An apology and a clarification

[Contemporary Protestant]

I said the Salem Witch trials are blown out of proportion
I say this because less than 100 people died
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/asal_de.htm

When determining when the bible is being metaphorical or not, there are many things to consider including but not limiting to…

context
audience
quality of translation
literal meaning
possible metaphorical meaning
do any of the meanings contradict other scripture (for example saying Jesus wasn't really God wouldn't be a better interpretation because by saying that, it would contradict a lot of verses)

Im sure theres more things to consider, a scholar would know more, I am not a scholar on the subject so I don't have the knowledge of an expert

(edit) as I mentioned in another post, understanding the bible takes a lot of time, patience, and outside knowledge,
I can't make a list of each verse and whether its literal or metaphorical in the time that I have

[Hijiri Byakuren]

You're using Catholicism to debate with a Protestant

It's either that or explain why you don't use the full unedited Bible.

[aileron]

You're using Catholicism to debate with a Protestant

And the Puritans' Salem Witch Hunt has been blown out of proportion

Protestants would love to believe that it was just the Catholics who did the three things I mentioned, but facts are stubborn things.

The prime movers of the Protestant Reformation, Luther and Calvin, both condemned the growing scientific consensus that Earth orbits the sun.  They were the most prominent Protestants to condemn the dawn of modern science, but my no means the only ones to do so.

As for whether it was just the Catholic scientists who faced consequences for speculating on the great age of Earth, no.  In fact today while most all Catholic clergy accept the scientific analysis of the age of the Earth, only about half of US Protestant ministers accept it.  http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/10/survey-u-s-protestant-pastors-reject-evolution-split-on-earths-age/

As for witch burning... If you think it was all about Salem, you missed several centuries of history.  Somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000 people were executed for witchcraft, about evenly divided between Catholic and Protestant sections of Europe.

If you believe that these people took witchcraft in the bible as figurative, why did they execute tens of thousands of people as witches?

[aileron]

I said the Salem Witch trials are blown out of proportion

The Salem Witch trials were not even a drop in the bucket.  Christians did their biblical duty to kill witches in Catholic and Protestant Europe in about equal measure with far greater zeal than in the Americas.  Tens of thousands of witches were tried, convicted, and executed.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I never said the translation was perfect or complete, Im just saying its better than what some people claim it to be. People have told me the bible translation has never been updated and every year it gets less accurate (which is blatantly false, people have better translations) the translations still need work … a lot of work, but still the Dead Sea scroll was an accomplishment

I think that more has to do with the fact that the original text is so out of date. A more accurate translation usually means that the translation is more in line with what the original authors intended. It makes no statement about whether the original author was correct.

The Dead Sea scrolls do not contain any text from the NT, therefore we can't say anything about the original language of the NT based on them.

In the 1st century CE Greek (or, better said, Koine Greek) was the lingua franca in the Middle East, therefore we can very well expect Jesus - if he existed, which I doubt - to speak that language.

Jesus would not need a lingua franca to speak to his own people. A lingua franca is a bridge language used to speak with outsiders, and as such not everyone would need or know how to speak it.

So you have proof that the writers of the NT used something beside their native tongue of Greek?

See above. Greek was the lingua franca, not the "native tongue."

[aileron]

Tbh I am very young (17 to be exact) and I converted when I was 14, baptized when I was 15. So I haven't been a believer for very long, if I were to leave christianity I would likely go to the New Age movement. I really like that stuff

You're 17?  You heard it here first... You will leave Christianity.  The kinds of questions you're asking simply won't allow you to live with the cognitive dissonance forever.  You know that science produces undeniable results.  You're trying to square the circle to make science and religion compatible, but eventually you'll conclude that they aren't.

The only way to have science and religion is to exempt religion from the scientific method.  The $64,000 question is:  Why?  Why should evaluation of religious claims be exempted from the scientific method?  Why should the standards of evidence be so much lower not just for religion, but specifically for the religion that happens to be dominant where we live?

Answer those questions honestly, and you'll leave Christianity.  It's just a matter of time.

[pioteir]

...

When determining when the bible is being metaphorical or not, there are many things to consider including but not limiting to…

context
audience
quality of translation
literal meaning
possible metaphorical meaning
do any of the meanings contradict other scripture (for example saying Jesus wasn't really God wouldn't be a better interpretation because by saying that, it would contradict a lot of verses)

Im sure theres more things to consider, a scholar would know more, I am not a scholar on the subject so I don't have the knowledge of an expert

(edit) as I mentioned in another post, understanding the bible takes a lot of time, patience, and outside knowledge,
I can't make a list of each verse and whether its literal or metaphorical in the time that I have

I asked a simple question, even if You don't know about the whole bible You could surely name some passages or verses You consider literally true or metaphoric. But You just try to wiggle Your way out of this one. I know it's hard to be specific and clear with faith. You have to be vague, I try being consistent.

The list of things determining the nature of parts of the bible just shows You will make up shit as You go depending on audience, context, spots on the sun and the influence of the phases of the moon on ants' mating habits.

You listed 6 factors to be considered, now can anyone please calculate how many combinations of this factors can we make up and apply to a single verse. It makes it literally impossible to interpret the supposedly holy text which makes it rather useless.

Still the most annoying thing is You evading the question.

[Contemporary Protestant]

To be very specific I take verses that deal with treating people with respect literally, like Matthew 5 @8 says its wrong to look at a woman lustfully, I agree with that, women are treated as objects in a lot of societies and it bothers me.

I don't take the flood, creation, and Revelation literally, I am an old earthist, not sure about the flood, and Revelation has heavy symbolism (the ten headed monster, i think thats right, is commonly accepted as a government instead of a literal monster)

I don't enjoy giving a black and white answer because Im no expert and I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong

(edit) Im tired of being called wishy washy, and that my beliefs are "crap",  my final response is, by your standards i am a gnostic (willing to accept the possibility I am wrong) however I am equally open to the possibility that I am right (in regards to the existence of a God. I'll be on other threads (science and politics) to learn more but Im done trying to explain myself, because if you don't care to learn about what I believe, then why waste my time explaining them?

[pioteir]

To be very specific I take verses that deal with treating people with respect literally, like Matthew 5 @8 says its wrong to look at a woman lustfully, I agree with that, women are treated as objects in a lot of societies and it bothers me.

I don't take the flood, creation, and Revelation literally, I am an old earthist, not sure about the flood, and Revelation has heavy symbolism (the ten headed monster, i think thats right, is commonly accepted as a government instead of a literal monster)

I don't enjoy giving a black and white answer because Im no expert and I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong

So You can answer honestly and clearly :) Thank You.

Another question for You. Earlier You said that You don't know yet which parts of the bible to take as metaphors or literal and You need to do some research. So how do You treat those passages You didn't research? Do You believe them to be true or just dismiss them entirely. What do You do with the parts of the bible You don't understand?

[SGOS]

When determining when the bible is being metaphorical or not, there are many things to consider including but not limiting to…

context
audience
quality of translation
literal meaning
possible metaphorical meaning
do any of the meanings contradict other scripture (for example saying Jesus wasn't really God wouldn't be a better interpretation because by saying that, it would contradict a lot of verses)

Im sure theres more things to consider, a scholar would know more, I am not a scholar on the subject so I don't have the knowledge of an expert

I'll call bullshit on this.  It makes it sound like cherry picking is some kind of logical endeavor, when the actual reason for cherry picking is just idiosyncratic preference on your part and your's alone.  It's about what you want to believe, and what you don't.  It's not like you're going to accept what the scholars say anyway, unless you want to accept it in the first place.  Then it's all, "Hoo Yeah!  I must be right."  Unless some authority on bullshit disagrees with what you want to believe, and then you just ignore it.

(edit) as I mentioned in another post, understanding the bible takes a lot of time, patience, and outside knowledge,

Bullshit again.  You're making this claim to make it sound like cherry picking the Bible can be elevated to some quasi intellectual discipline.  Cherry picking is nothing more than personal preference.  The Bible says what it says, and it doesn't preface each verse with a metaphor warning.  Nor does it have a "Forward to the Reader" before the first chapter that cautions you that the Bible contains much content that is not true and should be ignored.  It was clearly written by people in an era of ignorance who were getting caught up in mystical bullshit. 

[Contemporary Protestant]

When I find verses that I disagree with or don't understand, I try to do research so I can understand them

I do not ignore verses, in a previous post, an individual showed a verse that said I was wrong, and I acknowledged I was wrong. The list I gave is the process I use to understand difficult passages such as Revelation or Genesis, books like 1 and 2 Corinthians is a letter, and is straight forward (for the most part). However when they talk about women submitting to the husband, a person can't run off with "women are inferior!!!!!" they have to read the context and the audience. For example (can't remember exactly) the verse that states women should be silent in a church, is in the context of a church that would yell and wouldn't listen to the speaker. The verse in that context could mean "respect people who are speaking"

[pioteir]

However when they talk about women submitting to the husband, a person can't run off with "women are inferior!!!!!" they have to read the context and the audience. For example (can't remember exactly) the verse that states women should be silent in a church, is in the context of a church that would yell and wouldn't listen to the speaker. The verse in that context could mean "respect people who are speaking"

Then why it doesn't say "people" shoul stay quiet? It specifies women because in all (I think)  ignorant, primitive patriarchal cultures women were treated as cattle. When they say women should stfu, they mean WOMEN. Equality of sexes is a recent thing so don't go putting words in their mouths.

When I find verses that I disagree with or don't understand, I try to do research so I can understand them

What do You do "in the mean time"? During research, when You don't understand, do You believe it "as is" or dismiss it?

I don't consider ALL Your beliefs and values to be crap i.e. how women should be treated equally. Only the part that does not make any sense and is dependent on the audience, context etc. which You can turn around in a blink and say the opposite on a whim (a.k.a. crap) . Notice that in science no matter the audience, the weather and the like facts are facts. Until new facts are introduced, there're no grounds to dismiss the hypothesis.

You explain Your position the best You can. We show You that vague beliefs don't make good ground for some fundamental claims as they are subject to interpretation. Don't take offence in single words used to make a point (yes they can be used as a metaphor, not literal crap).

Also, us calling You wishy washy is not to be rude or hurt You. It's to inspire You in a way to do research on Your beliefs and come up with answers that will shut us up for good. We looooong for good, solid arguments. Believe me.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Im not sure, all the verses I have struggled with don't apply to my life currently, I am not married, and so when I don't understand a passage about gender roles, I have some time before I have to apply those verses (like 5-10 years)

Usually with the internet, I can get a rough answer very quickly, but I would prefer inaction (not ignoring, just not acting) until I know what Im doing

I will give you the fact that it specifically refers to women, however that is in the context of a church (I haven't taken a side on gender roles yet) so it doesn't mean Hilary can't be president

[pioteir]

I'll call bullshit on this.  It makes it sound like cherry picking is some kind of logical endeavor, when the actual reason for cherry picking is just idiosyncratic preference on your part and your's alone.  It's about what you want to believe, and what you don't.  It's not like you're going to accept what the scholars say anyway, unless you want to accept it in the first place.  Then it's all, "Hoo Yeah!  I must be right."  Unless some authority on bullshit disagrees with what you want to believe, and then you just ignore it.

Bullshit again.  You're making this claim to make it sound like cherry picking the Bible can be elevated to some quasi intellectual discipline.  Cherry picking is nothing more than personal preference.  The Bible says what it says, and it doesn't preface each verse with a metaphor warning.  Nor does it have a "Forward to the Reader" before the first chapter that cautions you that the Bible contains much content that is not true and should be ignored.  It was clearly written by people in an era of ignorance who were getting caught up in mystical bullshit. 

Yea. I think the whole interpretation endeavor (a.k.a. squaring the circle, a.k.a. bullshit) is on one hand a tool to control the people in every possible way by those on top, and on the other (the believers') side a mechanism to deal with cognitive dissonance in people. When Your beliefs don't make sense and contradict each other AND the reality You make up stories to deal with it. Plain and simple.

Yay I too can sound all scientific-y. Not like the idioty... idiosynth....the cherry picking thingy but at least I try :))

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Let me know if he ever stops with the yeah-but-isms.