/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19613814]

Does it really matter if 95% of this is boring as fuck and unrelatable in 2021?
Must truth be captivating?
What if it was deliberately written in a boring way to weed out the insincere seekers?

[Anonymous No.19613822]

Heh... He said weed

[Anonymous No.19613885]

>>19613814
It's not a book, it's a canon of texts. To read author's intent into it is an oversimplification of history. The new testament canon wasn't formalized until hundreds of years into Christianity, and it doesn't mean the books get a kino guarantee, it just means they are canon

[Anonymous No.19613924]

>>19613814
you got filtered

[Anonymous No.19613999]

>>19613885
>To read author's intent into it is an oversimplification of history.
I'm approaching it as a Christian.

[Anonymous No.19614036]

>>19613814
>unrelatable in ____
The Holy Bible is incredibly relatable in any year. Dig deeper wells.

[Anonymous No.19614055]

>>19613999
How are you reading it? Remember that Jesus in Luke 24 says that the Scriptures were all about Him. He draws many typological parallels in the Gospels. This is the best way to read the Bible, with Christ consciousness. It all starts at the cross—everything before that is in its shadow (as we can read in places like Hebrews 10:1, etc). The church fathers mainly read it typologically as well, as well as for tropological, anagogical and other types of lessons. I certainly believe in the literal components as well, but it isn’t the most important in daily practice and prayer.

[Anonymous No.19614176]

>>19613814
If your crush tweets some inane opinion, you'll spend hours pouring over it trying to figure out whether she likes you or not. If God reveals himself through history and explains the secrets of existence to you so that you can love him and avoid an eternity without him, you call it boring. If you want to appreciate the Bible, start by not insulting God.

[Anonymous No.19614296]

>>19614176
>pouring over it
I think you mean 'poring', mate.

[Anonymous No.19614316]

>>19614296
And?

[Anonymous No.19614808]

>>19614316
Show some gratitude for the polish, mate. You don't know how many future losses I may have saved you experiencing. I'm thankful when people on this board help me improve, and I'm paying it forward.

[Anonymous No.19614818]

>>19614808
How generous of you to ignore the point and correct an inconsequential superficiality.

[Anonymous No.19614832]

>>19614176
Incredibly worthwhile point.

[Anonymous No.19615303]

>>19614818
I had no beef with your point. That's why.

[Anonymous No.19615318]

>>19614036
It's incomprehensible and utterly foreign to me.

[Anonymous No.19615365]

>>19614818
be humble, god became a man and you can't take a fucking grammar correction

[Anonymous No.19615390]

>>19614818
>He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.
>Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
>Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

[Anonymous No.19615414]

>>19613814
there's a lot to unpack here, sweetie
>must truth be captivating
the Bible does not claim to be absolute truth, the Koran does that. The Bible tells a story of the chosen people of God and how they see the world's history up to now, there are textual inconsistencies throughout. It should be read more as a guide than as literal truth, as that's how you go down the path of the Jehovah's Witnesses and so on. Biblical literalism always ends up at retardation in the end, like
>the earth is 6,000 years old and the flood really did cover the whole planet
instead of interpreting it metaphorically as
>there is an unbroken line of oral history going back to the beginning of our civilization, and they were beset by many hardships, including a flood that seemed to them to cover the whole world

>what if it was written in a deliberately boring way
the way it was written is not the way you have read it
you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation, cobbled together from dozens of different sources. If you find it boring, that's on you.
>unrelatable
it's as relatable as you want it to be. There are parts that are pretty objectively outdated (the bits about slavery for instance, and indeed most of the Old Testament) but there are some rather timeless parables and sayings that are still useful today.

[Anonymous No.19615423]

>>19615318
Dig deeper wells into yourself while you read it.

[Anonymous No.19615528]

>>19615423
What does that mean? Cryptic metaphors like that are a large part of the problem.

[Anonymous No.19615531]

>>19615414
>the Bible does not claim to be absolute truth
All scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

>It should be read more as a guide than as literal truth
It should be read simultaneously on multiple levels of meaning.

>the earth is 6,000 years old and the flood really did cover the whole planet
You trust the words of men more than the Word of God, evidently.

>you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation
Meme-tier statement unless you’re talking about the KJV. Most modern translations are directly from Masoretic manuscripts, or from the Septuagint (which was used by the Church Fathers and quoted in the NT throughout).

[Anonymous No.19615577]

>>19615531
>All scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit
where is this claimed? You will find scant defense for this argument, among the ecclesiastical experts.
>It should be read simultaneously on multiple levels of meaning.
the most cop-out, vague response to any literary critique or analysis lol
yes, ideally any book you read should be examined from many sides
still, try not to take the stories too literally, especially in the Old Testament.
>You trust the words of men more than the Word of God, evidently.
the Bible is the words of men, not the Word of God.
If you are unwilling to examine the Bible critically from a historical and sociological perspective as well as a religious and literary one, then why are you here?
And from a critical historical perspective, no, the world was not made in seven days 6,000 years ago. That must either be interpreted non-literally, or else as falsely recorded.
>Meme-tier statement unless you’re talking about the KJV.
by far the most commonly read and quoted version of the Bible to this day remains the King James. What else would we be talking about, than the most commonly used translation, which is indeed a translation of a translation of a translation?
And even if you're referring to a newer, different version, that itself can only be translated from scrolls, which themselves were not the original stories, as those were part of an oral history and therefore unrecorded in its original word. So if you want to talk about the Word of God, that has been lost for several thousand years. Whatever you're reading is a man's interpretation of another man's interpretation of the Word of God
And do you think humans are above error in translation? Or worse, intentionally censoring or adding to the Word , as we know has happened numerous times over the history of the Bible?
Do not be so naive.

[Anonymous No.19615617]

>>19615577
>where is this claimed?
2 Timothy 3:16. And before you ask, what is Scripture was determined by the Tradition of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit. What ‘ecclesiastical experts’ say is irrelevant.

>the most cop-out, vague response to any literary critique or analysis lol
The Church Fathers themselves read Scriptures literally, anagogically, tropologically and typologically.

>try not to take the stories too literally, especially in the Old Testament.
OT prophecies have come true. I have every reason to believe that they are faithful accounts of events along with having deeper meanings.

>the Bible is the words of men, not the Word of God.
Scripture disagrees, as does those who compiled Scripture, as does the spiritual experience of generations of Christians.

>And from a critical historical perspective, no, the world was not made in seven days 6,000 years ago.
Science and history rely on assumptions and interpretative lenses that are not value-neutral.

I pray you stop holding God’s Word in such contempt.

[Anonymous No.19615681]

>>19615617
>all scripture is blessed by the breath of god
>all scripture is breathed out by god
>all scripture is god-breathed
which of these is the true Word of God? because the meaning is different in each
of course, you can interpret each to mean that all three are correct, in the sense that any translation of the scripture is merely a different facet of God's truth, but that only makes sense insofar as the translations agree, and the works themselves are internally consistent.
Which they do not and are not, respectively.
Hence, it is not all literally true.
>Tradition of the Church
and which church would that be? The various churches have fought many a bloody holy war over differences in interpretation of the Bible and its meaning, as well as the Word of God.
Were those wars fought in vain, because all interpretations were valid? Was Pope John XXII right in declaring that Franciscan poverty is heretical and the beatific vision is denied all, both holy and unholy, until the day of judgement? Was Pope Pius XII correct in invoking the right of papal infallibility, and does the Pope even have such a right, as granted by the Word of God? Or does that fall within the penumbra of powers afforded to the Church by the need to govern worldly affairs? Or is it even right that the Church be involved in worldly affairs at all?

and this is just scratching the surface of Catholic dogma, oh me oh my.
>OT prophecies have come true.
a prophecy in one part of a book coming true does not mean that all separate parts of the book written by different authors are also equally valid, even granting that the prophecies did comes true. Many prophecies have been made, and many have not come to fruition, or are too vague to say, or are poorly interpreted. The Three Secrets of Fatima are all undeniably prophetic, yet that does not mean that their nature is proven to be valid. Many within the Church say they are true visions from Mary, many good and holy people are equally skeptical.
>Scripture disagrees
as written by men? How surprising that it would self-affirm
>as does those who compiled Scripture
you mean the people who compiled the Scripture say their own work is valid and good? I am shocked!
>as does the spiritual experience of generations of Christians.
>because people have believed this for generations, that makes it true
you need a stronger defense than that, otherwise why is the Koran not the true Word of God? it makes a much stronger claim, having a direct textual trace without translation issues back to the Archangel Gabriel himself, speaking to Muhammed from Mount Hibra. It was not compiled from multiple sources by different people at different times in different places, it has remained unchanged as the direct Word of God since its creation, and it, too, has been worshiped and made real by generations of Muslims

not to say that I think Islam is correct, but you obviously need a stronger defense than that

[Anonymous No.19615709]

>>19615617
>>19615681
I am taking for granted here that you're not prottie scum btw
you're not, right?
...right?

[Anonymous No.19615714]

>>19613814
It's ancient history with a religious twist. That's pretty cool desu. Herodotus with angels and shit.

[Anonymous No.19615719]

>>19615528
Lrn2, it will be beyond worth it.

[Anonymous No.19615754]

>>19613814
For 90 percent of history this was the only book anyone read. Their choices were reading the bible or looking at a sheep all day. If you gave up Youtube and Netflix for a while you would find it extremely interesting.

[Anonymous No.19615853]

>>19615754
>didn't mention giving up 4channel and grindr

[Anonymous No.19615875]

>>19615853
>grindr
getting your bussy eaten is not godly, anon
please go to a different thread

[Anonymous No.19615896]

>>19615875
Agreed, I was assuming that the anon being addressed was likely a user because this place is so obviously swimming with faggots. I was simply playing the odds.

[Anonymous No.19616071]

>>19615714
>moses
>ancient history
I get what you're saying though.

>>19615875
that pic is what 0 worthwhile interaction with females does to a person

[Anonymous No.19616087]

>>19613814
you can't properly understand the bible (specifically the KJV which is the preserved word of God in the English language) if you're not a saved Christian with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. get saved first then read the KJV Bible without any commentaries or footnotes. watch this gospel and believe it so you can be 100% sure of going to heaven and not hell for your sins /lit/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpOv_kvk4M8

[Viruses don't exist No.19616830]

>>19613814
exactly. to put you to sleep. opposite of making you Buddha.

[Anonymous No.19617048]

>And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
>And I looked and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

[Anonymous No.19618006]

>>19613814
more people would read it if it wasnt soulcrushingly boring i guess... i think translating the bible was a mistake, its enough if some miserable priests and monks and thinkers of the church read it and average people could just listen to the priest speaking about it in the church or whatever

[Anonymous No.19619565]

>>19615390
Who is correcting who?

[Anonymous No.19619570]

>>19615303
Correcting grammar is a strange way to voice approval

[Anonymous No.19619577]

>>19615365
Can you speak without reference to impurity?

[Anonymous No.19619660]

>>19615318
I don't really get how this could be? It is written in such laconic style, especially if you read a modern translation. It's hardly Deleuze.

Spend more time with each chapter, perhaps that will help. Each teaching or parable might seem obvious to you, but you will discover incredible depth by simply paying more attention.

[Anonymous No.19619731]

>>19615577
Surely you can conceive of God's Word in a slightly more nuanced way than you have been. You clearly don't believe in Him, but you must be engaging in the discussion about it for some reason, surely. And your arguments thus far are strawmen.

Meet me halfway: try to understand that the Word of God can persist through poor translations, through bad grammar, through the physical loss of documents containing it etc. etc. You must agree in theory with this, right?

[Anonymous No.19619763]

>>19615577
Some parts of the OT contain onion layers of revelation of mystery that no mere words could ever begin to express.

[Anonymous No.19620394]

>>19615577
Who is more familiar with Scripture than St. Jerome? Who else has studied the original manuscripts in several different languages for 30 years, in the cave of Bethlehem? Absolutely ludicrous that anyone today could call themselves an expert.

[Anonymous No.19620434]

>>19619570
Jeez, mate, it's a lit board. The assumption is that we're all trying to improve reading and writing. I wasn't intending to undermine your point.

[Anonymous No.19620468]

I turn pages when it gets to name dropping ever scripture. When it goes on a lists of family names:"Son of this guy, son of this guy father of this guy, etc".

Other than that, there are a lot of good stories to meditate on that can be read and re-read to have multiple meanings, then there are proverbs and ecclesiastics that are short and to the point with nuggets of wisdom.

Then you get to the prophecies and the book of revelations, which are symbolic to the highest extent, but the bible is showing how the repetition of history happens over and over. That the end of days, the end of a society, have patterns you can see, and to maintain, or rejuvenate a society and to a smaller extent yet just as important, your personal life, is to follow back on gods law.

[Anonymous No.19621103]

>>19620434
Brother, it's a fine correction to make--I've been making the mistake for years. But prudence--it's about time and place.

[Anonymous No.19621229]

>>19619731
>Surely you can conceive of God's Word in a slightly more nuanced way than you have been
anon, I'm trying to get you to establish a baseline of what YOU think God's Word is.
I know where I stand on this, and I've already laid it out clearly: the Bible is not the direct Word, it is the words of men relating their relationship with God. It lays out the history of God's chosen people in both a religious and historical sense, with passages that are metaphorical parables, passages that are literal historical accounts, and within each of those there are accuracies and inaccuracies that stem from human error.
You seem to disagree with this assessment, but are unwilling to go further into engaging positively with discussion, and would more prefer to be a contrarian.
the impression I get is that you don't seem to care one way or the other about belief, either your own or mine, but rather want to engage in a little bit of trolling. Ironically, if you do genuinely care about belief, you seem to have undermined your own argument with your refusal to accept differing interpretations of the Word, and assume that anyone who does not take the Bible literally to be a nonbeliever.
>>19619763
>words contain ideas that words alone cannot express
are we speaking of the penumbra? I can grant that, but you speak vaguely. Provide concrete examples, I am growing tired of pseudo-pious non-response platitudes.
>>19620394
>Who is more familiar with Scripture than St. Jerome?
various Popes, among others. Most recently Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) was famous before his ascendance to the papacy for devoting his entire life to studying and writing about theological and ecclesiastical matters, including translating and interpreting many ancient works, both in German and English.

All knowledge is built upon that which comes before, and improves with time. We all stand upon the shoulders of giants, and see further because of this fact. The same is true for religious knowledge: the works of our ancestors are not to be discarded, but rather built upon. This does however mean that, logically, those who come after have more knowledge than those who come before, by using the knowledge of the ancients and then adding their own.
Unless you mean to imply that the Church should stagnate, and everything that has occurred within it after Jerome has no application to proper interpretation of the Scripture?
Again, you will find few supporters of this idea.

[Anonymous No.19621741]

>>19621229
Ratzinger would be the first to acknowledge that he is not as knowledgeable about scripture as St. Jerome, and he would also defend the fact that scripture is the inerrant word of God with his life. How dare you calumniate him like this?

[Anonymous No.19621755]

>>19621229
No. No matter what words and ideas one concocts, how much one "likes" the words and ideas has no bearing on the validity or lack thereof of the actualities they are seeking to figure. Being satisfied with one's own mental constructs does not make them absolute truths. Despising the expressed constructs of another does not render them untrue. Actual reality is what it is no matter what anyone anywhere ever has said and thought.

[Anonymous No.19621946]

>>19621755
I got this crossed up with another thread discussing a very similar notion to
>>words contain ideas that words alone cannot express. I would have to write in depth essays to respond to (You).

[Anonymous No.19622010]

>>19621741
>asks for an example of someone who could be considered an expert
>exact quote: "Absolutely ludicrous that anyone today could call themselves an expert."
this is the claim you are defending, and it is absurd, taken at face value.

1. humility is not a sign of truth in statement. Yes, Ratzinger would never elevate himself over a saint, lest he be rightly called prideful. Still, objectively Ratzinger knows more than Jerome does, because Ratzinger knew of Jerome, and of those who followed Jerome, and made his own contributions. Unless you think that Jerome's work is not itself an accurate representation of his thoughts, and therefore any who read his writing cannot learn his ideas from it and build on them, which in turn seems to be a self-defeating argument to what you are claiming.
2. Going off that, you seem to have strategically ignored the actual thrust of the argument I was making, which is that unless you think all learning about the nature of things stopped with Jerome in 400 AD, and the Church has stagnated in all learning since then (a ridiculous claim) then you must admit that Jerome's achievements were built on by later experts. Ergo, Jerome is not the only scholar one could appeal to, and the idea that there are no modern ecclesiastical experts is insane. Even the staunchest of traditionalists don't make this absurdly conservative an argument, which makes me think you don't actually believe what you're saying. Instead, you are merely attempting to be contrarian by assuming the most ridiculous position imaginable and asking for it to be disproven, while also refusing to accept any critiques made by deflecting from the actual arguments being made to inconsequential and increasingly byzantine debates over precise meaning.
>>19621755
> No matter what words and ideas one concocts, how much one "likes" the words and ideas has no bearing on the validity or lack thereof of the actualities they are seeking to figure.
but anon, what we are discussing is the nature of words and ideas themselves. It is not a matter of "likes" or "dislikes", it is a matter of what makes sense and what doesn't.
If you wish to blindly accept every word of the Bible on faith, then your head would explode, because the Bible contradicts itself numerous times. Not every word can be true, because the words and ideas contained within the book are themselves not always in agreement.
One must, therefore, examine it with a critical eye, and parse out which aspects of it are literal, which parts are metaphorical, which parts are poetic, which parts are historic, and which parts don't fit easy classification.
You simply wash your hands of any sort of analysis and say
>it is all literally true because I believe it to be and it says no, no need to think more deeply than that, anything I read must be true
is a child's view, and you will virtually no support is such claims anywhere within Christendom
unless that is not what you're claiming...?

[Anonymous No.19622070]

>>19615875
I could save them

[Anonymous No.19622470]

>>19616087
I am not christian (brought up non theistically) but I agree with the contents of this video 100%. What does this mean, should I join a church?

[Anonymous No.19622525]

>>19614176
My crush is real. your god, lowercase g, is not real.