[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 974 KB, 2222x2212, Bible.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4750592 No.4750592[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is Genesis supposed to be taken literally?

>> No.4750602

What do you mean by "supposed?"

>> No.4750610

>>4750602
Intended by its writer.

>> No.4750615

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis

>> No.4750617

>>4750610
You mean the Jews?

>> No.4750620

Literally? Where would you take it to?

>> No.4750618

no it's supposed to be taken even further than that.

cosmos woman was just ideas and all stories at all times with no timeline to place them, cosmos man was just time and endings and stars. they banged together and created the cosmos which is themselves but more.
they created a narrative and adam and eve are their physical bodies in their storyworks.

>> No.4750625

>>4750620
taken literally =/= literally taken

>> No.4750631

>is Gilgamesh supposed to be taken literally?
>Is The Odyssey supposed to be taken literally?

These questions are non-issues to anyone who isn't involved with the texts religiously.

>> No.4750633

>>4750592
Anyone who takes any kind of position on anything in it is a heretic according to someone.

>> No.4750643

>>4750631
I'm asking about the intention of the authors, not whether or not the contents are true.

>> No.4750650

>>4750592
>>4750592
>Short answer we don't know

maybe it was but in the light of the times it is appealing to say no and deep truths were known by the original mystery religions (ref http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/corpushermetica.pdf ) which was written before the bible and attributed to the second life of thoth/hermes

fun fact there is the same amount of time between the building of the ancient pyramids and the ancient romans as there is time between those ancient romans and us today

>that shit old
>rip library of alexandria

>> No.4750659

>>4750643
Yeah, I know. Nobody ever asks a question like that about the two works I've mentioned, and there's a reason for that.

>> No.4750660

>>4750650
rip indeed ;_;

>> No.4750671

>>4750659
Because there aren't two vehemently arguing sides basing their entire ideology around them. Neither of them are religious texts.

>> No.4750674

>>4750660
:``C

>> No.4750680

>>4750671
>These questions are non-issues to anyone who isn't involved with the texts religiously.

>> No.4750684

>>4750659
well i mean are they? ancients believed some silly shit, but they also said shit that seemed to be metaphor and would weave those things together like nothing

>> No.4750686

>>4750659
Fuck you

>> No.4750687

>>4750680
your femi radicalism is equally a non issue to men

Cause we win

>> No.4750691

>>4750680
Agreed, I guess. Not sure how that's relevant.

>> No.4750711

>>4750687
tiem 4 shitposting

>>4750691
Are you religiously involved in the text?

>> No.4750727

>>4750711
my remark when i saw you enter the conversation.....

ITS ALWAYS ABOUT ME GUYS!!

>> No.4750733

>>4750592

I feel it's quite plausible that ancient authors could have been accustomed to using stories as illustrative tools rather than purely historical accounts. As such, I find it at least an intellectually respectable position to maintain that at least the beginning of genesis was intended as an allegorical narrative. In particular since it seems to have been the compilation of two or more author's writings—in such an instance it is likely the compiler would not have included both had he seen either as a literal historical account. As such, depending on how you look at it, insisting on a literal interpretation of the first three chapters might be comparable to insisting on a literal interpretation of Animal Farm—in either case I don't think one gets a better picture of the authorial intent by insisting on a literal fact for fact interpretation.

>> No.4750734

>>4750711
"it's a non-issue to anyone who isn't involved"

well i guess it sucks to be you

4chan for phallic worship
men for the non-issue of women's rights

>> No.4750741

>>4750727
Damn you sure showed me. I bow to your epic scathingness good sir

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwQ729mDNb8

>> No.4750755

>>4750741
won't watch

slap slap fap fap


>but really i am for women equality
> i am just pointing out how rash you are..
>+ regardless of sex i am better :DDDDDDD

>> No.4750762

How does one even determine whether to take a Bible passage literally or not? There are certain verses that no one takes literally (somewhere in Psalms I believe it says that faith in God makes us "soar on wings like eagles") yet the more fanciful verses in Genesis are taken literally by many despite being semantically weird (the whole created the earth in a specific amount of days when days wouldn't even exists yet since he hadn't made the sun and moon yet).

Not the best argument on my part but I think you will get the point.

>> No.4750813

>>4750762

Well, at the very least oftentimes the genre does a lot to establish this. Paul's notes about his travels in his personal letters, for example, are probably best read literally unless we want to construct a framework where Paul was writing an allegorical letter. Likewise, Psalms and Proverbs are songs and proverbs respectively, which suggests they would make use of simple, hyperbolic expressions for the sake of facilitating later recollection of their messages.

The problem is, what kind of genre are those first chapters of Genesis? It's hard to tell if they're intended to be read like Job or Acts.

>> No.4750816

>>4750733
I show how to use the resources the ability to use this information for the past, not my voice, I think young writers. So, in my opinion, at least in my heart, more than the minimum standards of these words, and start from one. In this case, the authors of these two or more structures, such as writing, I've only found one, or were not part of the pit contour, are cut. This subtitle see the first three chapters Therefore, in or in any case, the requested title livestock for the call, I attribute form by querying the object range should be a condition for obtaining the public good photos.

>> No.4750830

>>4750633
You leveled up recently.

>> No.4750842

>>4750618
You are actually crazy.

>> No.4750849

>>4750830
In expression? Because I've known this for some time

>> No.4750858

>>4750813
I can see how genre can fix this problem but what about the other historical books of the OT? Joshua walking around and blowing trumpets makes a wall fall down? I get the idea that Jesus had not yet arrived so God made use of miracle things to show his power/sovereignty/whatever (isn't this also the purpose of the miracles of Jesus?) but this seems suspect as well since all evidence comes from Joshua. Should stories like that be taken literally as well?

>tfw I grew up in a Christian home and now I don't even know what to think.

>> No.4750868

>>4750858
The way I look at it is that, in some sense, everything in the Bible is true. But it's up to us to determine in what sense that is.

Or when all else fails, I just consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Encyclopedia. I don't know what Protestants do.

>> No.4750872

>>4750592
given that it opens with two incompatible creation myths and dgaf the answer is no

>> No.4750883

>>4750842
>In expression? Because I've known this for some time

>> No.4750894

Deep down, there is no difference between taking something literally or figuratively or metaphorically. When you realize this, you'll be able to see things with much more clarity. This serves not only to understand texts like this one, but to understand how people think within our ordinary life.

>> No.4750900

>>4750592
In some sense, yes. The story describes the world as geocentric and inside a firmament, which was the commonly held view of the world at the time. As far as the time it took to create the world, probably not.

>> No.4750898

>>4750868
I'll give those a looksy if my little epistemic crisis doesn't resolve itself. I do suppose your first statement does carry some weight though. I could be stuck thinking in these things too much in the typical true/false dichotomy.

>> No.4750914

Christian Bible is a mistranslation of the Torah anyway. Isn't the six days of creation actually supposed to be the six eons of creation?

>> No.4750980

>>4750914
Whether days or eons, the plants were still made before the sun according to the Bible.

I once brought this up (on /x/ I think, dunno what I was thinking) and the response I got was pretty much a fit of ridiculing and insults, but I'm honestly interested to hear how the people who take it literally explain stuff like this.

>> No.4751121

>>4750980
But I mean even the term eons (since it is a non-specific time period) seems to imply that even the writers didn't intend for it to be taken literally.

>> No.4751138

>>4750711
>tiem 4 shitposting
He's right, though.
Most of what feminism has accomplished in the last decades is ultimately worthless, and even harmful for women.

>> No.4751268

>>4751138
>and even harmful for women.
Such as?

>> No.4751310

>>4751268
Not that anon, but the "right" to vote makes people complacent. Emma Goldman was afraid that once women were allowed to vote they would become less political, not more, and would go to the polls every four years but spend the rest of their time thinking "well, I do my duty by voting," and to an extent she was exactly right.

>> No.4751329

>>4751310
This.

Also all this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0h17GG3wD4

>> No.4751497

>>4751310
Her greater concern is that it would lead to rampant moralfaggotry like arresting prostitutes and Prohibition.

>> No.4751505

>>4751329
>second-wave feminism was complacent

Feminism ensured women got equal pay for equal work; plenty of women were working before feminism

>> No.4751527

>>4751505
>plenty of women were working before feminism

No. Most women were not in the work force prior to the second world war, and after the second world war most women were forced out of the work force via lay-offs and discriminatory hiring practices.

Second wave feminism is primarily a movement of bourgeois middle class housewives that wanted into the workforce.

Well, congratulations, you got what you wanted, now everyone is expected to work, and being a stay at home mother is a pipe dream for the working class. Great Job.

>> No.4751530

>>4751527
>women didn't work during the Industrial Revolution
What a load of shit
>Women weren't working much during the Depression
derp

>> No.4751541

Parts of it, yeah. There are a bunch of stories in there you know.

>> No.4751544

>>4751530
Women made up no more than thirty percent of the workforce in the Great Depression, and most of those jobs were part time/seasonal.

The general picture of the female workforce we get from the Industrial Revolution is that most women worked absurd hours as maids, housekeepers, or in simple manual labour jobs in factories for low pay.

Compare work statistics from 1900 to contemporary ones where, in say the U.S, unemployment for the entire population over the age of eighteen is usually around ten percent.

>> No.4751548

>>4750592

of course not. whats your point?

>> No.4751552

>>4751544
Yep, because women mostly didn't make subsistence wages back then; they worked to supplement male income. Now they can they can on their own paycheck

>women should have to depend on traditional marriage and family to get by
>women like this any woman who says otherwise is bourgeois
top kek. I will never work with Marxists who ignore basic Marxism.

>> No.4751567

>>4751552
>"tiem 4 shitposting" said to mock someone
>proceeds to "shitpost" with them

Why don't you make a thread for this discussion and not derail OP's? Do you do this every time someone brings up your name? If so please stop, it's awful.

>> No.4751575

>>4751567
Sorry, Anon. Mostly got to me because that damn bourgeois business, just pisses me the fuck off when people call women's rights "bourgeois", I feel like nailin' 'em to a cross. But you're right, I was shitposting.

>> No.4751580

>>4751575

you're full of shit.

>> No.4751583

>>4751575
You ain't nailing anyone you Amazonian bull dyke.

>> No.4751631

>>4750592
No, because Genesis is full of allegories
>tree of good and evil is the Kabalah
>the fruit was kether
>snake was an alien
>the whole thing is full of aliens
>babel was atlantis
>the tower was a rocketship
>The flood was rewritten so many times that the original story is pretty much lost, but for the most part it was actually just Noah and his family, and it was just the fertile crescent that got flooded to kill all the hybrids and human workers for the Anunnaki
>TFW gnostic readings for the bible make the most sense.

also Jesus was Buddha

>> No.4751636

>>4751631
Valentinianism is confusing as fuck doe

>> No.4751637
File: 17 KB, 442x511, nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4751637

The author is dead.

>> No.4751641

>>4751636

you mean vanity, you fuckwit?

>> No.4751645

>>4751641
yeah when you pose naked in the mirror and search for god

>> No.4751656
File: 7 KB, 255x220, 1383963984645.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4751656

>>4751641

>> No.4751658

>>4751645
I like you, friend.

>> No.4751663

Yes, literally and allegorically. It's both history and moral fable.

>> No.4751674

>>4751658
hehe

>> No.4751679

>>4750631
If you aren't "involved with the text religiously" there is no point whatsoever in reading them. You either read The Bible for wisdom and instruction or you don't read it at all. Either you read The Iliad because you want to be inspired by courage or you don't read it all. There is nothing more repugnant than a blithering idiot who has read everything and learned nothing; who only knows how to "appreciate art" (I.e. appreciate his own pretensions) and not how to live it. Art for art's sake is the death of art. The proper use of art is for ornamenting religious rituals and buildings, and for education.

>> No.4751685

>>4751679
The Iliad is about the sorrow caused by anger, not about how cool courage is. I think maybe you're confusing it with 300

>> No.4751687

>>4751679
>If you aren't "involved with the text religiously" there is no point whatsoever in reading them. You either read The Bible for wisdom and instruction or you don't read it at all.

I like the stories.

>> No.4751693

>>4751580
"Piss and vinegar" is the phrase.

>>4751575
Preach!

>> No.4751744

>>4751687
If you haven't read the Gilgamesh account of the flood, you should, it's superior to the Bible's; for one thing, the god who causes it is questioned as to whether or not he was in the right. Much more interesting.

>>4751693
Gracia <3

>> No.4751778

>>4751744
>>4751693
You know what fuck it. I guess for the first time ever I will use filters. The vague anti-censorship principles can't stand this.

>> No.4751787

>>4751744
Gilgamesh is pretty far down on my reading list right now, but that makes me excited for it.

>> No.4751809

>>4751787
You can read it in one day easily, it's not as long as any editions point out. You can read one tablet (chapter) in about five minutes or less, and there are eleven of them.

It is interesting. It is mentioned, for instance, that it would have made more sense to simply strike down the wicked rather than aiming for mass extinction and the undoubted loss of innocent life. But that attitude isn't unique to Gilgamesh: Homer also encourages questing authority, even divine authority; it seems many great religious works did.

>> No.4751815

>>4751809
>editions make out
They either use a lot of space, big print, or have a lot of supplementary material