Regarding Post Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:08 pm of
richardMdBorn
For the moment, I’ll let Roger address your comments to him. I know nothing about the
old Literalist thread referenced.
Previously, I addressed some comments directed to me. You present no refutation here.
richardMdBorn stated:
A biblical scholar is accurate and careful in his treatment of the text. Do you think that Spong is correct n his comment
Previously in post dated: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:21 pm
JAK:
{“Correct interpretation” is a myth. Ambiguity prevails over notions of “correct interpretation.” It is
evidence that demonstrates that the religion is
fractured by multiple interpretations set forward as if they were
the only true interpretation. Such claims are themselves ambiguous.}
Had you quoted the above, you would have a response to your question (absent a question mark)
Currently, we have more than 1,000 groups which call themselves
Christian. In many of those groups are individuals who might be regarded as scholarly. They
don’t agree. Virtually all who make
claims claim that their view (interpretation) is correct.
What someone regards as
story to illustrate, another regards as
literal. Hence, ambiguity in the interpretations.
Couple that with the many
contradictions in the total (66 books) of the Bible written by many, translated by many, used for special interest purposes, and we have
cacophony. Please examine the various internal links to the website here.
Right-wing fundamentalist/literalists
claim their “scholars.”
Left-wing liberal/metaphorists
claim their “scholars.”
And there is a plethora between whatever extremes we can identify of those who declare that
they are
Christian or that
their truth is the correct one.
----------------
Here you have a “Quote” from no identified source that I see. It’s
not from me.
richardMdBorn stated:
If writing a number of books makes Spong a scholar, what about D.A. Carson who has a Doctor of Philosophy in the New Testament from Cambridge University:
O.J. Simpson wrote a book. No one argued that books published made one a scholar. It’s a straw man argument. There are many
books by right-wing fundamentalists. That does not make them reliable.
And after-the-fact by many decades,
claims for “miracles” are unreliable. Indeed, we should also add many centuries of
hand copying should invite the greatest skepticism regarding historical accuracy.
richardMdBorn stated:
I believe in these miracles. And later:
richardMdBorn stated:
Yes, I’m guilty if charged in believing in the virgin conception.
You can
believe whatever you wish. The extraordinary claim of “Immaculate Conception” was made decades
after the
happening was alleged to have occurred. In any case, no credible evidence for any over-writing of science has been established.
We have
religious myth and
religious dogma in such claims.
Careful study by those previously indoctrinated doesn’t make for credibility.
For
objectivity, we should require that
study to be done by individuals with
no special interest in the outcome of the examination. For example: An indoctrinated Roman Catholic “scholar” who maintains the approval of the Pope and the Roman Catholic
Institution is
not an objective observer of biblical scripts or religious doctrine.
We could say that for any individual who operates from within
the box of the religious mythology from which he comes.
richardMdBorn stated:
Carson believes in the virgin birth and his academic credentials are better than Spong’s. Yet Spong asserts that no reputable scholar treats the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke as literal history.
What Carson
believes seems irrelevant. No evidence supports “virgin birth” (as it was interpreted centuries ago). Some more recent
translations use the term
“young woman”.
We have had many
translations of the Bible. However, since the printing press,
those translations have been more easily available.
Prior to 1200, almost no one except the very few could read or write.
Biblical
contradictions might have been edited out if earlier scripts could have been easily proof-read. However, I would be skeptical of that.
Keep in mind that
history is
a point of view. The British “history” of the behavior and purposes of the early colonies (now the USA) is
different from the “history” of people from George Washington forward on
this side of the Atlantic.
Had not our cultural heritage of emperors and kings not been what it was,
Christianity might not have survived at all. But, as a result of power, politics, and the perpetuation of
Christian mythology, we have
many forms of
Christianity today.
RM: BUT, Luke went beyond his knowledge and accepted the idea of a miraculous, virgin birth. Now if I understand You, you take literally the virgin birth story as told in the birth myth. Am I correct in that?
richardMdBorn stated:
Yes but that does not support Spong’s point that Luke did not understand the mysteries of reproduction. He obviously did not know about DNA, but he did know that, apart from a miracle, a baby had a mother and a father.
JAK:
Keep in mind that none of this story was recorded at or even near the time. The
direct quotes could not have been known. The
stories, whatever they were, are not reliable. No one was
there to record the words verbatim. And even if that could have been possible, the accuracy could not be established.
Even with television (video & audio) today, we don’t agree on what someone said or what he meant by what he said. And we have
the exact words. So the notion that biblical scripts are
accurate verbatim is an extraordinary claim
absent evidence for the claim.
That you take
literally a story
not recorded until long after the story was supposed to have occurred is an irrational conclusion. No evidence supports the conclusion.
Beliefs here are irrelevant. We cannot access any
facts beyond biblical stories. And we can access that translations over the past 500 years alone
do not agree.
What is relevant about
Luke is that he
wasn’t there. The emergence of the
virgin birth myth was an
invention to perpetuate the
extraordinary claims. Today, we have translations of the Bible which use “young woman” in place of “virgin.” The defense of
that translation is that, as a matter of fact, there is
no way to know, and “virgin” had a specific meaning.
No evidence has been established for
God claims -- extraordinary claims. Lacking that, there is no evidence established for the
claimed entity doing anything.
JAK