🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:17:40 +0100, The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c>
wrote:

>BuddyThunder wrote:
>> Antares 531 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 08:59:50 +1200, BuddyThunder
>>> <nospam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 6, 12:57 am, BuddyThunder <nos...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>> The Bible was very accurately transcribed - for humans. They did an 
>>>> amazing job. Not a perfect job, there are lots of differences between 
>>>> the early versions we have, but not bad for a bunch of people.
>>>>
>>>> It's the content that I find even less reliable though, that's what I 
>>>> was driving at, and I think you know that.
>>>>
>>>> Much reported as history in the Bible simply never happened. No 
>>>> global flood, no special creation, no exodus...
>>>>
>>> Few of those Biblical stories are to be taken literally. Most are
>>> allegory, parable, simile, etc., sometimes based upon an existing
>>> legend. The purpose was to make it possible for a mostly illiterate
>>> people to get the embedded meaning, retain the story, and pass it on
>>> from generation to generation with little drift.
>>>
>>> The flood was probably based upon the ancient stories about the
>>> flooding of the Mediterranean basin shortly after the last ice age
>>> ended. The Strait of Gibraltar was breached as the Atlantic ocean
>>> level raised. When this happened the whole Mediterranean basin was
>>> flooded in a very short time...like 40 days and 40 nights. The relics
>>> of those stone walls and buildings that were out in what is now the
>>> Mediterranean are still available for divers to see.
>>>
>>> The main point I'm making is that we should not get hung up on the
>>> literary form used in the Bible. We can read it and interpret it just
>>> as effectively as those ancient people could. Neither of us has an
>>> advantage over the other.   Gordon
>> 
>> They can't sensibly be taken literally, as they apparently never 
>> happened. I think you're right, these things were sometimes adapted from 
>> existing legend, which all points to a concerted human authorship effort 
>> rather than divine origins.
>> 
>> The Bible presents these things as if they happened. Jesus was clear 
>> when he was speaking in parables, why couldn't the OT be similarly 
>> up-front? I'm unconvinced that we're meant to disbelieve in the story of 
>> Noah. Why would the dimensions of the ark be given if it was a parable?
>> 
>> Anyway, where do you draw the line between literal truth and "symbolic 
>> allegory", or falsified story?
>> 
>
>Variably and carefully?
>
>
>> How do I know which bits really happened and which bits are fancy? If I 
>> can't depend on all of it, how can I depend on any of it?
>
>Well, by independent verification. Ocne you dethrone the Bible from The 
>One True Book, to just A Very Old Book, and realise that largely the OT 
>was in fact not written down for many many centuries of oral 
>tradition..then all becomes much easier.
>
>Was there a Great Flood? It would seem likely that there have been more 
>than one. Did Noah exist? probably. Did he get instructions from God as 
>to how to build an ark and stock it with the world's animal population? 
>of course not. That's a typical bit of religious propaganda added in 
>much later.
>
>Consider, "In the days of Bush, there came a great retribution by the 
>hand of the Almighty, and he smote down the twin towers of the latter 
>day Sodom and Gomorrah, with two great birds of mighty pinions, and 
>rained fire and destruction down upon the glodless and profane, in the 
>city of Sin, dedicated to Mammon, known also as Newyorksittee: And the 
>people cried out, some saying that this was the work of the New Satan, 
>or Osamabinladen, whilst others cried that it was the Emperor Bush 
>himself who had caused this, in order to raise more taxes  and throw 
>down fire on his enemies. But the righteous rejoiced, for this confusion 
>was foretold in the prophecies of Allah, and  only the righteous were 
>left with manna from heaven (which they called Oyl) in the Holy lands, 
>and so the destruction of the great Empire of the West began, and the 
>righteous and devout in the Holy lands triumphed over all."
>
>
>(The Gospel according to Muhmmamed Bin Wankin, written in 2050 after the 
>Fall of the West).

NP, is that your own work? If so, <applause>

Linda ff