I think they piece it together and Gandalf provides the sacred texts to Moses in the Shire and they go on a great adventure to Egypt where Sauron and his Orcs enslave the Israelites, and save them and lead them to the Lonely Sinai Mountain where Smaug lives. Meanwhile his Moses' nephew Mohammad finds some elves and angels and fights the return of Sauron brings with him dwarves in the battle of Mirkwood.. Aragorn comes back and reestablishes a kingdom and brings the Kingdom of Men together again with the elves and angels or something like that. — schopenhauer1

Bloody marvelous, where is the thumbs up button when you need it? (Y) (Y)

Edit ; What do they Elves do?

I think this conversation has run its course. — Janus

I think I agree. But just a comment I expect no answer to.

The lord of the rings is a grand story. It contains most of the situations found in the bible, from war to love, friendship to enemies, loyalty to betrayal, images of god like beings doing things that no mortal human can do, and so on.

In many thousand years when the archeologists are digging in the remains of our utterly destroyed civilization looking for any clue as to what life was like in our times. They find some books, a bible a Koran, the Talmud and the Lord of the rings. Do you think that they would be able to tell the difference between them?

Can you explain what you think it could mean for a work to be the Word of God beyond that? — Janus

You have asked that question a few times now, could you answer it.

I have done this many times before and have been given the same answers usually.

If I said that the word of god should reflect his being and therefore should be perfectly written you would tell me that it is so. It is I that fail to understand the meanings because I will not open my heart to it.

If I said that the word of god should be all-encompassing as he is. Then you would tell me it is so because it is not lacking in any way. Obviously, because it can be interpreted to mean almost anything it is all-encompassing.

If I said that the word of god should be useful and guiding to his people. You will tell me that it is so, that the bible contains many helpful and educational resources. So why is it that only a few of those people know how to get the good stuff out of it and the rest have to listen to them.

If humans are the work of god then anything written by man is the word of god, because we are all influenced by him. Why can't the Hobbits be treated with the same reverence as the bible?

It's not a matter of being "spelled out for them by some authority" but rather of being seduced by the Word. This is something that must be experienced in order to be understood, just as the revelations of great literature must be experienced in order to be understood. — Janus

That sounds like a commercial for cake mix.

If this is truly how you live, then you are already walking with God. — Janus

No, I walk without him. He would not walk anywhere with me after the number of times I have denied his existence.

And no right thinking person would blame God for how they are. — Janus

But so many do. I'll let you think about it.

The passage you are responding to was directed to BC. — Janus

Yes I know it was directed at someone else, I just could not resist answering though.

In any case, why should a holy work not be nuanced, just as all good poetry, indeed literature, is? — Janus

I heartily agree that most good poetry and literature is nuanced and that it does in fact improve the writing most of the time.
But I also realize that it is fiction.
A biography of Winston Churchill could be told in so many ways to make his life seem bigger than it actually was, to make him appear romantic or sexy or even stupid. It could be biased to suit the opinion or needs of almost any political group. The writer could emphasize some parts of his life while ignoring other parts to give his life different meanings. All of this could be done, but if the writer tells a lie then it is no longer the biography of Winston Churchill.

If the bible is the word of good then it can contain nothing that is not the word of god. Human interpretations of his meanings would make a mockery of him.

Words are the Words of God when they speak to the open-hearted in ways that allow them to see, hear and feel God. — Janus

But if the open-hearted need to have it spelled out for them by some authority then it does not fill its objective.

Is it my intelligence or your own that you have insulted? — Janus

I would not insult you. And I have no reason to insult myself. But it is impossible for words to have infinite meanings, even for a god. There would be no meaning to anything said.

Cheers Tiff, here's to all.

Got a couple of 6 packs of cheap Portuguese beer that tastes good, so the first one will be dedicated to all of those friends come and gone and those still here. The rest of them will probably be dedicated to them as well unless I think of some one or thing to toast.

You meant to write "not worry..." I presume? — Janus

Yes, thank you for pointing it out. (Y)

Fixed it.

Interpretations could be nuanced in various ways but for me its central meaning is to live with humility keeping God in your heart and mind instead of being consumed by worldly concerns for their own sake or for your own ego's sake. This is a pretty standard message common to many religions, although couched variously in somewhat different forms. — Janus

I live with a great deal of humility, I am not consumed by world concerns for my own sake nor for my ego's sake. And I don't have to blame god for the way I am.

I find it hard to believe you are not erudite enough to be well aware of that. You don't have to agree with it as a prescription for living, but it's not hard to understand its meaning, and understanding is not precluded by disagreement. — Janus

The meaning of it was well understood, the need for nuances in a holy work are what I do not understand.

And I have asked you to explain why you think the word of God should not be subject to interpretation. If you can answer that, then do so. — Janus

Why should anyone even be allowed to try to decide what a god really means by his words. Unless there is doubt about them actually being his words.
It looks as if some people think that they are above god and that they can make his words fit to the occasion as necessary. If these people are supposed to be inspired by god, then should he not get his act together and inspire them all in the same way so as to avoid confusion
It seems pathetic to say that it is necessary because of changing times, because then it means that god did not take into account that time would make a difference to the way people live. If he all knowing then isn't it silly to say "he did not do that for __" insert any reason you can think of. If his plan was for mankind to go out and populate the world would he not have known already the changes that would be coming?

My guess is that you think that in order to qualify as the word of God a text could have just one literal meaning. To me to think this would be absurd. If God is infinite, why would his Word not have infinite meaning? — Janus

Hot dog about those window blame humperdinkle bald.

If words can have infinite meanings, try to find out if I just insulted you.

It seems fairly obvious that it is a prophecy of the coming of John the Baptist. — Janus

Thank you, So it is clear, there was no need to do any fancy interpretations, just read it. It is nice to know that even ordinary people can read the bible and not worry about whether they are understanding it properly.

No. — Agustino

So why then?

The dream itself contains the message. — Agustino

Damn, I should have figured that out. Do I need an interpreter to explain it for me. Not unless I am stupid.

I merely drew your attention to the fact that the Bible itself doesn't paint the picture of God that you have in your mind for the purposes of this conversation. This isn't about me or listening to me, it's about reading the Bible. — Agustino

So do you have any new image of god that the bible portrays or is your image the same one everyone else uses? I have read the bible, it is interesting but as a work of fiction, historical fiction maybe, but still fiction. And the picture I have of god is about the same as I have of Zeus, but not as colorful.

Oh yeah, you're actually expected to think for yourself and relate it to your own experiences, wow, who would ever do that! — Agustino

Ok, so he does talk in riddles and even his groupies did not understand him. What kind of a teacher is he then? If god was supposed to have sent him to collect souls to the cause would it not have been easier to speak clearly and make sure the people got the right message instead of saying think for your selves and risk them getting it wrong.

You should get a room for yourself and put a sticker on the door reading "kids only" — Agustino

You are one of the children of god that has to have everything interpreted for you, so maybe you should be the one to do this.

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways. — 1 Corinthians 13:11

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways and stopped believing in Santa Claus.

I think it shows the historical nature of the document and its evolution. — schopenhauer1

I agree, and that is about all the modern bible is. A historically document that has been corrupted so that no one alive today can ever hope to interpret it because we have no idea what it was really like at the beginning or what it its real meaning or purpose was.

Any modern interpretation would be nothing more than speculation.

When I was younger, I read many of these histories of the bible's writers. But that was long ago. I found that even putting a lot of the bible into historical context, the known facts about history not the traditional history, much of it did not make a lot of sense. If you read it as it was then it was a just bunch of stories. You had to add to the reading to get it to make sense as something spiritual. Why should divinely inspired writing need to be added to or looked at from a different point of view for it to make sense?

In the bible Jesus talks in parables, some get explained but most don't.
If the purpose of jesus's teaching was to instruct the people why did he not explain them all? Surely if even the enlightened disciples needed an explanation of them it would serve a good purpose to explain them.
If the purpose was to make the people think, then any and every interpretation would be valid.
But if he was only telling stories then no interpretation is necessary.

I think the bible is a bunch of stories and that anyone that wants to try to INTERPRET them has some sort of self serving motive.

A parable is not another hidden meaning and is not subject to interpretation, it is just a simpler explication of a topic so that simple people can understand. — Sir2u

No. You implied that parables are just a simple way to communicate something that would otherwise be very difficult to communicate — Agustino

The point of parables is precisely that their meaning cannot be communicated otherwise, since it's not a matter of reason, but of direct perception and intuition, — Agustino

Yes, parables are indeed a way to communicate information that cannot be communicated otherwise. — Agustino

So we do agree on what a parable is.

No, he did not know what God communicated to him through the vision he had. That's why he was perplexed. — Agustino

When I dream about someone I know telling me something, I understand what they are saying. Why I had the dream is another question entirely. Does the dream have a meaning is something else again. But I still understood the words that the person spoke.

If god did not bother to explain what the vision meant then how are mere mortals ever going to know. So basically I think what you mean when you say interpretation is guessing at or assigning other meanings which might not necessarily in line with gods words.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying that the text makes it clear that God isn't the kind of being that appears very clearly at the whims and wishes of people. He is a Hidden God. — Agustino

Apart from actually denying that you are saying something while doings so, which in itself is ridiculous, the rest of this is the same pitiful excuse so many use to make people do things. From politicians and preachers to parents and kids, it is always the same. "You don't know so I am right, listen to me"

I have asked you quite a few questions and for several explanations which you have failed to reply to, am I supposed to think that there is some unknowable message in you none replies or do you not think them worth replying to?

Nope, that's not actually the case. The Bible makes the opposite to be quite evident actually. For example:
balh, blah.
So again, your ignorance of the Bible only shows itself. — Agustino

How does this example prove anything? Did Peter not know what god was saying to him? Did he fail to understand that someone came to get him?
I honestly don't see how this is relevant to anything, please enlighten me.

You have never heard of Kierkegaard's indirect communication? — Agustino

Not even his followers agree with some of his ideas, maybe because he failed to write them clearly and wrote with hidden meanings included.

The point of parables is precisely that their meaning cannot be communicated otherwise, since it's not a matter of reason, but of direct perception and intuition, which requires to look and see via images as it were - to have a direct insight. — Agustino

Is that not the same thing I said?

"Truly, You are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, Savior!" — Agustino

Are you saying that god is the kind of being that deliberately tries to confuse the people he wants to praise and adore him?

No. I need to know, to begin with, which cat. — Agustino

But that is only lack of data, not a way of interpretation.

Not necessarily. The sentence may be code for something else for example. — Agustino

Yes you are right, it could be talking about the color of the stool I just left in the bathroom.

Oh dear I have done it again. Talking in code is such a problem. I did not mean that I left an object used for sitting on in the bathroom, I meant the pooh.

Blimey I did it again, sorry. Let me explain. I went to the bathroom for a pooh, but not Winnie-the-Pooh, shit. No, shit is not used as an expletive there, I just stated what I did actually leave in the bathroom.

Oh, in case you are wondering what a bathroom is, it is a place where people go to get clean.

Wait a minute, if a bathroom is a place to get clean why did I take a crap there. Language is so complicated, I think I need an interpreter to help me get through my day.

Unless you are some sort of a pervert that gets off reading behind the text, between the lines or looking for hidden meanings in every sentence text usually means what it says and needs no further explanation.

You do not need to know which cat is black to understand the sentence. There is no hidden meaning nor is there any need to interpret it. People do not usually say things like "The cat is black" in the middle of a conversation unless they are actually talking about cats and this is what gives context to the words.

A person that suddenly burst out, or even a person walking along the street muttering "The cat is black" would usually be considered to have some sort of mental problem. What does that say about people that write books that say one thing and mean something different?

I've stated that it must be read in context, taking care to go back to the way it would have been understood in the Judaic culture in which it arose. — Agustino

Putting words into context and giving words other interpretations are not the same thing. And the people that wrote the bible would have known exactly what god and Jesus were saying. They must have written their exact words and both god and jesus must have been very careful about what they said because they wanted, needed people to understand and follow their way of thinking. So why should they include hidden meanings?

What's your point? — Agustino

A parable is not another hidden meaning and is not subject to interpretation, it is just a simpler explication of a topic so that simple people can understand.

Bloody hell.

Does that mean that even the knowledgeable, the enlightened, the blessed ones don't agree on what religious texts mean. :s
That sounds just like a person that wants to keep his cushy job trying to convince everyone else that only he can do it because he is the only one that has been taught to read QBasic.

OK, thanks if someone found the problem and fixed it for me, but now it works again, so if no one did anything then I guess I should just give a nod to Murphy, but if you did fix it for me I am grateful even if I still don't really understand anything about why it happens, or whether it will happen again sometime, which I hope it doesn't because it can be a real pain.

Oh yeah, thanks.

Man, TranscendedRealms seems to really think he can change the world with his thoughts on life. — CasKev

Lots of people have already done that, but most of them had something to say that people wanted to listen to. Like Hitler or Martin Luther.

These passages from Leviticus 16 and Leviticus 23 are pretty straightforward about Yom Kippur. — schopenhauer1

But the thing is mate that you and me just don't know how to interpret them. They are full of hidden meanings that god put there so that we poor humans can spend our whole lives trying to figure out what the hell they mean.

Of course you are right, they are pretty straight forward. There is absolutely no reason to think that there should be any meanings other than those that are clearly visible. And most of the bible is just like that plain and clear.

You don't have to feel empathy with the sentiment to know that it is intended, and how it is conveyed by the words. — Janus

That is so true, it means exactly what it says, "walk humbly with God"

Of course you would know what those words mean (if you did). The revelatory aspect of texts which may be experienced in the (all the more so by informed) act of interpretation consists in gaining insight into what is intended by the text; into what it is, in an overall sense, trying to convey. — Janus

So let's try something. interpret this for me. What is the special hidden meaning here

1 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. 14 He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. 16 He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

Because no text is understood just by reading the words. — Agustino

So if I write "The cat is black and was a year old when she had kittens" you would not be able to understand it just by reading the text?

Of course your brain would understand it once it was processed. It means exactly what it says.

So when it says in the bible that "Mary was a virgin when she had a baby" your brain would process it and it too would mean exactly what it says.

So why should everything else be a mystery that has to be unraveled before it can be understood?

So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world.” — Matthew 13:35

parable; a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels

10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.
13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.
17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.
18 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means:
And he goes on to explain.

Keeping things in context helps understanding.

Jesus was talking about things that ordinary everyday people might not understand. Complicated explanations would not have worked so he used parables to place the ideas into to day to day situations that the people could relate to.

But did he ever transmit any super secret information through them? He used parables to make sure that nothing was hidden.

Science is a tool, technology is what we use that tool for, philosophy is the thinking that guides them along the path.

"The truth is that all Christians have believed this to be so, so whether it's actually true, it certainly isn't "only my opinion"

I was not addressing the rest of the christians or I would have included them as well. And as far as I know there is no such thing as a group opinion, only a group with the same opinion.

"You think this understanding what it says is a straightforward matter that involves just reading the words."

And just how do you know this not to be true? Do you have access to some secret bible readers manual that the rest of us have been denied a chance to see? Just where does it say anywhere that the bible has hidden things or ways to interpret the writings of long dead people?

"That's your non-expert opinion ;) - to adopt one of your favorite tropes X-)"

Have I ever actually ever used that phrase? Don't think so, but I do like it.

Please name one person that has had the right to call him/herself an expert on the meaning of the bible. But let's apply a couple of conditions that could be applied to anyone trying to verify a work of art.

1. Has had direct access no the original writings of the people that are supposed to have written the bible. Including non biblical writings to act as benchmarks for style and so on.
2. Has been allowed to review the writings that were either removed from the bible or are contemporary, and of similar content to it and not allowed to be included.
3. Has been allowed to review historical, psychological, personality, educational records of those writers to try to deduce veracity of their existence and competence to write the book of a god.
4. Someone that has not been trained by someone that does not have the above.

Primordial soup

Blame that one on Heinz.

I just automatically came up with that quip after reading BitterCranks post.

Nothing to do with the price of matzo ball soup

I am have problems with the quote function again. Last time after a couple of days it went away, but now it seems as though it is here to stay.

I can select the text and the quote button appears but in the right hand upper corner. When I click on it nothings happens.

Anyone got any ideas how to fix it?

Ahh, the chutzpah, the effrontery, the gall, the delusions of grandeur...

Don't try to tell me that you could not at least keep the oceans clean if you had his "POWERS". Anyone could.

And I am not delusional, I just know how fucking great I am. >:)

Makes you want to read Joseph Campbell!

Is he the soup guy? X-)

Parts of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers were probably the oldest parts. They may have been written by Israelite and Judahite priests stitching together both region's traditions

Several African origins myths are almost exactly like genesis, and hundreds if not thousands of years earlier.

However, the Biblical text is revelatory - its aim is to reveal many things that are hidden.

This is only your opinion of what the bible is, how you interpret it. Personally I think the bible means to say exactly what it says and anything you add to it as "meaning" is actually a corruption of the original writing. Not that I actually believe a word of it.

People that try to find hidden meaning in things can be found by the dozen in museums, looking at the paintings of long dead artists and telling anyone that will listen what the paint was actually trying to express in the work. They have not got a bloody clue either.

Do you think you could do any better with no experience of the job?

The last bloody thing I would want would to be a god. But I would bet that given his supposed powers I could probably do better.

If it wasn't the valid word of God, then there wouldn't be any reason to struggle to get it right for 3,000 years.

If it was the valid word of some god, don't you think he would have made it absolutely obvious what he wanted from us and for us instead of letting a bunch of ignorant, illiterate barely out of monkey stage goons decide what it meant for him?

The funny thing about the bible is that the only people that even bother to discuss its meaning are the ones that believe it to be the word of god, and by doing so call into dispute its validity and his all-mightiness.
Who in his right mind would follow a god that could not even speak clearly enough so that his words would be completely and clearly understood. A god that leaves his followers in a daze about what he meant should be disqualified as a god for incompetence.

I was listening to an online radio yesterday, they played hours of music from '65 and '66.
I remembered my first days in New Orleans, late '65 when they played "Desolation Row" by Bob Dylan.
I was an almost 12 year old from England that had only ever seen a few people with dark skin, and most of them were Indians or Pakistanis. Lots of things came as a shock to me and in my ignorance / innocence I made some mistakes. Looking back, some were funny others not so.

There was a sign on a laundromat door "whites only". "Mom, we cannot wash my trousers here"

There was a separated coffee bar for colored people in the supermarket. "Why can't I have a coke?"

I stood up to let a lady sit down on a bus and she got scared and moved away from me. She was black.

Once I accepted and loved myself almost unconditionally

I like how you put the "almost" in there. I think that one has to put some conditions on loving oneself, other wise I would be happy to accept myself in any condition even if I know it is wrong for me.
I have to be happy with myself before I can love me.

Just mix in something about politics and race and you'll get a nice FB discussion going.

There is no way giving this kind of advise is going to get you the last word. :-|

Do you think it is a necessity to wish good for the person you love (unconditionally) to claim that you love that person?

But why would anyone not wish good for the person they love?
And yes, the unconditional part is bullshit, never can happen, is impossible for a sane person.

Each step would represent a boundary breach of the step before. — MikeL

Each level represents a boundary that has to be breached. The top level is where you get to be creative.

I don't really think these represent the boundary breaches I had in mind although the triangular shape is appropriate. — MikeL

If you look at this as a step up sort of process then it is as if you are breaking a boundary. You cannot do anything in the level above you if you have not completed the level below and the one you are on.

It seems as though you are going along the line of Maslow.

Talking about weather forecasting and me saying that some hurricanes are starting to go south.

Check out the track on this one.

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/atlantic/2017/hurricane-jose