Bible Questions?

Olderwaterbrother, any more on the I am translation question?

 

I have not forgotten it but I do not wish to answer it off the top of my head and so research is necessary.

 

Yes you did thus making a person who would make that statement.

Yes, discarding self contradictory definitions, makes things easier to understand, It's just that the Bible contains none.

Irrelevant and tangential? Yes. That's why it was an aside.

 

He who lies in little also lies in much.

 

Yep.

 

Does the christian god have white hair?

Daniel

7:9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

 

The "christian god" is a spirit being and as such, I doubt that he even has hair. The descriptions of God in the Bible are allegorical and as such, tell much about who he is, not what he looks like.

 

The glory of young men is their strength, ​

gray hair the splendor of the old. ​

So what would white hair represent?

 

What passages of the bible indicate what is allegorical versus what is literal?

Or does each interpreter simply cast lots as to what is to be taken out of it's original context?

 

Every thing that we sense in this world is collected as raw information and is then assembled and interpreted into the established patterns of our life. Each and every scripture can be interpreted at many different levels of understanding and each one is appropriate to the causes appropriate to the individual at the time. As a person grows in experience and understanding, he will notice that his own interpretations had changed over time to lend added appreciation.
For example.
Unless you become as little children you shall not enter.
At one level of understanding we might interpret as a demand for conformity, and we would pare that down to obedience.
At another level we might interpret the right quality of children to be eagerness or willingness to please.
Or at another trusting.
Or yet again, innocent.
They are all appropriate considering the overall world view of the individual at the time, and in all cases lead an individual, no matter how dimly he may be aware of the overall picture, in a direction that eventually leads to complete comprehension or the actual attainment of the state in question.

 

Here's a good start for you, the descriptions of God in the Bible are allegorical and as such, tell much about who he is, not what he looks like.

 

I believe there is a aid (not substitute) of interpretation called Sacred Tradition.

You also have to look for word literal meanings, and literal interpretation based on faith and morals.

Another good pointer is looking at literary forms. Genesis 1 is a good example of a poetic form.

 

Were the passages that are meant to be allegorical always considered such, or at one time was the bible as a whole taken as literal?

Also how is saying that god has hair like pure wool describe more of who he is rather than what he supposedly looks like?

 

It's not that simple, yes some Scriptures, like descriptions of God have always been thought to be allegorical but most of the Hebrew Scriptures describe actual events, while at the same time foreshadowing things to come, like the sacrificial lamb representing what Jesus would do. Also the Bible says Jesus spoke in Parables and so much of what Jesus said was symbolic. Much of Revelations is also symbolic.

As I mentioned before, God is a spirit being and as such has no physical appearance, also because the Bible says no man has seen God and yet lived, no man could have described God physical appearance. So any description of God would have to be allegorical. Thus saying that God has hair like pure wool, would be a description of his age and wisdom and not that he has curly white hair.

 

How are you able to claim that god has no physical appearance if no one has seen him?

If your statement is based on biblical passages how do you know that it was not to be taken as allegorical?

Also,

11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11:11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

11:12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.


Why are clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp abominations to God?

 

Because they are not Kosher. My knowledge of Kosher rules is limited but there is probably a good reason behind it.

 

Quite easily actually, I just typed in the words; God has no physical appearance.

How do I if what you are saying is allegorical or not?

They are not abominations to God, he is actually quite fond of them but if you'll notice God said they should be an abomination to us. Why? I don't know, maybe because they are not always the healthiest things for us to eat or maybe like I said God is quite fond of them and didn't want us eating them.

 

Let me rephrase, how do you know god has no physical appearence, and if you do not know if it has a physical appearence how do you know the passage siting his hair is to be taken alligorically?

I can tell you I am not

I thought shellfish was a healthy food rich in protein, if god did not want us eating them because he is supposedly fond of them does that mean that he would punish those who ate them?

 

I do not like the term allegorical and literal.

there was a time when much of the Bible was taken at the word-value meaning (and still is by some).

There is a term in Mahayana Buddhism that I think applies to how God revealed to the ancient Hebrews. It is called upaya and basically means "teaching to one's need". The anceint Hebrews would not have understood things like atoms, conceptions, and any number of things. Why are the women in the Bible always the ones who are "barren", well because the male "seed" was thought to contain the whole human and it was "planted" like you would any other seed. When you plant seeds and they do not grow, is it the planters or soils fault?

There is still a message behind some of these stories which do not need to be read a the word value. Creation is inherently good (therefore gnostic notions that matter is bad is not of God); God is the Creator; humans were created in God's image; God cares for his people like children; those who are faithful see the rewards of a Godly life.





in terms of your shellfish and Kosher question: one of the theories I heard is that the things which are abominations in the Dietary Laws is that it is animals who do not behave like they should. Fish are supposed to have scales and swim--lobsters which live in the water (and therefore are fish) do not have scales and creep and crawl. Then they are an abomination. Cows have cloven fee and chew cud (good) pigs have the feet but not the chewing (bad). But that is one of those rationalizations. One of the things I've also heard is that those which you sacrifice are also those which are good to eat--you share (in a way) with God.

 

Ironic

Was it beyond gods ability to teach these things to the people, or do you believe that the human brain was different then than it is now?

It would seem that god may have scrimped on any directly revealed wisdom such as that humans do not have dominion over all creatures on Earth and watch out for harmful bacteria but in it's place decided to remind humans to praise him for what he had supposedly done.

Interesting point, I suppose it would be foolish to suggest that the reason for a great deal of inaccuracies in the bible is do in part to it's being written by lowly humans who were ignorant to many things we have an understanding to now?

Your claiming that god see's them as not behaving as they should?