Biblical Literalism

[DanielBenoit]

(NOTE: Before we begin this discussion, I would like to beg on my hands and knees for this discussion NOT to become another one of those stupid theist vs. atheist or creationist vs. evolution discussions. I would like us to stay on topic, and if anybody has something they want to rant about, they may go to another thread, for there certainly are plenty.)

Okay so I was in a debate with an acquaintance of mine who was arguing that the Bible as a whole is one complete and comprehensive work written by multiple people of course, but who were all merely writers for the ventriloquist, God, who was speaking through them. Not only that, but everything in the Bible is quite literal and is subject to only one interpretation, for (to paraphrase it), "the Words reveals itself in the text". (deconstructionists squirm)

My acquaintance claims to be an expert on the Bible and the literature within it, and yet rejects Biblical scholarship completely.

Now I think that there is a terrible misconception amongst people in how they view texts, especially religious or ancient texts which can be highly ambiguous in our age in our different language forms.

Just consider all of the possible interpretations of John 1:1 or of any number of Biblical stories from the Old and New Testament. It is pretty much a common fact that the two testaments of the Bible, particularly the Old one were indeed not conceived as a whole until much much later. The writers of Genesis were not thinking about what would come up later in the book of Daniel at all because they are in essence completely different texts, split apart by hundreds of years. Instead of looking at the Bible as a book, it should be seen as a series of texts (often fragmentary) brought together and pasted into one single volume.

Rejecting literary approaches (no matter what your beliefs) to the Bible is to miss out on a lot of insight that can be gained from Biblical scholarship. I know that it is a bad word here on litnet but Harold Bloom wrote a wonderful analysis of one of the particular writers responsible for the most memorable parts of the Torah, one of four of them, she is called the Jawhist source (see Documentary Hypothesis). Now Bloom does make some grand assumptions about J, taking his speculations that J is a women and her metaphysical views a little bit for granted, but he provides a wonderful new perspective on the stories of Genesis and Exodus, revealing the parts J supposedly wrote to be "Kafkaesque" works of literature 2600 years before Kafka.

There are of course many excellent studies about the Bible and its many many writers from scholars such as Frye to Friedman to Thompson (don't know much about the latter).

Anyway, I believe that many Biblical literalists, even though they may not be intellectuals, are being intellectually dishonest and even pretentious when they make literal claim to the Bible based on their own personal reading while rejecting hundreds of years of Biblical scholarship altogether.

Approaching the Bible from a literary point of view does not make you an atheist nor does it make you a Bible-thumping evangelist. It only makes you a curious intellectual with a great yearning and respect for this great literary canon which is indeed among the greatest writings the world has ever seen.

[DanielBenoit]

Let me make a note and say that I do not wish to imply that the belief that "God was speaking through them" to be erroneous. I find it just as valid as when one could say that God was speaking through Mozart or Shakespeare.

[Virgil]

My view is that the Bible was written by individuals in a particular time and place and a context, and they were inspired by God, not a "ventriloquist" for God. Because the works have been translated by a single voice, we lose sight that they each had their individual voices. I have read commentary of the writing styles of each of the writers. Yes, the Bible can be read as literature as well.

[DanielBenoit]

My view is that the Bible was written by individuals in a particular time and place and a context, and they were inspired by God, not a "ventriloquist" for God. Because the works have been translated by a single voice, we lose sight that they each had their individual voices. I have read commentary of the writing styles of each of the writers. Yes, the Bible can be read as literature as well.

Well said and it is indeed true that these multiple voices are somewhat lost in translation, but I do indeed think that the KJV (the most poetic and best translation let's admit it people) has pertained much of the original Hebrew and Greek syntax, sounds and voices of the individual authors. There would indeed be no such thing as Biblical Source criticism if scholars didn't detect the multiple voices in the Torah.

That said, I'm sure the Hebrew text is rather different at times from the KJV, but from what I've read, while its translation of content and sometimes tone is not always there, the musicality seems to come through well, and maybe was even added (for I have heard it claimed by some Hebrew readers of the Tanakh that the KJV is indeed better literature than the Hebrew text).

EDIT: I feel a little hesitant about my statements comparing the Hebrew and Greek versions of the Testaments to the KJV as I have not read the former two so anyone can correct me on any assumptions I've made.

[OrphanPip]

My understanding is that Biblical literalism (in the sense of taking everything in the Bible to be literal truth) is a rather minority opinion even amongst major Christian sects.

[DanielBenoit]

My understanding is that Biblical literalism (in the sense of taking everything in the Bible to be literal truth) is a rather minority opinion even amongst major Christian sects.

Well it's certainly growing here in America.

[OrphanPip]

Ya it seems to be a sad event today that people are drawing away from moderate forms of Christianity and heading towards fundamentalism.

Edit: I retain my fanatical devotion for celebrities and Craig Venter.

[Lokasenna]

My understanding is that Biblical literalism (in the sense of taking everything in the Bible to be literal truth) is a rather minority opinion even amongst major Christian sects.

It's a view that's stood the Church of England in good stead for quite some time now. I think that most Christians and scholars would agree that it was written by well-intentioned, but ultimately fallible human beings. Is that God speaking through them? Well, who can say... but I think the generally disorganised nature of Christian spiritual writings (think of all the contradictions one finds in the Bible, and then there's the apocrypha to consider) would suggest not.

Then, of course, from an academic standpoint there is the fact that Christian mythology shares many similar stories with other religions: a great flood of some kind, a god who dies and is resurrected, an apocalypse, a god who suffers torment for the greater good, a dark 'other' figure who represents destruction e.t.c. It is very hard to work out who has influenced who...

[Dodo25]

40% of Americans believe that evolution is wrong. 20% are undecided (or don't understand the question). Out of this improperly educated majority, a still significant minority places 'creation' less than 10'000 years ago.

Biblical literalism is a huge movement in the US. Fortunately, not even 'biblical literalists' take the whole bible literally, otherwise we'd have public stonings and more misogyny. The only thing in which America differs from Saudi Arabia is that the Enlightenment did have an impact, and even though people try to fight it, some of the values are now tradition.

The whole idea of taking the bible literally is absurd in the highest degree, even 'biblical moderatism' is absurd. Whether one believes in a god or not, the bible should make it quite apparent that it is not inspired by such a being.

Why? If the bible was inspired by a perfect being, why does it read like a book that was written in the bronze/iron age? The OT is comparable to Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'. Genocide everywhere, intolerance towards homosexuals, cruel rules enforced by stoning etc.. The NT, apart from some nice stuff like i.e. sermon of the mount, supports slavery and emphasizes the importance of the rules from the OT.

"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
2 Timothy 3:16

Not the KJ version, I've always wondered why people think that a translation that was written primarily to grant absolutist reign to a king should be more accurate than the Hebrew and Ancient Greek itself.

Anyway, is the bible really the moral and scientific high standard of our species? Are the ten commandments really the most important rules?

Some of them just give more justifications to stoning other people for worshiping different gods or for worshiping God through idols. Do we need more reasons to kill each other?

And the 'science' in the bible is of course a huge joke. Who would expect anything else from a bronze age tribe? Ah never mind, they actually do..

Curiously enough, people don't see anything wrong with all of this. Today, certain Hindu gurus have accounts from hundreds of eye witnesses and millions of followers for performing pretty much the same kind of miracles Jesus 'did'.

Now, Christians comfortably ignore all of this (as do sketics). However, Christians somehow think miracle stories become especially convincing if they are written in a pre-scientific time by non-eye-witnesses seventy or more years after the actual events. Are you kidding me??

The biblical literalists are at least sincere in their beliefs and honest to themselves. What the moderates do can IMO just be explained by complacency and cognitive dissonance. Either they have no clue what stands in the holy book, or they make mental gymnastics trying to rationalize all the weird and atrocious stuff.

[Gladys]

Rejecting literary approaches (no matter what your beliefs) to the Bible is to miss out on a lot of insight that can be gained from Biblical scholarship.

If the text of the Bible is not literature, what is it and how are we to understand it?

Is the Bible intended as a supernatural vehicle for direct communication from God to each individual rather than the body of work of a particular culture or people, written over a millennium? Or is scripture some strange amalgam of the two? If the former, does the Bible itself so dictate?

[DanielBenoit]

It's a view that's stood the Church of England in good stead for quite some time now. I think that most Christians and scholars would agree that it was written by well-intentioned, but ultimately fallible human beings. Is that God speaking through them? Well, who can say... but I think the generally disorganised nature of Christian spiritual writings (think of all the contradictions one finds in the Bible, and then there's the apocrypha to consider) would suggest not.

Then, of course, from an academic standpoint there is the fact that Christian mythology shares many similar stories with other religions: a great flood of some kind, a god who dies and is resurrected, an apocalypse, a god who suffers torment for the greater good, a dark 'other' figure who represents destruction e.t.c. It is very hard to work out who has influenced who...

Exactly. I also dislike how due to the ongrowing hostility towards Muslims in this country that people are just signing Islam off as this weirdo religion that just wants to kill all Americans and has nothing in common with Christianity or Judism.

And while I am very far from being a fan of the current social order of the Islamic world in the Mid-East, the religion itself did indeed arise out of Judean texts and traditions and the whole Qu'ran is basically a retelling of the stories of the Old Testament with Mohammad's interpretation added in; hardly different from how Chrisitians interpret the Old Testament.



Why? If the bible was inspired by a perfect being, why does it read like a book that was written in the bronze/iron age? The OT is comparable to Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'. Genocide everywhere, intolerance towards homosexuals, cruel rules enforced by stoning etc.. The NT, apart from some nice stuff like i.e. sermon of the mount, supports slavery and emphasizes the importance of the rules from the OT.

"All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
2 Timothy 3:16

Not the KJ version, I've always wondered why people think that a translation that was written primarily to grant absolutist reign to a king should be more accurate than the Hebrew and Ancient Greek itself.

Anyway, is the bible really the moral and scientific high standard of our species? Are the ten commandments really the most important rules?

Some of them just give more justifications to stoning other people for worshiping different gods or for worshiping God through idols. Do we need more reasons to kill each other?

And the 'science' in the bible is of course a huge joke. Who would expect anything else from a bronze age tribe? Ah never mind, they actually do..

Curiously enough, people don't see anything wrong with all of this. Today, certain Hindu gurus have accounts from hundreds of eye witnesses and millions of followers for performing pretty much the same kind of miracles Jesus 'did'.

Now, Christians comfortably ignore all of this (as do sketics). However, Christians somehow think miracle stories become especially convincing if they are written in a pre-scientific time by non-eye-witnesses seventy or more years after the actual events. Are you kidding me??

The biblical literalists are at least sincere in their beliefs and honest to themselves. What the moderates do can IMO just be explained by complacency and cognitive dissonance. Either they have no clue what stands in the holy book, or they make mental gymnastics trying to rationalize all the weird and atrocious stuff.

I totally agree with you. I think it needs to be realized that the Bible itself as a complete text is not some kind of inherent spiritual Word of God, since so much of it is contradictory and ambiguous. People should really look at it as a series of texts, a canon of an entire culture, as oppose to a series of laws of God. I read Exodus as I would Homer and take what I can from it. The character of Yahweh from the Torah really isn't the loving and caring Christian God we think of here in modern America. This God is almost all-too-human, jealous, passionate and even walks among men at times. He comes out less a divine and chaste being than one who is the total incarnation of patriarchy and uncanny power. In what is probably the most shocking episode in the whole Torah, Yahweh tries to kill his newly chosen leader of the Isrealites, Moses (this is also in the KJV) but then changes his mind. Literary critics have compared the Yahweh of the hypothetical J text to be like the ultimate authoritative and overbearing father who punishes his children for just a small offense (Adam, Eve and the serpent (who in the Torah gives no evidence of being Satan)).

(Btw, Yahweh is reffered to as "Lord" in the KJV, all sections using that name hypothetically coming from the J source while texts calling God Elohim or "God" in the KJV is considered to come from the less controversial and anthropomorphic E source.


If the text of the Bible is not literature, what is it and how are we to understand it?

Is the Bible intended as a supernatural vehicle for direct communication from God to each individual rather than the body of work of a particular culture or people, written over a millennium? Or is scripture some strange amalgam of the two? If the former, does the Bible itself so dictate?

I agree. Any book can say "This is inherent word of God. Everything in here is true." But you have to come to conclusions before you decide to adopt that belief.

[Virgil]

Well said and it is indeed true that these multiple voices are somewhat lost in translation, but I do indeed think that the KJV (the most poetic and best translation let's admit it people) has pertained much of the original Hebrew and Greek syntax, sounds and voices of the individual authors. There would indeed be no such thing as Biblical Source criticism if scholars didn't detect the multiple voices in the Torah.

Daniel I don't agree that the KJV is the best translation. Possibly it is more poetic, and it is in many places, but I find the language stilted in many others. And it was consciously done to give the air of ancient. That's all well and good but I don't find the sentences clear in lots of places. As to Greek and Hebrew syntax, I'm no expert but I don't think that's true. The writers (and they did a great job, don't get me wrong) were intentionally trying to create a Godly voice, but a voice that is articial to English.

I got to run. Off to the airport. My wife is leaving without me. :lol:

[DanielBenoit]

Daniel I don't agree that the KJV is the best translation. Possibly it is more poetic, and it is in many places, but I find the language stilted in many others. And it was consciously done to give the air of ancient. That's all well and good but I don't find the sentences clear in lots of places. As to Greek and Hebrew syntax, I'm no expert but I don't think that's true. The writers (and they did a great job, don't get me wrong) were intentionally trying to create a Godly voice, but a voice that is articial to English.

I got to run. Off to the airport. My wife is leaving without me. :lol:

Well of course KJV is far from the most accurate 'literal' translation, and now that I come to think of it, I think I read somewhere that in order to make up for the different language syntax in English, the translators of the KJV (and the Geneva Bible) did stylize the language for it to be read "for all times" and so despite the early modern English, it certainly has a "timeless" voice.

Now I still consider the KJV the best translation, and not for theological purposes (for I am not a Christian or Jewish) but for literary purposes. No matter what its errors, the KJV probably always remain the greatest translation for English speakers. The most 'accurate' translations of the Bible contain the heavily didactic language of the Hebrew (idk about the Greek). I think it was JBI (who knows Hebrew) who said in some other thread a while back that the Hebrew "original" text is much less poetic and more didactic.

[Heteronym]

For a true Christian, wouldn't it be arrogance to reinterpret the word of God? Absurd as it may be, the literalists are the true believers, the ones who live by the word of God as it is written. All the others who claim to believe in God but then say some things in the Bible aren't really to be taken at face value, or that some of the passages are outdated, who are these people to question the word of the being they believe is supreme and infallible?

When in the bible one reads that

28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, 29 he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

or

9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:9 - 15)

there's no room for interpretations. This isn't Kafka's "Before the Law" parable. This is a straightforward set of rules.

I respect the believers who take this at face value, because if one must be irrational one may as well be absolutely irrational. But those who try to reconcile a moderate worldview with the absolute worldview of the bible, I have little respect for those people because they at least show an inkling of sensitivity and reason; it shows they're uncomfortable with the totality of the bible and so are trying to find a way to simultaneously follow it while reimagining it to their measure, and this makes their embracing this nonsense more disturbing. Why do intelligent people bother to live such a schizoid life?

[altheskeptic]

If a person believes that the Bible is the word of God how else would someone interpret it but in a literal sense?

That was my major problem with the bible (I studied it for two years at Liberty University).
For example; there was a worldwide flood...or there wasn't. Mans sin brought evil and pain into the world...or it did not.

Jesus died for mans sin...or he did not.

[DanielBenoit]

For a true Christian, wouldn't it be arrogance to reinterpret the word of God? Absurd as it may be, the literalists are the true believers, the ones who live by the word of God as it is written. All the others who claim to believe in God but then say some things in the Bible aren't really to be taken at face value, or that some of the passages are outdated, who are these people to question the word of the being they believe is supreme and infallible?

There are two problems with this. I'll start with an easy point that atheists love making: If one is to follow everything in the Bible, then no eating of shellfish (Leviticus 11:9), hair cuts (Leviticus 19:27), pork (Leviticus 11:8), divorce (Mark 10:11-12), castrated men are not allowed in church (Deuteronomy 23:1), nor are illegitimate sons/daughters or any of their offspring (Deuteronomy 23:2), etc, etc. Do I really have to get into all of the rules about how to punish your slave or your wife?

Second point: This may be a inept comparison for literalists, but bear with me and see its relevance: Say I were to interpret everything Shakespeare said literally? I would come out with a totally contradictory worldview. As we know nothing about Shakespeare some people like to assume that say Ulysses speech on "degree" is truly a representation of his politics, or that he sincerely believes Shylock to be evil because he is a Jew. Nothing valuable in Shakespeare can really be taken at face-value because there is great depths to his writings and characters, and like I've said before: there is no fully evil or good man or woman in Shakespeare.

Now the Bible is quite different of course, but it certainly possesses that level of depth, a depth that is impossible to take at face-value and must be interpreted in order to be understood. The Torah is filled with these. How are we to interpret any of Yahweh's actions? (I merely use the Hebrew name because I refer specifically to the god presented in the first books of the Old Testement and not the god found in the New Testament.) What did he mean by his brief murder attempt on Moses life in Exodus 4:24? Or how about his demanding of Abraham to sacrifice Issac, changing his mind at the last minute? The sacrifice of Issac has been analyized and interpreted enough so often that to take it at face value is to not understand the story. For example, Kierkegaard takes it as an illustration of Abraham's absolute resignation to the will of God, the thing allowing himself to carry out the act is his paradoxical belief that even though all hope is lost, he will still have Issac. Kierkegaard calls Abraham a "knight of faith" because of his resignation to God's will, but also his leap of faith in believing that even though he will kill his only son that he will still have him.

The Bible is filled with many complex stories and have inspired not only scholarly interpretation, but entire religious sects as well. To call the Bible something of a transparent text is absurd.



When in the bible one reads that

28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, 29 he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

or

9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. (1 Timothy 2:9 - 15)

there's no room for interpretations. This isn't Kafka's "Before the Law" parable. This is a straightforward set of rules.

Indeed Deutoronomy is a long review of the covenant between Yahweh and the "Children of Israel". But one must understand that the Old Testament is a canon of the Israelite culture, it is not a rule-book for all times, indeed the texts when written were never meant to be all compiled together. As a matter of fact, what is said in Deutoronomy and other books would only apply to the Irealites/Jewish people, because these rules are a part of their covenant with Yahweh.

Now it is interesting that you quote Timothy in the next set of quotes, and I'm glad you did. This is a pure example of stories in the Bible being interpreted. Here Genesis is being interpreted as a patriarchal text (not unlike Milton's Paradise Lost) in which women is considered responsible for the fall of man. Nowhere in Genesis 2 is Adam's authority and dominion over Eve stated, as a matter of fact, Yahweh creates Eve out of Adams rib because Adam cannot find companionship among the unnamed animals. I also would like to bring up the case of the serpent, who is not identified with Satan at all, never until the Book of Revelations is it interpreted that the serpent indeed was Satan. In Genesis the serpent is in fact merely a player in the story and whom like Adam and Eve, are punished beyond their "crime". The writer of Genesis 3 (it is assumed to be J) makes a interesting pun between the snakes "smooth tounge" and the "smoothness of the humans skin" (these paraphrases are my own, but the semantic relation in question is indeed presented in the Hebrew text, though the pun is lost in the KJV with the use of the word "subtil" to describe the snake as oppose to the more accurate "smooth-tounged"). Thus portraying the serpent as all-too-natural and a creature of the earth.

Not only all of this, but how can the Bible be taken at face value without historical context of the compositions? Indeed it is useful to learn the historical, political and social background behind the text. It is also good to listen to what scholars say when they call the Bible a "canon" and not a single "book". One must examine the history of the texts composition in order to understand this.



I respect the believers who take this at face value, because if one must be irrational one may as well be absolutely irrational. But those who try to reconcile a moderate worldview with the absolute worldview of the bible, I have little respect for those people because they at least show an inkling of sensitivity and reason; it shows they're uncomfortable with the totality of the bible and so are trying to find a way to simultaneously follow it while reimagining it to their measure, and this makes their embracing this nonsense more disturbing. Why do intelligent people bother to live such a schizoid life?

I in fact find it more disturbing that one would believe that if their daughter is raped, she must marry her rapist and never divorce, because some ancient text told them to. That's disturbing.


If a person believes that the Bible is the word of God how else would someone interpret it but in a literal sense?

That was my major problem with the bible (I studied it for two years at Liberty University).
For example; there was a worldwide flood...or there wasn't. Mans sin brought evil and pain into the world...or it did not.

Jesus died for mans sin...or he did not.

There are different ways of interpreting the stories. I find the sensible and intelligent Christian to be one who believes the works in the Bible to be inspired by God and to hold the theological and philosophical learnings for their life, while also making use of Biblical scholarship in order to understand the text itself.

There is no such thing as a text 'revealing itself' to you. Meaning arises out of a great many aspects of text and context and that only comes about by your human mind reading and considering it. Those who choose a literal interpretation choose a literal interpretation because that is their interpretation, just as much as Harold Blooms interpretation is that most of Genesis and Exodus was written by a master ironist. Not only that, but he would most certainly have more insight than the average person since he has been reading the Hebrew text since he was a child and is indeed a scholar on it.

POST-NOTE: I would also like to add that ideas of God, morality, mortality etc. were all very different 2600 years ago and our idea of God today in America is drastically different than what idea of God the writers of Genesis had in mind, or for that matter, the writers of the Gospels.

Also, for any readers of the Hebrew text, do feel free to make correction of any statements I've made, as I of course have not read it.

[The Atheist]

It's a view that's stood the Church of England in good stead for quite some time now.

Only if "in good stead" means "dying a slow death".

Despite, or maybe due to, it's liberalism, the CoE is in deep trouble.


Today, certain Hindu gurus have accounts from hundreds of eye witnesses and millions of followers for performing pretty much the same kind of miracles Jesus 'did'.

Now, Christians comfortably ignore all of this (as do sketics).

I disagree. Skeptics take note of such claims, and so far, every claim has been found to be false, made up, exaggerated or mistaken.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it, because claims of Indian fakirs go back centuries and not one of them so far has been worth a pinch of salt.

[Dodo25]

I disagree. Skeptics take note of such claims, and so far, every claim has been found to be false, made up, exaggerated or mistaken.


Yeah, I shoulda said 'skeptics researched, then dismissed it'.

[Heteronym]

There are two problems with this. I'll start with an easy point that atheists love making: If one is to follow everything in the Bible, then no eating of shellfish (Leviticus 11:9), hair cuts (Leviticus 19:27), pork (Leviticus 11:8), divorce (Mark 10:11-12), castrated men are not allowed in church (Deuteronomy 23:1), nor are illegitimate sons/daughters or any of their offspring (Deuteronomy 23:2), etc, etc. Do I really have to get into all of the rules about how to punish your slave or your wife?

Yes, you must get into them. Because the bible is God's words to his followers. His followers must have absolute devotion to him. Therefore in order to be good followers they must abide by everything in the bible. Now if modern believers look at some parts of the bible and say, "Well, this is kind of weird, I don't like this bit here, this doesn't go well with our modern view on human rights and civil liberties," then they can't be true belivers. To be selective about which bits are worth following just shows that the bible, contrary to what has been said for centuries, is not that amazing guide book of human conduct and values.


Second point: This may be a inept comparison for literalists, but bear with me and see its relevance: Say I were to interpret everything Shakespeare said literally? I would come out with a totally contradictory worldview. As we know nothing about Shakespeare some people like to assume that say Ulysses speech on "degree" is truly a representation of his politics, or that he sincerely believes Shylock to be evil because he is a Jew. Nothing valuable in Shakespeare can really be taken at face-value because there is great depths to his writings and characters, and like I've said before: there is no fully evil or good man or woman in Shakespeare.

Yes, I do think it's an inept comparison. Shakespeare is literature, it's not a self-appointed guide book on how to live one's life. It's very pretty, nowadays, after secular revolutions that have undermined the Church's power, to say that the bible can be interpreted this and that way. But for centuries, when the Catholic Church had almost absolute power over Europe, the bible was dogma, it wasn't open for interpretation or debate. It was used as a book of laws and as science. Surely I don't need to bring up Galileo, Copernicus, and Darwin.



Indeed Deutoronomy is a long review of the covenant between Yahweh and the "Children of Israel". But one must understand that the Old Testament is a canon of the Israelite culture, it is not a rule-book for all times, indeed the texts when written were never meant to be all compiled together. As a matter of fact, what is said in Deutoronomy and other books would only apply to the Irealites/Jewish people, because these rules are a part of their covenant with Yahweh.

It's a pity no one told that to the Inquisition, that they were only valid in ancient Jewish culture. You speak of context and whatnot, but the Church didn't care about historical context when it punished Galileo for his accurate observations of the sun. What it cared for was that bit that says that the sun moves and so Galileo is wrong and a heretic for thinking contrary to the bible's wisdom.

Do you know what's ironic, it's that the only reason why we are even having a free discussion about what the bible means, is because free-thinkers changed society so that we'd have the freedom to do so. Because if it were up to the Church, A would be A. Nothing sickens me more than people who have freedom and squander it to defend the bible, that book of horrors. That's the ultimate irony. You talk of historical context, but I think you're the one who'd benefit from reading something about European history from the middle ages; really, go gorge yourself on all that freedom people centuries ago had to interpret the bible the way they wanted. Who knows, you may even discover that the Inquisition, witch hunts, heretics and autos-da-fé never existed.

[Lokasenna]

Only if "in good stead" means "dying a slow death".

Despite, or maybe due to, it's liberalism, the CoE is in deep trouble.


Well, that's true - it is dying, but unlike Islam (for example), it's dying quietly.

[hoope]

This is quoted from Dodo at the thread Evolution and she wishes to have this discussion in here.


Are you sure about this? I don't think you know your holy books that well..
You might want to research the qu'ranic concept 'lesser jihad'.

I wish moderate believers would stop calling themselves 'Christians' or 'Muslims', they're simply giving cover to those who actually do take the texts literally, and then we have problems like illustrated in i.e. Saudi Arabia.

(If anyone wants to respond to this, I suggest to post in the new thread 'Biblical Literalism' in order to get back to the topic here, which is EVOLUTION)

First of all , its not HOLY BOOKS .. ( not as there is many Bibles ) Its only one HOLY BOOK named Quran .
Andi know Quran very well , you don't have to tell me go through it more..
And Jihad .. is not about forcing people to be muslims .. is about spreading Islam without weapons and without killing.. .. That is because everyone has to know about Islam .. and it has to do with enlightening people and letting them know about Islam .
Now if people refuse to be muslims or they don't believe in what we want . that is up to them .... Back in the days of the Holy prophet those of refuse to believe in Islam .. they have the right to keep their own religion . and they can freely practice their beliefs but they have to something like a tribute in order to stay in muslims lands .as a sing of respect and to gain protections against any invasion ...
So . there is nothing like killing people .. unless it was for defence..
Unfortunately , there are some people who misunderstand Islam - there are bad muslims .. just like how there are bad christians.. And they don't present Islam in any mean .. And true muslim know that these people who bomb themselves and who do all these terror .. are not muslims..

Am not trying to defend what i believe in ; i don't need to - but i am just trying to clear things which most people usually take from the wrong media .

[Drkshadow03]

Why? If the bible was inspired by a perfect being, why does it read like a book that was written in the bronze/iron age? The OT is comparable to Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'. Genocide everywhere, intolerance towards homosexuals, cruel rules enforced by stoning etc.. The NT, apart from some nice stuff like i.e. sermon of the mount, supports slavery and emphasizes the importance of the rules from the OT.

[. . .]

What the moderates do can IMO just be explained by complacency and cognitive dissonance. Either they have no clue what stands in the holy book, or they make mental gymnastics trying to rationalize all the weird and atrocious stuff.

But you know what's apparently not atrocious thinking? Taking the holy book or made-up fairy tales of the group of people who were the PRIMARY VICTIMS of the writings of Mein Kampf and comparing their made-up not-historically-real genocide of babies being killed by angels of death to a document that caused a real genocide and actual babies were killed!!!!

If I write about a thousand babies drowning in my fantasy novel does that make my novel Mein Kampf?

[Haunted]

Unfortunately , there are some people who misunderstand Islam - there are bad muslims .. just like how there are bad christians.. And they don't present Islam in any mean .. And true muslim know that these people who bomb themselves and who do all these terror .. are not muslims..

Am not trying to defend what i believe in ; i don't need to - but i am just trying to clear things which most people usually take from the wrong media .

hoope, I very much appreciated your post. I'm not one bit familiar with the teachings of the Quran, I don't have any muslim friends and have no one to ask. (I know, someone is smirking right now, why don't you google it. Oh I did that.) It all sounded twisted, but I realized that most of what I heard is the uttering of terrorists, it's all perversion and extremism and it's not true Islam. Thanks for clearing that for us. It would be pointless for anyone to dispute it with you, when you speak from first person knowledge.

[hoope]

hoope, I very much appreciated your post. I'm not one bit familiar with the teachings of the Quran, I don't have any muslim friends and have no one to ask. (I know, someone is smirking right now, why don't you google it. Oh I did that.) It all sounded twisted, but I realized that most of what I heard is the uttering of terrorists, it's all perversion and extremism and it's not true Islam. Thanks for clearing that for us. It would be pointless for anyone to dispute it with you, when you speak from first person knowledge.

Hi Haunted :)
It's you i should thank .. Am a bit rejected in here.. so your words means alot.
Thanks again :)

[OrphanPip]

Only if "in good stead" means "dying a slow death".

Despite, or maybe due to, it's liberalism, the CoE is in deep trouble.



Yes, people seem to want fanaticism in their religion. The United Church of Canada, the largest protestant denomination in the country, second large Christian sect after Catholicism, is shrinking faster than every church except the Catholic. The church also happens to have openly supported gay marriage, been progressively liberal, deliberately chosen women and members of racial minorities to lead it, and in general been a stalwart supporter of progressive politics in Canada. Instead, people prefer to become Baptist, apparently. Although, if census data is the to be believed, the only religious people left in Canada are immigrants.

[altheskeptic]

There are two problems with this. I'll start with an easy point that atheists love making: If one is to follow everything in the Bible, then no eating of shellfish (Leviticus 11:9), hair cuts (Leviticus 19:27), pork (Leviticus 11:8), divorce (Mark 10:11-12), castrated men are not allowed in church (Deuteronomy 23:1), nor are illegitimate sons/daughters or any of their offspring (Deuteronomy 23:2), etc, etc. Do I really have to get into all of the rules about how to punish your slave or your wife?

Second point: This may be a inept comparison for literalists, but bear with me and see its relevance: Say I were to interpret everything Shakespeare said literally? I would come out with a totally contradictory worldview. As we know nothing about Shakespeare some people like to assume that say Ulysses speech on "degree" is truly a representation of his politics, or that he sincerely believes Shylock to be evil because he is a Jew. Nothing valuable in Shakespeare can really be taken at face-value because there is great depths to his writings and characters, and like I've said before: there is no fully evil or good man or woman in Shakespeare.

Now the Bible is quite different of course, but it certainly possesses that level of depth, a depth that is impossible to take at face-value and must be interpreted in order to be understood. The Torah is filled with these. How are we to interpret any of Yahweh's actions? (I merely use the Hebrew name because I refer specifically to the god presented in the first books of the Old Testement and not the god found in the New Testament.) What did he mean by his brief murder attempt on Moses life in Exodus 4:24? Or how about his demanding of Abraham to sacrifice Issac, changing his mind at the last minute? The sacrifice of Issac has been analyized and interpreted enough so often that to take it at face value is to not understand the story. For example, Kierkegaard takes it as an illustration of Abraham's absolute resignation to the will of God, the thing allowing himself to carry out the act is his paradoxical belief that even though all hope is lost, he will still have Issac. Kierkegaard calls Abraham a "knight of faith" because of his resignation to God's will, but also his leap of faith in believing that even though he will kill his only son that he will still have him.

The Bible is filled with many complex stories and have inspired not only scholarly interpretation, but entire religious sects as well. To call the Bible something of a transparent text is absurd.



Indeed Deutoronomy is a long review of the covenant between Yahweh and the "Children of Israel". But one must understand that the Old Testament is a canon of the Israelite culture, it is not a rule-book for all times, indeed the texts when written were never meant to be all compiled together. As a matter of fact, what is said in Deutoronomy and other books would only apply to the Irealites/Jewish people, because these rules are a part of their covenant with Yahweh.

Now it is interesting that you quote Timothy in the next set of quotes, and I'm glad you did. This is a pure example of stories in the Bible being interpreted. Here Genesis is being interpreted as a patriarchal text (not unlike Milton's Paradise Lost) in which women is considered responsible for the fall of man. Nowhere in Genesis 2 is Adam's authority and dominion over Eve stated, as a matter of fact, Yahweh creates Eve out of Adams rib because Adam cannot find companionship among the unnamed animals. I also would like to bring up the case of the serpent, who is not identified with Satan at all, never until the Book of Revelations is it interpreted that the serpent indeed was Satan. In Genesis the serpent is in fact merely a player in the story and whom like Adam and Eve, are punished beyond their "crime". The writer of Genesis 3 (it is assumed to be J) makes a interesting pun between the snakes "smooth tounge" and the "smoothness of the humans skin" (these paraphrases are my own, but the semantic relation in question is indeed presented in the Hebrew text, though the pun is lost in the KJV with the use of the word "subtil" to describe the snake as oppose to the more accurate "smooth-tounged"). Thus portraying the serpent as all-too-natural and a creature of the earth.

Not only all of this, but how can the Bible be taken at face value without historical context of the compositions? Indeed it is useful to learn the historical, political and social background behind the text. It is also good to listen to what scholars say when they call the Bible a "canon" and not a single "book". One must examine the history of the texts composition in order to understand this.



I in fact find it more disturbing that one would believe that if their daughter is raped, she must marry her rapist and never divorce, because some ancient text told them to. That's disturbing.



There are different ways of interpreting the stories. I find the sensible and intelligent Christian to be one who believes the works in the Bible to be inspired by God and to hold the theological and philosophical learnings for their life, while also making use of Biblical scholarship in order to understand the text itself.

There is no such thing as a text 'revealing itself' to you. Meaning arises out of a great many aspects of text and context and that only comes about by your human mind reading and considering it. Those who choose a literal interpretation choose a literal interpretation because that is their interpretation, just as much as Harold Blooms interpretation is that most of Genesis and Exodus was written by a master ironist. Not only that, but he would most certainly have more insight than the average person since he has been reading the Hebrew text since he was a child and is indeed a scholar on it.

POST-NOTE: I would also like to add that ideas of God, morality, mortality etc. were all very different 2600 years ago and our idea of God today in America is drastically different than what idea of God the writers of Genesis had in mind, or for that matter, the writers of the Gospels.

Also, for any readers of the Hebrew text, do feel free to make correction of any statements I've made, as I of course have not read it.

so........I just believe the parts I want to believe and disregard the rest?

Like the preacher said...The bible doesn't mean this...let me tell you what it really means

[Drkshadow03]

so........I just believe the parts I want to believe and disregard the rest?

Like the preacher said...The bible doesn't mean this...let me tell you what it really means

No, I think he said you're supposed to interpret the text. {EDIT}

[papayahed]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Comments containing personal and/or off-topic comments will be removed without further warning.

[DanielBenoit]

Yes, you must get into them. Because the bible is God's words to his followers. His followers must have absolute devotion to him. Therefore in order to be good followers they must abide by everything in the bible. Now if modern believers look at some parts of the bible and say, "Well, this is kind of weird, I don't like this bit here, this doesn't go well with our modern view on human rights and civil liberties," then they can't be true belivers. To be selective about which bits are worth following just shows that the bible, contrary to what has been said for centuries, is not that amazing guide book of human conduct and values.

I'm not saying that. I will just leave it up to the induvidual to let their conscious tell them what these verses mean to them. You see, everything our conscience perceives is subjectivity. Whether or not that ongoing information comes from some kind of 'objectivity' we can never know for certain, as we can never leave our own perception, our own subjectivity. Whether you want to admit it or not, judgement of things begins with your own perception. A text will not tell you it is true, you will judge it to be true, based on whatever reasons you may have. People today, look at some of these verses in the Bible and their conscious and social sensibilities tell them, this is not right. If you believe in stoning disobedient children, that is up to you.


Yes, I do think it's an inept comparison. Shakespeare is literature, it's not a self-appointed guide book on how to live one's life. It's very pretty, nowadays, after secular revolutions that have undermined the Church's power, to say that the bible can be interpreted this and that way. But for centuries, when the Catholic Church had almost absolute power over Europe, the bible was dogma, it wasn't open for interpretation or debate. It was used as a book of laws and as science. Surely I don't need to bring up Galileo, Copernicus, and Darwin.

Like I said before, no book is self-appointed. A book may act as the self-appointed truth, but it is really you who appoints it.


It's a pity no one told that to the Inquisition, that they were only valid in ancient Jewish culture. You speak of context and whatnot, but the Church didn't care about historical context when it punished Galileo for his accurate observations of the sun. What it cared for was that bit that says that the sun moves and so Galileo is wrong and a heretic for thinking contrary to the bible's wisdom.

I don't know what point you're arguing. I believe that it is one of the sins of history and of the Church for the Inquisition and all of its evil deeds. I think any rational person believes that today.


Do you know what's ironic, it's that the only reason why we are even having a free discussion about what the bible means, is because free-thinkers changed society so that we'd have the freedom to do so. Because if it were up to the Church, A would be A. Nothing sickens me more than people who have freedom and squander it to defend the bible, that book of horrors. That's the ultimate irony. You talk of historical context, but I think you're the one who'd benefit from reading something about European history from the middle ages; really, go gorge yourself on all that freedom people centuries ago had to interpret the bible the way they wanted. Who knows, you may even discover that the Inquisition, witch hunts, heretics and autos-da-fé never existed.

You're going to have to clarify yourself because you're not making any sense here. Since when did I start defending the Inquisition or the church that was behind it?


But you know what's apparently not atrocious thinking? Taking the holy book or made-up fairy tales of the group of people who were the PRIMARY VICTIMS of the writings of Mein Kampf and comparing their made-up not-historically-real genocide of babies being killed by angels of death to a document that caused a real genocide and actual babies were killed!!!!


Well said my friend. Well said.


so........I just believe the parts I want to believe and disregard the rest?

I don't approach the Bible theologicall. I am not a Christian. I don't believe in the Bible as the Word of God. I am approaching it as great literature. And since the Bible is a collection of documents, not a complete and fully chronological book, then yes, I believe that people today, Christian or non-Christian, should indeed take what they find valuable in the texts, and disregard the stuff that is morally atrocious today, because a great deal of the Bible, especially the relation between the OT and the NT is not consistent.



Like the preacher said...The bible doesn't mean this...let me tell you what it really means

Jeez dude, but isn't that how all sects of Christianity (and indeed all religions) are? As a matter of fact all readings of the Bible are interpreted by either yourself or the person who is explaining it to you. That's how literature, i.e. texts, work!

I never said that I think we should just blindly listen to what some charlatan preacher says to you about the Bible. Quite the contrary.



No, I think he said you're supposed to interpret the text. {EDIT}

Thank you! Short and sweet.

[altheskeptic]

oh......never mind.

I would rather read something else anyway.

[Drkshadow03]

Thank you! Short and sweet.

You know, one thing that always strikes me about the "you have to read literally" or "you can't really be a believer" argument employed by both fundamentalist types and atheist-skeptic sorts is how they ALWAYS rely on Christian assumptions about the text usually from people coming out of a Christian tradition.

This is odd to me precisely because I'm Jewish. Judaism as a religion is all about interpretation. There is a saying, "Two Jews, three opinions." Very few things are read at face value for a Jew, especially in the Biblical text. Judaism is all about learning what this rabbi's take is on a passage versus that rabbi's interpretation of the same passage versus another rabbi, etc. The whole religion is built around that. So when someone says, you have to take every verse literally or you probably don't really believe, that doesn't even make sense. There is a whole religion that has said basically from day one, "no, actually you need to interpret God's book."

[Haunted]

And since the Bible is a collection of documents, not a complete and fully chronological book, then yes, I believe that people today, Christian or non-Christian, should indeed take what they find valuable in the texts, and disregard the stuff that is morally atrocious today, because a great deal of the Bible, especially the relation between the OT and the NT is not consistent.

Good post, Daniel, and a good thread.



Hi Haunted :)
It's you i should thank .. Am a bit rejected in here.. so your words means alot.
Thanks again :)

ahh I hear you darling.... But just know that you're loved and I respect your views. :)

[OrphanPip]

I far prefer moderate Christians to those who take the Bible literally, because they tend to be more reasonable about discussing what the Bible says rationally, rather than upholding ridiculous positions like Young Earth Creationism or advocating state religion.

I also grew up in an Anglican home, though I consider myself never to have been a practicing Christian in any serious way, and I didn't learn of Biblical literalism until much later in life. My mother taught me the Biblical stories as allegory, which was also the position of my MRE teacher in high school when we studied the old testament, I believe she was some sort of progressive Catholic.

[DanielBenoit]

You know, one thing that always strikes me about the "you have to read literally" or "you can't really be a believer" argument employed by both fundamentalist types and atheist-skeptic sorts is how they ALWAYS rely on Christian assumptions about the text usually from people coming out of a Christian tradition.

This is odd to me precisely because I'm Jewish. Judaism as a religion is all about interpretation. There is a saying, "Two Jews, three opinions." Very few things are read at face value for a Jew, especially in the Biblical text. Judaism is all about learning what this rabbi's take is on a passage versus that rabbi's interpretation of the same passage versus another rabbi, etc. The whole religion is built around that. So when someone says, you have to take every verse literally or you probably don't really believe, that doesn't even make sense. There is a whole religion that has said basically from day one, "no, actually you need to interpret God's book."

Indeed, and that makes me admire the religion even more. There seems to be this sort of misconception of a Jew as basically as someone who disregards Christ as the messiah, but otherwise is pretty much a Christian. The OT has been so polluted by NT perspective and reinterpretation, that it is at times hard to look at the OT as it is by itself. The strange uncanniness of the first books of the Torah, the originality of the characterization of Yahweh and all of the mortals we usually associate in Christian society as precursors to Christ. Or the serpent in Eden, who was given the unnecissary dimension in Revelations as being an incarnation of Satan. This universal battle that books like Revelations (and indeed many Christian books up to the present day) put into the OT really deprive the stories of their raw poewer and beauty as a document of a people's history and culture. Through many Christian interpretations, many of the great Jewish figures appear (or are perceived by adherers) as no more than pieces to the genealogical puzzle leading up to Christ.

[The Atheist]

hoope, I very much appreciated your post. I'm not one bit familiar with the teachings of the Quran, I don't have any muslim friends and have no one to ask. (I know, someone is smirking right now, why don't you google it. Oh I did that.) It all sounded twisted, but I realized that most of what I heard is the uttering of terrorists, it's all perversion and extremism and it's not true Islam. Thanks for clearing that for us. It would be pointless for anyone to dispute it with you, when you speak from first person knowledge.

The only problem with this is that it's one person's opinion of what the quran allegedly means.

I've read it myself, and while my opinion isn't worth a pinch of salt, I know for certain that many different versions of what it means are touted by various sects within islam. There is no more consensus on what the quran is supposed to say than christianity has with its bible.

I'm not going to condemn the book; I don't need to, but there are no readings of it which don't render it antisemitic, misogynistic and homophobic.


Yes, people seem to want fanaticism in their religion.

I actually think it's just tied to a wider anti-science feeling, which I don't understand at all.


The United Church of Canada, the largest protestant denomination in the country, second large Christian sect after Catholicism, is shrinking faster than every church except the Catholic. The church also happens to have openly supported gay marriage, been progressively liberal, deliberately chosen women and members of racial minorities to lead it, and in general been a stalwart supporter of progressive politics in Canada. Instead, people prefer to become Baptist, apparently. Although, if census data is the to be believed, the only religious people left in Canada are immigrants.

That sounds so much like NZ it's scary!

[hoope]

The only problem with this is that it's one person's opinion of what the quran allegedly means.

I've read it myself, and while my opinion isn't worth a pinch of salt, I know for certain that many different versions of what it means are touted by various sects within islam. There is no more consensus on what the quran is supposed to say than christianity has with its bible.

I'm not going to condemn the book; I don't need to, but there are no readings of it which don't render it antisemitic, misogynistic and homophobic.


Am really surprised that you have read the Quran ... and yet it does you no change ... and what frankly wonders me is that you didn't realize that the Quran is the only divine book that was saved from any distortion and human changes ... It's the God's words in there.. that whats makes the difference...
As you all know that the Bible was in a period of time so - but then it was changed and written by human .
So what am sorry for is that there are few people in this world with narrow thinking and they insist to see the world that way without realizing the certain meanings and the beauty behind things.

Wishing you all the best Atheist .


My view is that the Bible was written by individuals in a particular time and place and a context, and they were inspired by God.

[JCamilo]

You know, one thing that always strikes me about the "you have to read literally" or "you can't really be a believer" argument employed by both fundamentalist types and atheist-skeptic sorts is how they ALWAYS rely on Christian assumptions about the text usually from people coming out of a Christian tradition.

This is odd to me precisely because I'm Jewish. Judaism as a religion is all about interpretation. There is a saying, "Two Jews, three opinions." Very few things are read at face value for a Jew, especially in the Biblical text. Judaism is all about learning what this rabbi's take is on a passage versus that rabbi's interpretation of the same passage versus another rabbi, etc. The whole religion is built around that. So when someone says, you have to take every verse literally or you probably don't really believe, that doesn't even make sense. There is a whole religion that has said basically from day one, "no, actually you need to interpret God's book."

Indeed, those discussions often disregards the original "authors" of the books, who never wanted to see their book as such. Even because it would be bordeline profane (as the words or acts of God are not possible to be understood by humans, how them, when place on human language to be copied and repeated would be something that would replace God's own will) and seems more like lack of faith (as only those without faith would require proofs like a literal document)...
And it was not the jews itself, but something more recent even. St.Agustyne already dispised literal interpretations of the bible and the council of nicea would not pick 4 different cannons as true when they contradict themselves if truth wasnt meant as something other as journalism...