds in the Jewish belief.
If there was, why would you not eat Pork? i can say it is not a real story.
Why keep the Sabath? not true!
Why not murder... Oh.... its probably true...so i should believe it.
Thats not how it works.
If you are a religious Jew, you accept the bible as a genuine book. this is the core of Judaism.
 

Hotcakes78

New Member
As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

For me as an ex, I feel sorry for the folks who in my opinion have been hood winked, sadly some of the most closed minded people I know are fundamentalists.[/QUO

To me, those that take the Bible literally either aren't interested in fact or don't know how to separate fact from fiction
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
There are lots of non-literalist interpretations of a piece of scripture. When you say that you "reject literalism," what's your approach?

- "the author intended this to be factually true, but the author is a fallible human, so I can overlook factual errors and focus on the overall message."

- "the author didn't make any mistakes; he intended this to be interpreted poetically/allegorically/etc. from the outset."

- "I recognize with modern knowledge that this scripture is obviously false if taken literally, but I'm still attached to it, so I'll interpret it non-literally even though I have no reason to believe that this is what the author intended."

I think a lot of "non-literalists" go for the third option.

Now... if you have good reasons for your non-literalist approach, great. I think that good scholarship tries to delve into the author's intent and state of mind, and we should definitely follow the evidence in that regard.

OTOH, I don't think the mere fact that a literal interpretation is embarrassing or ridiculous to modern readers is a sign that the author intended a non-literal interpretation... especially if the reasons we now consider it ridiculous wouldn't have been known to the ancient author.

It is also worth considering that modern concepts of 'history' were not held in the same regard in terms of accuracy, rigour, etc. It was common for 'histories' to be embellished, not even in terms of allegory, or poetry, but simply that a degree of artistic license was applied. Consider it this way...did the movie 'The Greatest Showman' accurately depict the life of PT Barnum? Was it allegory? Was it poetic? Was there any fact there?

I see the thrust of your point, I just think there is a little more grey involved.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Sure.
All Jewish religion is based on the bible.
Every thing we do as religious is from the stories of the bible.
If one assumes A is true, than B must be True. there is no middle grounds in the Jewish belief.
If there was, why would you not eat Pork? i can say it is not a real story.
Why keep the Sabath? not true!
Why not murder... Oh.... its probably true...so i should believe it.
Thats not how it works.
If you are a religious Jew, you accept the bible as a genuine book. this is the core of Judaism.

According to Jeremiah 8:8, the core of Judaism is the law, in which the pen of the scribes have turned into a lie. That would include the approximately 12,000 pages of the core of Jewish belief, the Talmud.

Jeremiah 8:…7 Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons. The turtledove, the swift, and the thrush observe their time of migration, but My people do not know the requirements of the LORD. 8How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us?’ But in fact, the lying pen of the scribes has produced a deception. 9 The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and snared. They have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom do they really have?…
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
The core of Jewish belief is Torah, not Talmud.

The Jewish understanding of the Torah, comes from the Talmud That is why there is little or no "understanding" among the Jewish sects (Daniel 12:10)/ a note written to the Jews. It is not until after "Jacobs distress" (Jeremiah 30:7), and their just "chastening", that they and Ephraim will get a "new heart" (Ezekiel 36:26).
 
Top