How I use the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
No I wanna stop people from preaching it is a history or science book.(I think I've been clear on that) that Moses.did not write those five books...I am not pleased that the misuse of the book is creating tens of millions ignorant folks...and the ONLY way (because what has been tried for 2000 years hasn't worked.), ONLY way I know is to scream it from the roof top.
I (obviously) enjoy the mythological compilation of parables, allegory and metaphor!
Aussie Thoughts
Just my 2 cents
I think that's what RJM's saying, mate. You deny any historical accuracy or scientific implications in the Bible and present that pov as beyond reproach while dismissing other pov's as mere ignorance and wish to stop anyone teaching to the contrary. Careful on your way up to the rooftop mate; it's a long way down! -
Which hysterical accuracy do you wish e to take mate? The flood? A less than 10k earth? Which scientific implications? An evolution according to genesis 1 or gen 2 (take your pick)I think that's what RJM's saying, mate. You deny any historical accuracy or scientific implications in the Bible and present that pov as beyond reproach while dismissing other pov's as mere ignorance and wish to stop anyone teaching to the contrary. Careful on your way up to the rooftop mate; it's a long way down! -
Gonna tell me about getting on my high horse buckaroo?
Yes, I wish we would quit teaching a literalist version of the bible, one that all thinking theologian denounce and are flabbergasted us silly Americans fall for.
This is the thing.
No-one here is saying no to you. No-one here is trying to convert you to their way of thinking.
No-one here is making quite as much fuss about how people choose to interpret Scripture as much as you, and you are 'shouting from the rooftops' against their right to interpret Scripture as they choose, while simultaneously defending your right to interpret Scripture as you choose.
And most irrationally and illogically, you're blaming Scripture for it!
Thomas supporting literalism as a viable interpretation?
And wilki as an acceptable reference...
Times they are a changing
Times they are a changing
The word 'run' may be translated as: sprint, hurry, hasten, progress rapidly towards, etc -- that is difference in translations and versions -- but to substitute 'walk' or 'crawl' is to deliberately change the sense and meaning.
Now, I do not believe this has been done with the Bible. It's back to the Qumran version of Isiah exactly matching the one in all contemporary Bibles -- allowing for the 'versions' and shades of meaning of words taken and translated from ancient documents.
The unquestioned assumption by the 'new atheist' movement is that the church/pope have altered the translations of actual documents, and issued their own changing propaganda versions of the Bible during the last two millenia.
But it's not true. The Qumran Isiah proves this. Perfect copying of the scriptures has been the sacred duty of the monks who did the job. The monks and abbots were really not the nasty scheming manipulators, sneaking out deliberate mis-translations of scripture, that new atheists would like them to be.
Last edited:
Quite ... the Scriptures found among the Qumran documents rather put the kibosh on the idea that Scripture's been rewritten over time.
There was a serious study where scholars compared the principle early versions of the New Testament to see if there were substantial theological differences, and there aren't. Even the texts that can be shown to be later interpolations can also be shown to accord with the overarching theology. As you say, Bible 'critics' and 'new atheists' try really hard to discredit the text, but their attempts falter.
The deep desire of critics to 'prove' the author of John was not an eye witness is based on the a prior desire to discredit Scripture.
When I did my degree, we went through all this. A particular memory is my course director insisting that the weight of scholarship is against Paul being the author of the Letter to the Hebrews, despite one student insisting that Paul could change his style as suits ...
... As ever, informed tutors are much more capable of dropping 'bombshells' among our accepted notions. Who baptised the Twelve Apostles? Jesus? Nowhere does it say He did...
There was a serious study where scholars compared the principle early versions of the New Testament to see if there were substantial theological differences, and there aren't. Even the texts that can be shown to be later interpolations can also be shown to accord with the overarching theology. As you say, Bible 'critics' and 'new atheists' try really hard to discredit the text, but their attempts falter.
The deep desire of critics to 'prove' the author of John was not an eye witness is based on the a prior desire to discredit Scripture.
When I did my degree, we went through all this. A particular memory is my course director insisting that the weight of scholarship is against Paul being the author of the Letter to the Hebrews, despite one student insisting that Paul could change his style as suits ...
... As ever, informed tutors are much more capable of dropping 'bombshells' among our accepted notions. Who baptised the Twelve Apostles? Jesus? Nowhere does it say He did...
A note on the King James Version.
What the king wanted was not a 'version' that differed theologically from the source Latin. What he wanted was a translation that conveyed some of the spiritual luminosity, a sort of 'best English' version. It's lost on us today, of course, because that's not the English we speak, but really there's a whole lot of nonsense spouted about the KJV.
What the king wanted was not a 'version' that differed theologically from the source Latin. What he wanted was a translation that conveyed some of the spiritual luminosity, a sort of 'best English' version. It's lost on us today, of course, because that's not the English we speak, but really there's a whole lot of nonsense spouted about the KJV.
The only nonsense I see is that it is any more than any other...the way I see it every version has tried to update so the current style of language is accommodated while keeping the flavor of the original... Unfortunately... Most don't add a note that says this is not a document to be taken litteraly as history, science or fact.
LOL, you do rather undermine your point by making sweeping and inaccurate generalisations.
You're also wrong, as some of it is history, and has proven fruitful for historians. St Luke, for example, long assumed to have been wrong, has been proven accurate time and again as archaeology uncovers evidence to back-up his testimony.
It is the data for theology, which is a branch of science, and metaphysics, which is another, and has provided plenty of evidence for other avenues of scientific inquiry.
What you mean by 'science' and I assume 'fact' is empirical data a branch of science, and the sacra doctrina of the world was never written as a thesis on physics or maths.
In that regard no-one today treats it as such except those closed-minded literalists who are never going to change their minds, no matter how much you bang on about it, any more than you will change your mind about how you choose to interpret it ...
Of course, one solution is to make sure everyone reaches a certain level of understanding before they're even allowed to look at it; a kind of catechumen-orientation, but I rather think you wouldn't find that satisfactory either.
Too funny, of course.
That is millions of people, people that get elected as law makers and decision makers...no I don't expect to change their minds...
But if the book can be labeled for what it is by the theologians and from the pulpit as those dinosaurs die off we have a chance with their children. Yea they have been infected and may be a lost cause, but why give up on the next.generation and the next...why let them continue to make a mockery of the belief system you ascribe?