Yes, along the same lines I recently “discovered” that any conversation should, and will, if followed to their “true” conclusion, will result in agreement between parties.
So, following your principle, I should ignore the actual intent of whatever you say and interpret it however I like? That’s no way to understand a text. No, what the authors intended is relevant to the question of how to “take” the Bible.
Yes, I read the OP. So what? You seem to think I advocated taking the Bible literally. Did you read what I wrote?
It’s the only way to understand a text; also I find your use of “however I like” disingenuous: you know damn well you should do your best to interpret something as accurately as possible, consider as many perspectives as possible, etc.; the point in question, as I understand it, is that when you read something, your only choice is to interpret it “your” way, whatever that might be.
If I watch Fight Club and get from it x, y and z, I don’t need to go interview the writer and director to see if my interpretation of their work is “what they intended.” That information is utterly meaningless to me. What matters is, in fact, what it means to me.
This is not complicated. You strike me as someone who might have made the exact same argument if only in another context.
Says who? I mean that sincerely: I, as an individual, should take your answer to this question over my own? Honestly? That’s what you believe?
It’s a fucking book, I’ll “take it” any fucking way I want.
See my meaning? No offense intended.
I guess the distinction is one of whether you choose to use the book for learning what the authors intended or use the book for another chosen purpose. But the subject in the thread involved “intent”; “was it meant to be….”
“Meant” by whom?
Look at the OP question. It asks how the Bible is meant to be taken. Meant by whom? You? I don’t think so.
Why not me, you must make a sound argumentation, instead of none.
Seeing as how none of the authors of the books of the Bible knew of the Bible as we have it today, we certainly can’t look to them as to how the Bible was/is meant to be taken,
So any claim as how the Bible was/is meant to be taken is pure conjecture and speculation … literal or otherwise.
In the end, it is we that endow meaning to how the Bible is to be taken … and we’re so limited we’ll likely end up getting it wrong …
But we can judge the fruits of the way the Bible is taken … and those that take the Bible as literal don’t seem to be very full of love, compassion, and tolerance for others …
So in the end, if the sayings attributed Jesus is correct, the Bible is not meant to be taken literally …
So are we expected to decide on our own - perhaps based on our personal preference - which parts to take literally?
Obama is real; God is not real.
If I were in the nest room, I wouldn’t insult Obama unless I knew he wasn’t going to know I had insulted him. A non-existent being doesn’t know I’ve insulted it.
Obama isn’t anywhere near as real as you think.
But it doesn’t matter how “real” they are.
It is their fan club that you have to worry about.
God is in their fan club.
nvm
Because the guys who wrote it didn’t know you.
No. The interpretation can take into consideration historical context, and relevant archaeological, critical theortical, and anthropological findings. Pure conjecture would not include such knowledge.
Or maybe this conclusion is wrong for similar reasons.
Most of us could use more of that stuff.
Would it be too much to suppose that the historical books can, for the most part, be taken more literally than the Psalms or Isaiah ?
I suggest that you use the principles of Bible scholarship rather than guesswork.
The answer to the question in the OP was covered on the first page; I believe you were the person to nail it, in fact. I thought the conversation had evolved. Pardon my misstep.
A good idea but not an easy task, Bible scholarship by whom?
Daybreak—That isn’t even close to what I meant. Try reading it again.
I suspect Felix means, you know, scholarship - the stuff philosophers, anthropologists, and professors with PhDs, etc., write for universities and publish in journals; i.e., not theology.
But I think your point is still reasonable.
I did, which is why I said “pardon my misstep.” Maybe you should re-read the thread to see where I was coming from in my first post to you, which you clearly didn’t “get my meaning,” imo. I have the OP on ignore, which facilitated my mistakes here. Apologies. This is not sarcasm.
Go to Wikipedia, Amazon, and Google. Search “Bible scholarship”. Read the top people in the field.