The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I've done my best to improve various spelling and grammar issues, but this sentence has defeated me:-
These views however do not contend the literalistic values that parables, metaphors and allegory are not existent in the Bible [15][16] but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention. [17]
What does 'values' mean in this context? Should 'relies' not be 'rely'? I can't figure the sentence out, so I'm not editing it as I'm reluctant to destroy any finer nuances of meaning. SheffieldSteel 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
how about, "These views do not contend that literalism excludes parable, metaphors and allegory but rather..." Bdcallaway ( talk) 16:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
How about, "Those that hold these literalist views do not contend that parables, metaphors and allegory are non existent in the Bible, but rather they rely on contextual interpretations, based on the author's intentions in writing the text." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amthisguy ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The Criticisms section needs to be significantly expanded because at this point there is far too literal information, and all of it decontextualized. At present, it seems more a series of unrelated quotes which need further explination as to why they are adequate or inadequate critques of the subject at hand. jackturner3 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What I have found is that it is quite clear that EVERYONE "interprets" the bible in different ways, even those who claim that they take the "literal meaning" of the text. Some discussion rapidly demonstrates that it is often impossible for two people to agree on what the "literal meaning" of the text is, even if they claim otherwise. This is because:
In light of these reasons and others, I think anyone who says they take the bible literally is either deluded, deceitful, ignorant, or worse. It is prima facie evidence of someone who is unable or unwilling to use their God-given powers of reason and is basically spewing nonsense.-- Filll 11:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Um.. by adding your opinion on "Biblical Literalists," you haven't achieved anything. The issue is that the "criticism" section adds nothing of substance, only a shopping list of points without substance. That entire section needs be turned into PARAGRAPHS, and the actual reasoning EXPLAINED!! "Why are "Biblical literalists" heretics?"
Yoda921 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Yoda
I somehow get the feeling that the Criticism section is just a list of quotes that isn't really a section. Perhaps someone could clean it up into a slightly more paragraphical version?
Jenigmat429 14:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier,I am not really sure the sources cited for the criticism section are completely reliable. For example, for the bullet that states biblical literalism causes mental illnesses, the source is more of an opinion page that does not show any data / research to substantiate such a claim. I would edit this portion myself, but am relatively new and would like some input. Hoffungstod ( talk) 09:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The first criticism listed includes a quote stating that a literalist interpretation means the earth is flat. It provides bible references, but the verses referenced don't include anything about a flat earth when interpreted literally. That quote should probably be removed and replaced with criticism from a source that actually backs up its claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amthisguy ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The issues there are entirely different. That section should be cut or, if I am mistaken, tied into liberalism explicity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101f:c07f:c547:3487:7a61:6325 ( talk) 17:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
You can't lump the miracles of Jesus in with the Genesis to suggest that taking Jesus' miracles literally is the same as taking Genesis literally. At the least, the Gospels were written by folks who knew the Apostles (who claimed to have seem the miracles) and folks who themselves would have seen the miracles. Also, when Genesis was put into writing, no one had ever tried to record history literally. The Gospels, on the other hand, come well after Herodotus et al. The Gospel writers were arguably not trying to write mythology or hagiography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101f:c07f:c547:3487:7a61:6325 ( talk) 17:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu Why did you revert my edit? I gave a sound reasoning for the removal, and you just reverted it with no explanation. 2601:644:8D80:6A0:4010:F502:5339:B6F4 ( talk) 19:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Dead link— not true, it's archived. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
none of the verses cited support any of the claims madeis just POV, see WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
three storied universe. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
none of the cited verses support any of the claims madeis just your POV. Mainstream Bible scholars beg to differ. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu Does this [1] help? 98.37.0.12 ( talk) 23:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Proveallthings: I did overlook Stephen Miller's reasoning, and I did it intentionally. And it's because me and you are attempting to do two different things right now. You're attempting to use evidence to find what is true. I'm attempting to survey the literature to find out what most scholars say about this particular question. That's because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of truth, but a service for summarizing what the scholarly community says. If we were here to discover what is true together on the Wikipedia talk pages, then you would be doing what is right (marshalling the linguistic arguments), and I would be doing something wrong (just quoting a bunch of authorities and pointing out that "your side" here consists only of people with a particular theological set of commitments). So let me be clear. I'm not saying you're wrong about "father". You, and Kenneth Kitchen, might be right. I'm just saying that, in terms of the way Wikipedia weighs sources, Kenneth Kitchen's opinion is out on the fringes in the scholarly world. Alephb ( talk) 21:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Used on forums where certain participants are too lazy to use the search function to find what they need and so they open a new, unnecessary, topic.Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I told you which search engine to use and what to search for.No, you just told me to stop being lazy in so many words, the idea which is a bit ridiculous when you make a claim then refuse to cite more than more source while claiming that the view is upheld by a consensus. Especially when the burden of proof is on you. Pointing out that one source doesn't equate to a consensus is hardly rejecting all sources, or consensus ( WP:RANDY). That's also another essay,
nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please, just cite one more source so I can establish that the view is held by a consensus, and I'll drop it. 98.37.0.12 ( talk) 00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
J. Edward Wright (28 March 2002). The Early History of Heaven. Oxford University Press. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-19-534849-1. and https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1969/JASA3-69Seely.html and https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ LordRogalDorn: Except, as stated, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of truth (i.e. WP:OR), it is an encyclopedia driven by academic consensus. The academic consensus exists independently of Wikipedia and, really, the three-storied universe isn't a novelty in Bible scholarship. It belongs to stock knowledge. It's that basic. Being told what to search for and where fulfilled the WP:BURDEN. Really, that Google search offers plenty of information. See for WP:RS Ascension of Jesus#Cosmology and Biblical_cosmology#Cosmography (shape and structure of the cosmos). I mean: it's that easy to find. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I've done my best to improve various spelling and grammar issues, but this sentence has defeated me:-
These views however do not contend the literalistic values that parables, metaphors and allegory are not existent in the Bible [15][16] but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention. [17]
What does 'values' mean in this context? Should 'relies' not be 'rely'? I can't figure the sentence out, so I'm not editing it as I'm reluctant to destroy any finer nuances of meaning. SheffieldSteel 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
how about, "These views do not contend that literalism excludes parable, metaphors and allegory but rather..." Bdcallaway ( talk) 16:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
How about, "Those that hold these literalist views do not contend that parables, metaphors and allegory are non existent in the Bible, but rather they rely on contextual interpretations, based on the author's intentions in writing the text." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amthisguy ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The Criticisms section needs to be significantly expanded because at this point there is far too literal information, and all of it decontextualized. At present, it seems more a series of unrelated quotes which need further explination as to why they are adequate or inadequate critques of the subject at hand. jackturner3 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What I have found is that it is quite clear that EVERYONE "interprets" the bible in different ways, even those who claim that they take the "literal meaning" of the text. Some discussion rapidly demonstrates that it is often impossible for two people to agree on what the "literal meaning" of the text is, even if they claim otherwise. This is because:
In light of these reasons and others, I think anyone who says they take the bible literally is either deluded, deceitful, ignorant, or worse. It is prima facie evidence of someone who is unable or unwilling to use their God-given powers of reason and is basically spewing nonsense.-- Filll 11:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Um.. by adding your opinion on "Biblical Literalists," you haven't achieved anything. The issue is that the "criticism" section adds nothing of substance, only a shopping list of points without substance. That entire section needs be turned into PARAGRAPHS, and the actual reasoning EXPLAINED!! "Why are "Biblical literalists" heretics?"
Yoda921 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Yoda
I somehow get the feeling that the Criticism section is just a list of quotes that isn't really a section. Perhaps someone could clean it up into a slightly more paragraphical version?
Jenigmat429 14:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier,I am not really sure the sources cited for the criticism section are completely reliable. For example, for the bullet that states biblical literalism causes mental illnesses, the source is more of an opinion page that does not show any data / research to substantiate such a claim. I would edit this portion myself, but am relatively new and would like some input. Hoffungstod ( talk) 09:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The first criticism listed includes a quote stating that a literalist interpretation means the earth is flat. It provides bible references, but the verses referenced don't include anything about a flat earth when interpreted literally. That quote should probably be removed and replaced with criticism from a source that actually backs up its claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amthisguy ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The issues there are entirely different. That section should be cut or, if I am mistaken, tied into liberalism explicity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101f:c07f:c547:3487:7a61:6325 ( talk) 17:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
You can't lump the miracles of Jesus in with the Genesis to suggest that taking Jesus' miracles literally is the same as taking Genesis literally. At the least, the Gospels were written by folks who knew the Apostles (who claimed to have seem the miracles) and folks who themselves would have seen the miracles. Also, when Genesis was put into writing, no one had ever tried to record history literally. The Gospels, on the other hand, come well after Herodotus et al. The Gospel writers were arguably not trying to write mythology or hagiography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101f:c07f:c547:3487:7a61:6325 ( talk) 17:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu Why did you revert my edit? I gave a sound reasoning for the removal, and you just reverted it with no explanation. 2601:644:8D80:6A0:4010:F502:5339:B6F4 ( talk) 19:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Dead link— not true, it's archived. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
none of the verses cited support any of the claims madeis just POV, see WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
three storied universe. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
none of the cited verses support any of the claims madeis just your POV. Mainstream Bible scholars beg to differ. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu Does this [1] help? 98.37.0.12 ( talk) 23:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Proveallthings: I did overlook Stephen Miller's reasoning, and I did it intentionally. And it's because me and you are attempting to do two different things right now. You're attempting to use evidence to find what is true. I'm attempting to survey the literature to find out what most scholars say about this particular question. That's because Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of truth, but a service for summarizing what the scholarly community says. If we were here to discover what is true together on the Wikipedia talk pages, then you would be doing what is right (marshalling the linguistic arguments), and I would be doing something wrong (just quoting a bunch of authorities and pointing out that "your side" here consists only of people with a particular theological set of commitments). So let me be clear. I'm not saying you're wrong about "father". You, and Kenneth Kitchen, might be right. I'm just saying that, in terms of the way Wikipedia weighs sources, Kenneth Kitchen's opinion is out on the fringes in the scholarly world. Alephb ( talk) 21:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Used on forums where certain participants are too lazy to use the search function to find what they need and so they open a new, unnecessary, topic.Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I told you which search engine to use and what to search for.No, you just told me to stop being lazy in so many words, the idea which is a bit ridiculous when you make a claim then refuse to cite more than more source while claiming that the view is upheld by a consensus. Especially when the burden of proof is on you. Pointing out that one source doesn't equate to a consensus is hardly rejecting all sources, or consensus ( WP:RANDY). That's also another essay,
nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please, just cite one more source so I can establish that the view is held by a consensus, and I'll drop it. 98.37.0.12 ( talk) 00:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
J. Edward Wright (28 March 2002). The Early History of Heaven. Oxford University Press. p. 117. ISBN 978-0-19-534849-1. and https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1969/JASA3-69Seely.html and https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@ LordRogalDorn: Except, as stated, Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia of truth (i.e. WP:OR), it is an encyclopedia driven by academic consensus. The academic consensus exists independently of Wikipedia and, really, the three-storied universe isn't a novelty in Bible scholarship. It belongs to stock knowledge. It's that basic. Being told what to search for and where fulfilled the WP:BURDEN. Really, that Google search offers plenty of information. See for WP:RS Ascension of Jesus#Cosmology and Biblical_cosmology#Cosmography (shape and structure of the cosmos). I mean: it's that easy to find. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)