Copenhagen school of thoughts (theology)
There is three "Copenhagen schools" coming from the University of Copenhagen. One is the physics of Niels Bohr, another is the International Relation theory from Ole Wæver combining realism, constructivism and regionalism. And lastly in the field of theology that, shortly put, reads the bible as stories, not history.
You can read more here: http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/athe/athe0312.htm
An excerpt
Bible is fiction! You can guess what a lot of trained and untrained accuse these people of.
Is it okay to dissect a religious text like that or is it verbosen to tamper with holy texts like that? IMO this is a larger bomb under Christianity that the discovery of the big bang was.
Your opnion?
You can read more here: http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/athe/athe0312.htm
An excerpt
Quote:
The Bible is a corpus of literary texts, first and foremost. They have to be treated as texts - as stories with characters and plots. It is a mistake, say 'Minimalist' scholars, to claim that they are historiography. That is, that they record history or that the biblical literature is like a history book. No, 'Minimalists' say that the Bible must firstly be treated as story, not history, because the authors of the biblical texts created stories - they did not write objective history. The texts were not written as historiography, not as newspaper articles. They were written as story, much like a novel today. There may be persons in the story that actually existed at some point in time, but that is irrelevant. What actually happened back in Syria-Palestine 3000 years ago is irrelevant to the story. What matters is the characters and what happens to them in the story.
Let us look at a more up-to date example: the play Julius Caesar by Shakespeare. It is a play. It is a story. It is not historiography. It contains characters, not people. Julius Caesar, in the play, is the creation of William Shakespeare - he is a character; he is not the real Julius Caesar. It portrays a plot, not actual happenings. Shakespeare has crafted his events and dialogue to suit his own themes, his own dramatic intentions, what he wants you to see and hear - not what actually happened to the real historical Julius Caesar. That is irrelevant to Shakespeare. He is interested in portraying a tragic play, not giving you a report of what we know about the real historical Caesar. Any resemblance to real persons is coincidental. We may say the same about the recent film Elizabeth starring Cate Blanchett. That movie is not about telling you what the real Queen Elizabeth I of England did; it is about what the director and the writers of the script want to portray and want you to see. It is what they want you to understand. It is a movie, not a documentary.
We have to treat the Bible in the same way, say 'Minimalist' scholars. So whether things happened the way they are portrayed in the Bible is completely irrelevant. The Bible is story, not a history encyclopedia. It has characters, it has plots, it has irony, it has drama, it has comedy. It tells us what the authors want to say, not what actually happened. In this way, 'Minimalist' scholars say the Bible is fiction. That does not mean that it is not fact. Both the play Julius Caesar and the film Elizabeth are fiction, not historiography. The Bible, say 'Minimalist' scholars, is fiction because it is firstly story, not historiography. Philip Davies goes into this idea in his book, In Search of Ancient Israel (Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1995).
The Bible is a corpus of literary texts, first and foremost. They have to be treated as texts - as stories with characters and plots. It is a mistake, say 'Minimalist' scholars, to claim that they are historiography. That is, that they record history or that the biblical literature is like a history book. No, 'Minimalists' say that the Bible must firstly be treated as story, not history, because the authors of the biblical texts created stories - they did not write objective history. The texts were not written as historiography, not as newspaper articles. They were written as story, much like a novel today. There may be persons in the story that actually existed at some point in time, but that is irrelevant. What actually happened back in Syria-Palestine 3000 years ago is irrelevant to the story. What matters is the characters and what happens to them in the story.
Let us look at a more up-to date example: the play Julius Caesar by Shakespeare. It is a play. It is a story. It is not historiography. It contains characters, not people. Julius Caesar, in the play, is the creation of William Shakespeare - he is a character; he is not the real Julius Caesar. It portrays a plot, not actual happenings. Shakespeare has crafted his events and dialogue to suit his own themes, his own dramatic intentions, what he wants you to see and hear - not what actually happened to the real historical Julius Caesar. That is irrelevant to Shakespeare. He is interested in portraying a tragic play, not giving you a report of what we know about the real historical Caesar. Any resemblance to real persons is coincidental. We may say the same about the recent film Elizabeth starring Cate Blanchett. That movie is not about telling you what the real Queen Elizabeth I of England did; it is about what the director and the writers of the script want to portray and want you to see. It is what they want you to understand. It is a movie, not a documentary.
We have to treat the Bible in the same way, say 'Minimalist' scholars. So whether things happened the way they are portrayed in the Bible is completely irrelevant. The Bible is story, not a history encyclopedia. It has characters, it has plots, it has irony, it has drama, it has comedy. It tells us what the authors want to say, not what actually happened. In this way, 'Minimalist' scholars say the Bible is fiction. That does not mean that it is not fact. Both the play Julius Caesar and the film Elizabeth are fiction, not historiography. The Bible, say 'Minimalist' scholars, is fiction because it is firstly story, not historiography. Philip Davies goes into this idea in his book, In Search of Ancient Israel (Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1995).
Bible is fiction! You can guess what a lot of trained and untrained accuse these people of.
Is it okay to dissect a religious text like that or is it verbosen to tamper with holy texts like that? IMO this is a larger bomb under Christianity that the discovery of the big bang was.
Your opnion?
Comments
Originally posted by Anders
Is it okay to dissect a religious text like that or is it verbosen to tamper with holy texts like that? IMO this is a larger bomb under Christianity that the discovery of the big bang was.
Your opnion?
Everyone has the right to call any text what they want to call it. I respect the right of those in your post to consider the Bible what ever they wish to consider it.
I consider the Bible to be the Word of the living God and thus I see the Bible in a different light than those in your example. We can all agree to disagree about what the Bible is and if or if not a God exists. I believe we can all stand on our own feet and not have to fuss over what others think.
Fellowship
Originally posted by segovius
The only people who refuse to acknowledge these facts are the born-again fundamentalists of whom unfortunately, there are not a few.
But to answer your 'big bang', I wouldn't count on it - these guys have some sort of inate resistance to truth. They've survived the rennaissance, Galileo, Darwin, the world's greatest philosophers and God knows how many more reasonable and believable religions, they sure a hell won't let this one wrongfoot them. No, the only hope is that the dinosaurs will eventually just die off when they have no further evolutionary function. Can't be long now....
So it all comes back to the evolution "Take it" or "Refuse to acknowledge facts" Fundamentalists are not intelligent argument??
I am glad I am not in the camp of people who seek only to rip on Christians every chance they get. I am a believer in God and I don't have to answer to any geek in some university. I am not here to put down God and Christians because I want my own moral agenda over that of God's.
God is eternal meaning he was never actually created.. That's right Never Created. God has always existed and always will. The academic efforts to subvert God is temporary to say the least.
With evolution I suggest the following LINK to those who have all the answers.
I suggest to you evolution has serious "issues".
Fellowship
Originally posted by segovius
Fellowship, I actually agree with your points believe it or not. Of course evolution as taught by academics is deeply flawed (as indeed are many academics). Fraudulent even. Even the fossil record speaks against it. Check out 'Forbidden Archaeology' by Thomson and Cremo for two academics ho dared to speak the truth on this and still do.
That is not my point. It is some Christians opposition to logic that I am against. Where it manifests itself in science I am against it equally.
I have problems with evolution but not because I believe in God (I do) but because it's bad science. In any event, evolution to me doesn't rule out God or vice versa.
I agree completely with what you say above. I too have problems with evolution not because I believe in God but because it is bad science. I also would point out I agree that Christians who oppose logic are something that is sad as well. Christians do not have the lock on this however it is something people of all backgrounds trip over.
I believe that Jesus meant it when he said the' truth will make you free' and truth is truth. No degrees of it, something is either true or it is not. If we don't know then we are free to have a belief but if we do know something then we must progress from belief to knowledge.
Right now we don't know whether, say, God exists or his nature. We cannot know this and so we are free to believe in our own way or faith. When it becomes clear (if it ever does) then we will no longer believe (or disbelieve) we will know and people who reject that knowledge will reject truth in a way that is not possible now.
I do know God exists personally but you are right when you say "we" don't know above. Collectively not all people are aware of God so that is a true statement. Those who know His voice know. Those who do not know His voice do not know.
But we do know some things in the Bible are false. I'm not interested in why or how, but they demonstrably are according to certain established disciplines. So I have a choice - reject the truth or accept the Bible as truth. It's not about Christian bashing, it's about truth.
I believe the Bible is written as it is for a purpose that you or I may never know. A purpose intended for us none the less.
And it doesn't affect my belief in God at all. You don't need scripture for such a belief do you ?
I respect this last post of yours as the two prior to it seemed a bit hostile towards fundamentalists. It is your right to not like fundamentalists or agree with them. If you compose a post in a manner which takes aim at such it is only expected I may reply to defend my view.
With respect,
Fellowship
Originally posted by Anders
Actually have to make one thing clear. Fiction is not the same as "not true". You can´t read the bible like that (according to the school) and say this is true and this is false.
Theists, read this again and think anew on it. I always say that the literary mind is better attuned to making sense of the bible, but then, to me, to call something literature means to automatically elevate its status as a meaningful work, and not to criticise its adherence to "facts."
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I too have problems with evolution not because I believe in God but because it is bad science.
Why exactly is it bad science? Do you happen do believe in an alternative, empirically testable theory?
Originally posted by DiscoCow
Why exactly is it bad science? Do you happen do believe in an alternative, empirically testable theory?
I do not have to have an alternate theory to say a given theory is bad science. That is nonsense. The record is clear with the problems the theory of evolution has. The problems with schools is that it is not allowed to question the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is pretty much taught as "fact". So many do not know how to even question it. I suggest a start in a little nutshell to question just a few aspects of the theory of evolution is to listen to the streaming MP3 link I had in a prior post above.
It is only a start.
Fellowship
There is a reason why theology is placed in faculties for the human sciences, not the natural sciences.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I do not have to have an alternate theory to say a given theory is bad science. That is nonsense.
My question boils down to this:
What do you believe about our origins?
More specifically, what is your interpretation of Genesis? Do you believe it is objective history (this is pretty much a given based on your comments) or a parable? If it is indeed objective history, then one should be able to submit evidence supporting it.
Originally posted by DiscoCow
My question boils down to this:
What do you believe about our origins?
More specifically, what is your interpretation of Genesis? Do you believe it is objective history (this is pretty much a given based on your comments) or a parable? If it is indeed objective history, then one should be able to submit evidence supporting it.
I know almost nothing about our origins. I believe that is true for most if not every human alive. The context of the Bible such as within Genesis is written in many contexts and I never read the Bible always as "literal" I read the Bible in the contexts which are appropriate. People can and will disagree with which context to read passages within the Bible and such is life. We will each have a different view.
Fellowship
Originally posted by segovius
It has to be addressed (and assessed) as true because it claims to be true. If one wishes to dismiss the claims of something without subjecting them to analysis on the basis of what they claim, then of course one is free to do so. One cannot at the same time though claim a knowledge of the subject or any real objectivity in relation to it.
Which leads naturally to the academic placement issue - it's been placed in with the human sciences because that department is the academic equivalent of a large festering, smothering and moth-eaten rug whose only purpose in existing is so that things can be swept under it and 'tolerated' out of existence while the 'real study' continues elsewhere.
segovius don't you see the conflict within your statement above? On the one hand it seems you discount the authority of the Bible in what it says within. You discount it namely because you note that it is all but impossible for one to retain "any real objectivity in relation to it" because it claims it is Truth however not 30 seconds later you write in your post that:
it's been placed in with the human sciences because that department is the academic equivalent of a large festering, smothering and moth-eaten rug whose only purpose in existing is so that things can be swept under it and 'tolerated' out of existence while the 'real study' continues elsewhere.
("real study" continues elsewhere)
Don't you see that now you place "yourself" as the authority by making such an assertion. By doing so you remove yourself from any real objectivity in relation to the matter.
See the problem here?
Fellowship
This is exactly why all is chosen belief. Not just what Christians choose to believe but in fact what all people choose to believe.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
The context of the Bible such as within Genesis is written in many contexts and I never read the Bible always as "literal" I read the Bible in the contexts which are appropriate.
What do you believe the ?context? of say, Genesis 1 through 3 is?
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
People can and will disagree with which context to read passages within the Bible and such is life. We will each have a different view.
Yes. But if the Bible is the "Word of the living God", one would think that there would be an ultimate objective interpretation. Not a ?your view true, and mine is too? interpretation. For instance, one could use certain interpretations to condone the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals.
Is the bible ultimately objective or not (i.e. one interpretation is correct)?
Originally posted by DiscoCow
What do you believe the ?context? of say, Genesis 1 through 3 is?
Yes. But if the Bible is the "Word of the living God", one would think that there would be an ultimate objective interpretation. Not a ?your view true, and mine is too? interpretation. For instance, one could use certain interpretations to condone the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals.
Is the bible ultimately objective or not (i.e. one interpretation is correct)?
I believe the Bible is correct in many interpretations at different times(Not all interpretations however). That is to say it is dynamic and in a given season a given set of passages can speak to a given person in a direct way which may be interpreted by another person in a different way and also be correct in the season and context in that 2nd person's life. I know this is not what some would like to hear but the Bible is not always black and white.
Fellowship
Originally posted by segovius
it's been placed in with the human sciences because that department is the academic equivalent of a large festering, smothering and moth-eaten rug whose only purpose in existing is so that things can be swept under it and 'tolerated' out of existence while the 'real study' continues elsewhere.
Hey watch it
Originally posted by segovius
It is the job of academics to find out the truth about things.
To be objective they must study that thing in terms of itself rather than their own preconceptions.
I respect the effort you make to make yourself clear with your views.
I would say that I very much appriciate and respect many many academics in their journey to locate and understand the "truth about things".
As you say they must (in order to be objective) study that thing in terms of itself rather than their own preconceptions.
Indeed this is where for example I have found some academics who have failed. The theory of evolution has consumed many in this worldview that has led to a lack of objectivity. They no doubt are free to go down this path I only point out that within a field of "science" and "education" it is less than genuine for some in this group to make claims that are less than true to further their wished preconceptions. To build up their own credentials in the field, to go down in the history books; But all the while leading by deception and fraud.
That is neither proper "science" nor proper "education"
I believe we indeed should be objective and be free to question any assertions. This can be done with logical questions and within the absence of insults and labels.
This MP3 Audio Link approx 1 hour is a great start for issues that face some academics who promote the theory of evolution.
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I believe the Bible is correct in many interpretations at different times(Not all interpretations however). That is to say it is dynamic and in a given season a given set of passages can speak to a given person in a direct way which may be interpreted by another person in a different way and also be correct in the season and context in that 2nd person's life. I know this is not what some would like to hear but the Bible is not always black and white.
Fellowship
So what do you get out of this passage?
Leviticus 13, verses 47-53
"If any clothing is contaminated with mildew-any woolen or linen clothing, any woven or knitted material of linen or wool, any leather or anything made of leather- and if the contamination in the clothing, or leather, or woven or knitted material, or any leather article, is greenish or reddish, it is a spreading mildew and must be shown to the priest. The priest is to examine the mildew and isolate the affected article for seven days. On the seventh day he is to examine it, and if the mildew has spread in the clothing, or the woven or knitted material, or the leather, whatever its use, it is a destructive mildew; the article is unclean. He must burn up the clothing, or the woven or knitted material of wool or linen, or any leather article that has the contamination in it, because the mildew is destructive; the article must be burned up.
What about this one?
Leviticus 24, verses 10-16
Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them. Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.
Originally posted by DiscoCow
So what do you get out of this passage?
[quotes passages]
I must admit, as a liberal Christian, I sometimes have difficulty with the Old Testament, much more than I do with the New.
Whether the Bible is always history in the sense that is commonly understood, I cannot say. I do believe, however, that a man called Jesus walked this Earth, that He is the son of God, and that He suffered and died for our redemption.
My overall view is that the role of the Bible is to teach. Not all of its lessons can be taken literally. Not all of them are easy to understand, even for those who dedicate their lives to trying.
I suspect that Anders has another reason for posting the link..Ie the very existence & idea of Israel in the modern sense & it's historical / archeological foundations...
Now if you all took the time to read the link that Anders posted I think you might find it largely boils down to whether the Biblical Israel is the same as the Archeological Israel.
I actually saw a documentary based on this very question not so long ago. It threw up some very interesting pieces of evidence both supporting everything that the Israelites claimed to be, as well as proof suggesting that they were not much more than a branch of local tribes people, who literally saw themselves as distinct by virtue of the fact they lived in the upper highlands.
I remember enough of the documentary to suggest that the whole existence of the Israelites was thrown into relief.
But the documentary closed by strenuosly pointing to the fact that the "evidences' both for & against the existence of Israel & the israelites ...was indeed finely balanced & that none of the research was conclusive one way or the other...
I don't believe Anders wanted to adress the issue of Israel at all (...this time).
Originally posted by Aquafire
I suspect that Anders has another reason for posting the link..Ie the very existence & idea of Israel in the modern sense & it's historical / archeological foundations
HA. Finally someone fell into the trap.
No I have no problem with Israel existence and this reading of the bible have absolutely nothing to do with what ISrael is today. What matters is the people living on the land today.
I disagree with the desition to form Israel but people have been born in the land and therefore it now have reality and I would probably join in the army if the existence of the land was threatened.
But the point of this thread is that the people behind the Copenhagen school have been accused of anti-semitism solely based on their method of reading the bible. One does not lead to the other.
Did you know that it is believed that the most of the population of Denmark is believed to decent from fleeing swedes? Should Denmark be given "back" to Sweden for that reason