Off Topic — HabitableZone

Off Topic » in reply to re: Why do you say that:

re: Why do you say that:
ER — (archived)

To say that god created the universe is one thing, it might even be true. To point out which days of the week it happened is a stretch. Of course, the poetry of Genesis is just that, poetry, and it need not be taken literally to be of great value. It's power and beauty arises from the philosophy and the artistry of the authors. But some sects insist on strict interpretation, where even capitalization and punctuation are analyzed to reveal specific meanings which must have been irrelevant to the original scribes. Neither ancient Hebrew nor Greek had punctuation or uppercase/lowercase letters. Add to this the changes in tone brought about by different translations, from various source texts, and the idea of "literal interpretation" fails utterly, but this is precisely what fundamentalists would have us believe.

Consider that followers of the New Testament find detailed parallels and foreshadowings in the Old Testament, while Jews, who presumably have some expertise in the ancient texts, do not. Islam came along and added the Koran, partly based on concepts and history from Jewish and Christian texts, but with their own interpretation.

There are some sects of North American Protestantism that reject all English translations of the Bible except the King James Version. Although the KJV, with it's magnificent Elizabethan prose and fine scholarship is a joy to read, there has been much progress in ancient history, archaeology, and linguistic studies which one would think would be of value to the faithful if incorporated into updated translations. However, fundamentalists cannot tolerate even the slightest deviation from orthodoxy, so they off-handedly reject all new translations.

When you add the selection of texts to be included in the canon, a process history tells us was highly politicized and controversial (even violent!) in its own day, how can anyone fault the skeptic for drawing his own conclusions? I realize that some of you reading this must feel I am over-emphasing the influence of religious fanatics which are often rejected outright by the vast majority of more moderate religionists; but it is precisely these fanatics which inject their doctrines into politics, and are most likely to be tempted to violence.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (73 posts)