because it is not an interpretation to say that the aforementioned countries are not in the Bible. It is, instead just a brute fact. And that brute fact, by itself, refutes Nietzsche's aforementioned famous phrase. — Arcane Sandwich

But, by fact do you mean Truth? Because I think that's up to interpretation. And, if fact and Truth are not the same, what is the difference? Does Truth even deal in difference?

Arcane Sandwich was banned.

sorry to hear that. Thank you

It is, instead just a brute fact. — Arcane Sandwich

That's not what a brute fact means in philosophy. A brute fact isn't just "a fact we can confirm". A brute fact is a fact you can't explain with deeper more fundamental facts.

We can explain why the bible doesn't mention those places. Simply, the civilizations that produced the bible didn't know about them.

One can still interpret that his/her country somehow appears in the Bible. — Zebeden

"Confabulate" would be a better term.

He was unfortunately banned.

Dang, didn't think mistaking what a brute fact was is ban worthy.

A brute fact is a fact you can't explain with deeper more fundamental facts. — flannel jesus

It would be better to say that a brute fact does not have any further explanation.

it's not just that the explanation is not available to us, but that things just are that way.

Don't worry - there was more involved in banning Sandwich. You are safe.

i was merely jesting. what was the reason?

It is a fact that the United States of America is not in the Bible. — Arcane Sandwich

Babylon (OT).

Rome (NT).

Jesus was not mentioned in Genesis. It was written well before his birth, yet he is found throughout it for those looking. https://www.pursuegod.org/jig/

Whether there is a turtle riding a horse in the clouds in the sky depends upon what your purpose is for cloud gazing. Are you looking for inspiration or are you trying to figure out if it's going to rain? I would think if the former, you wouldn't ask a meteorologist what's in the clouds, nor do I think you would be confused as to the different ways clouds might be interpreted.

One could believe the clouds hold inspiration and precipitation simultaneously without being troubled by the fact that they hold those two things in very different ways.

For secular or non-religious citizens the absence is irrelevant. The Bible's historical context is understood to reflect the geopolitical realities of its time, rather than a limitation on its moral or cultural significance.

I saw this thread title today, the day after I saw the (absolutely wonderful) play/musical The Book of Mormon. Serendipitous perhaps.

Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to be another testament of Jesus Christ. North and South America are central to this new New Testament.

There are no facts, there are only interpretations — Arcane Sandwich

I dont give a fuck if AS(s) Boy isn't even here... heres the facts. WHO THE FUCK SAID THERE ARE NO FACTS ONLY INTERPRETATION? Nietzsche said there are no MORAL FACTS ONLY MORAL INTERPRETATION OF PHENOMENON...

When you're a retard who doesn't read Nietzsche, perhaps you shouldn't comment on trying to refute Nietzsche. There's a reaaon Ole boy AS was posting 33 times a day... Nietzsche spells it out: Powerlessness.

I swear, middling fuck wits thinking they know something...

My leading doctrine is this: there are no moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena. The origin of this interpretation itself lies beyond the pale of morality. — Nietzsche, WtP

We can see Nietzsche discusses this very concept as early as HATH (Aphorism 2), all the way to Ecce Homo and Antichrist... Which even Peter Gast gets right in WtP...

"I hate Nietzsche, so I want to try and refute something Nietzsche doesn't even say." 99% of "Bannos/Low calibre Russels" in the world.

Though, I suppose if you fancy a shit interpretation... don't be surprised when you end up covered in the shit of your own poor interpretation.

This is why the first new world religion spawned in the New World, Latter Day Saintism, fixes this problem with the Book of Mormon.

Just a quibble but you're misusing the term "brute facts", at least as used by Anscombe and Searle. For Anscombe, a brute fact is a fact that cannot be explained, e.g. photons are massless particles, and for Searle brute facts are contrasted with other kinds of facts like institutional facts, e.g. it is a brute fact that the Earth exists but an institutional fact that Germany (as a nation) exists.

Did you know that the Mormon religion, founded in the United States, actually believes that Jesus Christ visited America on a spiritual plane? — Wayfarer

Here's another retro-edit placing a non-biblical country into the biblical narrative. You have mentioned this, but for others...

Jerusalem
source: William Blake

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold:
Bring me my Chariot of fire!

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.

contrary to Nietzsche's famous phrase (to wit: "There are no facts, there are only interpretations") — Arcane Sandwich

Are you more interested in the absence of Kenya, the US, or Mongolia in the Bible, or Nietzsche's denial of facts? Seems like the latter, since there wasn't any reason for biblical authors to mention places that didn't figure into the narrative. It seems like a non-issue to me.

Nietzsche was ahead of his time, I suppose--no facts, just opinions.

Consider this:

"An example of the second class of prophetic figures is found in Proverbs (vii. 6–26):—“For at the window of my house I looked through my casement, and beheld among the simple ones; I discerned among the youths a young man void of understanding, passing through the street near her corner: and he went the way to her house, in the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night: and, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of a harlot, and subtil of heart. (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: now she is without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait in every corner.) So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him, I have peace offerings with me; this day have I paid my vows. Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee. I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with striped cloths of the yarn of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves. For the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey: he hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed. With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as fetters to the correction of a fool: till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life. Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her.”

The general principle expounded in all these verses is to abstain from excessive indulgence in bodily pleasures. The author compares the body, which is the source of all sensual pleasures, to a married woman who at the same time is a harlot. And this figure he has taken as the basis of his entire book. We shall hereafter show the wisdom of Solomon in comparing sensual pleasures to an adulterous harlot. We shall explain how aptly he concludes that work with the praises of a faithful wife who devotes herself to the welfare of her husband and of her household. All obstacles which prevent man from attaining his highest aim in life, all the deficiencies in the character of man, all his evil propensities, are to be traced to the body alone. This will be explained later on. The predominant idea running throughout the figure is that man shall not be entirely guided by his animal, or material nature; for the material substance of man is identical with that of the brute creation.[8]

An adequate explanation of the figure having been given, and its meaning having been shown, do not imagine that you will find in its application a corresponding element for each part of the figure; you must not ask what is meant by “I have peace offerings with me” (ver. 14); by “I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry” (ver. 16); or what is added to the force of the figure by the observation “for the goodman is not at home” (ver. 19), and so on to the end of the chapter. For all this is merely to complete the illustration of the metaphor in its literal meaning. The circumstances described here are such as are common to adulterers. Such conversations take place between all adulterous persons. You must well understand what I have said, for it is a principle of the utmost importance with respect to those things which I intend to expound. If you observe in one of the chapters that I explained the meaning of a certain figure, and pointed out to you its general scope, do not trouble yourself further in order to find an interpretation of each separate portion, for that would lead you to one of the two following erroneous courses; either you will miss the sense included in the metaphor, or you will be induced to explain certain things which require no explanation, and which are not introduced for that purpose. Through this unnecessary trouble you may fall into the great error which besets most modern sects in their foolish writings and discussions; they all endeavour to find some hidden meaning in expressions which were never uttered by the author in that sense. Your object should be to discover in most of the figures the general idea which the author wishes to express. In some instances it will be sufficient if you understand from my remarks that a certain expression contains a figure, although I may offer no further comment. For when you know that it is not to be taken literally, you will understand at once to what subject it refers. My statement that it is a figurative expression will, as it were, remove the screen from between the object and the observer." Maimonides, 1190.

That is, focusing upon the literal in a work meant as metaphorical misses the point. So, no, it does not matter that America is not mentioned in the Bible, nor does it matter that the earth never flooded nor the sea never parted.

Yes. Rather a beautiful piece, for a hymn. (Incidentally, Acane Sandwich was banned after a brief but frenetic membership around a year ago.)

When Jesus spoke about the end of the world, I think he refers to the whole world, everywhere. In this sense, every part of the world is in The Bible.