How Much Wiggle Room Does A Literal Bible Reading Allow

[David Sklansky]

Many theists claim the bible is allegorical. Perhaps the Adam and Eve story is meant to describe the point at which humans became self aware. That kind of thing. A few take it perfectly litererally. Others like Not Ready take it literally except for passages he considers obvious figures of speech. This apparently allows him to accept, among other things that Genesis is not exactly as written and even that evolution is true as long as God is directing it.

So I'm just curious how far away from the exact words a theist can stray without invoking the allegory excuse.

[BluffTHIS!]

There are a couple important related questions for any believers who answer:

1) Is it *all* to be taken literally, or is it a mix?

2) If it's a mix, who/what is the authentic interpreter of same in cases where there are obviously differing interpretations of the same passage?

[godBoy]

This question is impossible to answer 'safely' but I don't mind sharing my opinion on the matter.

I believe each person is free to interpret scripture for themselves and I don't think any person knows exactly what 'the truth' is entirely. When people come together and throw around religious ideas, the false beliefs are sifted from the truths.
So I think the truth will eventually win out.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This question is impossible to answer 'safely' but I don't mind sharing my opinion on the matter.

I believe each person is free to interpret scripture for themselves and I don't think any person knows exactly what 'the truth' is entirely. When people come together and throw around religious ideas, the false beliefs are sifted from the truths.
So I think the truth will eventually win out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are right there godboy. Just make sure that there are enough atheists and skeptics in your group to ensure false beliefs are sifted! Otherwise you will only get fairy floss, of different flavors for sure, but still fairy floss.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
When people come together and throw around religious ideas, the false beliefs are sifted from the truths.
So I think the truth will eventually win out.

[/ QUOTE ]

For centuries, geocentrism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism) was considered the "truth" by certain sects of Christianity based on scripture. So it apparently may take a very long time for the truth to "win out" as you say. How do you know your interpretation of the scripture will not be generally accepted as false hundreds of years from now?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm just curious how far away from the exact words a theist can stray without invoking the allegory excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally I don't really see what the big deal is. I mean, what does it matter about the beginning of the universe? The way I see it the bible has some really good advice that will help you have a better life, covering things like money, diet, relationships, etc., things you actually have to decide about every day.

I mean if you want to talk about adam/eve and what that has to do with my life, I would in all seriousness say that it just confirms my life experience that women can't really be trusted despite the level of intimacy you have with them. But I don't really think/can't say that that is the point of the story.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a couple important related questions for any believers who answer:

1) Is it *all* to be taken literally, or is it a mix?

2) If it's a mix, who/what is the authentic interpreter of same in cases where there are obviously differing interpretations of the same passage?

[/ QUOTE ]

And what of non-believers that answer?

Note that someone has already stated that each person can interpret the bible as they see fit - Which leads us to the ignorance and imbecility evident at any tin-plated revival down by the railroad tracks and the caterwauling charlatans that seduce the morons in attendance with their own interpretation of holy writ. This is a great evil that the Protestants have yet to eliminate from their fold. Fortunately, Catholics, at least currently, are mostly spared this ugliness and Catholicism presents a civilized veneer for public consumption.

I hope you not trying to get things set up so you can waltz out that quack Thomas Aquinas. I sent that jackass back down his rabbit hole in another thread and it would not be wise to try and resurrect him. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

-Zeno

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Fortunately, Catholics, at least currently, are mostly spared this ugliness and Catholicism presents a civilized veneer for public consumption.

I hope you not trying to get things set up so you can waltz out that quack Thomas Aquinas. I sent that jackass back down his rabbit hole in another thread and it would not be wise to try and resurrect him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aquinas=Philosopher of the Catholic Church by Papal decree. I suppose that when the Catholic Church attempts to spread this "civilized veneer" the word goes out quietly to its disassociate itself from Aquinas.LOL.

You throw you lamp, pens and pencils. I expect that next you'll throw your desk or at least your chair but it ain't real and indeed a jackass is a jackass.

[Skoob]

Just ask a Jehova Witness next time they knock on your door. That is the founding basis of their religion, the bible is taken very literally.

[bluesbassman]

A theist will "interpret" the bible as allegorical in (approximate) proportion to how rational he or she is.

Thus a 100% rational person will consider the bible to be a mythological work which contains (at best) valid moral teachings. (Note the converse is obviously not true--namely that if a person rejects the bible as true it implies he is rational.) A biblical literalist, by contrast, is profoundly irrational.

I would guess most theists (in the non-Muslim West) fall somewhere in between these two endpoints.

[PairTheBoard]

I'm not sure a strictly "literal" reading is even possible. Words do not have precise definitions. Any attempt at a strictly literal reading would quickly degenerate into complete nonsense. This is not just a problem with reading the Bible but with Interpretation in general. Even with the attempts to use legal terms precisely we spend billions each year paying people to interpret the Law in Courts.

There is a serious Theory of Interpretation in general called Hermeneutics, which you can read about here:

Hermenuetics - Theory of Interpretaion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics#Hermeneutic_circle)

Even applying the reasonable methods of Hermaneutics to glean meaning, the Post Modernist view observes,

From the Link:
[ QUOTE ]
"All meaning systems are open-ended systems of signs referring to signs referring to signs. No concept can therefore have an ultimate, unequivocal meaning"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I concentrate on the Spirit rather than the doctrines. The doctrines are dead words, limited by language and without the capacity for ultimate, unequivocal meaning. The Spirit is Living and something I can experience intimately in a way language can never fully describe.

PairTheBoard

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Just ask a Jehova Witness next time they knock on your door. That is the founding basis of their religion, the bible is taken very literally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok funny story, JW guy and his wife, both old, come to my door and I invite them in and chat for a while cause at the time I had just discovered the bible.
We argue (nicely) about things like whether you should eat animal fat since it is clearly prohibited in the bible. I say it is still prohibited and he says no its not jesus nailed to cross etc.

they don't come by for a while and when they do the guy says he hasnt been by cause he had a heart attack. LOL.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I concentrate on the Spirit rather than the doctrines. The doctrines are dead words, limited by language and without the capacity for ultimate, unequivocal meaning. The Spirit is Living and something I can experience intimately in a way language can never fully describe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this your way of saying it's ok for you to f your neighbor's wife? lol, jk.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]

Just ask a Jehova Witness next time they knock on your door. That is the founding basis of their religion, the bible is taken very literally.


[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif Wasn't criticizing the Catholic Church but taking issue with Zeno in which he gives some credit to the Catholic Church and then demeans its forthright philosopher with puerile epithets. Some perverse contradiction in his meanderings of empty bellicosity.

[bunny]

To the OP it seems a literal bible reading can accomodate anything, given a willingness to insert additional facts or just deny scientific evidence. After all, they can always just say "God made it look like the bible was wrong to test our faith. But it isnt."

To BluffThis:
[ QUOTE ]
There are a couple important related questions for any believers who answer:

1) Is it *all* to be taken literally, or is it a mix?

[/ QUOTE ]
It cant all be taken literally because a literal interpretation doesnt accord with what we have discovered about the world scientifically.

[ QUOTE ]
2) If it's a mix, who/what is the authentic interpreter of same in cases where there are obviously differing interpretations of the same passage?

[/ QUOTE ]
God.

[bigpooch]

To many of the "faithful", the authentic interpreter is the
Holy Spirit, so according to them, you are "correct". On
the other hand, one can never be too far off if making an
honest attempt to understand what the author(s) thought and
what his intentions were - i.e., "What did the author intend
to say?" To that end, it makes sense to read any text,
whether it be Holy Writ or anything else, in context.

Then, obviously, the literal interpretation is "correct"
when it coincides with what the author originally wanted to
convey. With biblical text, sometimes the literal
interpretation isn't very important, but rather the moral
lesson.

The point of reading the bible isn't to dissect the meaning
of every single Hebrew or Greek letter, word, verse or even
passage; the bible is to be regarded as moral teaching and
challenges everyone. For example, the Sermon on the Mount
will continue to challenge "believers".

Of course, to the "faithful", Holy Writ is more than mere
text, and many believe that within it, there is a "word"
spoken from God. Rather than say the bible is the literal
"word of God", it's more accurate to say that the "faithful"
believe that within the bible, God speaks.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
How Much Wiggle Room Does A Literal Bible Reading Allow

[/ QUOTE ]


Aside from the original issues raised in the post there are other considerations to add, one of paramount importance is simply - From which Christain Bible are individuals reading and what does it mean to them. For an interesting example of where this all can lead see here:

True Catholic (http://www.truecatholic.org/protbibletexts.htm)


It is also always useful to get an outside perspective. In that vein see this website that outlines the development of the Christain Biblical Canon: The Islamic View (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/)

From the above website:

"Honest readers will conclude that it requires no stretch of the imagination nor any excercise of lofty reasoning to acknowledge some very serious problems in what Christians call "The Word of God".


"It is our aim here to educate the Muslims about the evolution of Biblical Canon and to show that in the absence of any agreed set of books as "inspired" and the reasons of why they can be considered as "inspired", there is simply no reason to believe they are "inspired". Putting it quite succintly: one man's scripture is another man's apocrypha."


Sometimes even infidels can be rational.

For more details on just the New Testament: Evolution of the New Testament Canon (http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/canonlists.html#5)

The above links have much information for everyone's enjoyment. Take your time and browse about to get a full dose of pleasure and true enlightenment.


Holy Christian writ varies over the globe, and from church to church. Perhaps this fundamentally makes no difference to the central message of Christianity but it certainly is curious that God directed the building of His Holy Book in so haphazard a manner. Why did not God simple dictate his Holy Words to Dr. Sklansky and have him dispense it to us lesser mortals as a single voice? It would have saved so much contention and provided a much more efficient vehicle for the dispensation of the Gospel.

Obviously, God works in mysterious ways.

-Zeno

[David Sklansky]

It sounds like you are saying that Not Ready's answer "I can read" to my question "What qualifications do you have that allows you to be so sure of God's thoughts on these matters when so many disagree?", is not the last word on the subject.

[PairTheBoard]

When I said that a strictly literal reading would quickly degenerate into nonsense, I only had to open the Bible at random to come up with an example:

Jeremiah 50:6
-------------
"My people have been lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray and caused them to roam on the mountains. They wandered over mountain and hill and forgot their own resting place."
-------------

In a strictly literal reading, we would have to believe that Jeremiah's people actually became Sheep. That's literal. They had four legs and wool grew on their bodies. They actually roamed on the mountains. That's literal. It's nonsense, but that's what a strictly literal reading of the Bible would yield.

PairTheBoard

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
A theist will "interpret" the bible as allegorical in (approximate) proportion to how rational he or she is.

Thus a 100% rational person will consider the bible to be a mythological work which contains (at best) valid moral teachings. (Note the converse is obviously not true--namely that if a person rejects the bible as true it implies he is rational.) A biblical literalist, by contrast, is profoundly irrational.

I would guess most theists (in the non-Muslim West) fall somewhere in between these two endpoints.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is almost certainly false. The Bible contains historical events, so it certainly isn't all mythological. Therefore, a 100% rational person (not sure what you mean by 100%, but we'll go with it) should believe that at least some parts of the Bible are fact or are based on factual events. The most irrational people will dismiss ALL of the Bible as fiction or mythology, unless they know something that historians do not.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

For centuries, geocentrism was considered the "truth" by certain sects of Christianity based on scripture.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just read the first couple of sentences of this link and it confirmed what I was already pretty sure of. Geocentrism from the Greeks to Galileo was mostly based on secular science, mainly Aristotle and Ptolomy - there's nothing in the Bible that requires this belief. Today there are a few fringe Christians who hold to this but it has never been a teaching of mainstream Christianity since Galileo.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So I'm just curious how far away from the exact words a theist can stray without invoking the allegory excuse.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible itself doesn't give any strict rules of interpretation. So any system isn't itself inspired. Thus it is theology.

The New Testament reports several incidents where interpretations were questioned and warns against "disputes about words", so the problem of interpretation has always been there.

I've said it before, but Eve, before she sinned, misinterpreted a very simple command of God. So it shouldn't be suprising that there are disagreements about interpretation.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible itself doesn't give any strict rules of interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]
you may be right but the bible says
a) it is of no private interpretation
b) the bible is written so most people will not understand it

so it seems to me you might also be wrong.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I've said it before, but Eve, before she sinned, misinterpreted a very simple command of God. So it shouldn't be suprising that there are disagreements about interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aaaaah! It is all Eve's fault. Women, duh! lol


I love your interpretation as an example of "wrong" interpretation!

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you are saying that Not Ready's answer "I can read" to my question "What qualifications do you have that allows you to be so sure of God's thoughts on these matters when so many disagree?", is not the last word on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT


PairTheBoard

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible itself doesn't give any strict rules of interpretation. So any system isn't itself inspired. Thus it is theology.

The New Testament reports several incidents where interpretations were questioned and warns against "disputes about words", so the problem of interpretation has always been there.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Jesus, after having spent 3 years teaching his apostles and disciples, about fundamental theology having to do with salvation and about which there are many differing interpretations among denominations today, for some uknown reason, then failed to insure that the one and only correct interpretation on those fundamental teachings would exist in succeeding centuries in the same place? As opposed of course to being dispersed among the several denominations.

For if that is the case, then it means, contrary to scripture, that God's word be rendered void in part. How can we believe the Bible when it says the truth will set us free, if there isn't an authentic interpreter to insure that truth is known?




[ QUOTE ]
I've said it before, but Eve, before she sinned, misinterpreted a very simple command of God.

[/ QUOTE ]


So now you're an apologist for Eve's sins? She didn't misinterpret anything. She chose pride before God's law, and that led to her being deceived by the serpent.

[carlo]

It seems that many here are demanding strict rules of life, thought and appreciation. On the one hand dogma is denied because of its innate restrictions and conversly individual considerations of these matters is denied because they retort"who is right?". The second person is accused of immodesty.

The "wiggle room" appears to be individually manifested for the thought of some "storm trooper of thought" demanding subjection is difficult for most but not all of men. So what's the deal here?

The deal is that mankind gains insight into his condition(future and past) and the Bible is a way of comprehension of this future and past. One does not have to comprehend this tome intellectually in order to come to these truths. The beauty and relevance of Christianity is that all men can come to grips with it no matter what their station in life. Elitists, power seekers,academics, bus drivers, beggers on the street, all come to this way not because of some impramatur but by the presence of Christ in each soul in his journey through life.

A few years ago I was reading a stock market analyst/guru(well known-don't remember the name) who in his weekly paper discussed other matters(political,etc.) of interest. He made a statement to the effect that the difficulties in our world will never be alleviated until the individual natures of each individual man is changed. At that time I was taken aback for I could not comprehend how this was possible and my thinking was blocked. He gave no details but I'm sure he came to this intellectually and in a sense it was really a somber view of the human condition.

So how does one change/recreate the individual human without impramatur? That's the Christ Impulse present in all men. Mankind has a way to go, the chips are definitely not counted. Deal the next hand.

The "Ego" or "I" of human beings will work its way into the future as selfless because that is what they want. One day the human being will reach this pinnacle of development and at the same time selflessly grasp the spirit of community.(paraphrase from "The Promise of the Spirit of Truth" Steiner lecture-Cologne-March 8, 1907).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Just ask a Jehova Witness next time they knock on your door. That is the founding basis of their religion, the bible is taken very literally.


[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif Wasn't criticizing the Catholic Church but taking issue with Zeno in which he gives some credit to the Catholic Church and then demeans its forthright philosopher with puerile epithets. Some perverse contradiction in his meanderings of empty bellicosity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he was lauding the Catholic Church.