How literally should the Bible be interpreted?

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I've always felt that divinity was of God and the Bible was of man. I tend to see the Bible as a mishmash of history, narrative, memoir and impressionism. I think it's best taken as a whole rather than deciding political positions and the disposition of souls based on obscure individual passages that have been overtranslated and taken out of context. Didn't anyone play the telephone game when they were younger?

Of course, my opinion could be shaped largely by the fact that I was raised Catholic instead of evangelical.

 

[Kiddo]

6 original versions of the Old Testament! And those were written by a large group of Jews who were hired to translate the ideas into Greek? That is a scary thought, and now I'm almost certain that the Bible has met some alteration at the hands of man, if not complete fabrication.

 

[wildcat]

If you want to learn Aramaic do not go to Maaloula. They call it Aramaic and the language of Jesus blah blah. Sure. If you want to learn the language of Jesus get a Greyhound to New York and find yourself a Rabbi. If you are loaded you can enter an Ulpan in Israel. There you learn the holy script, and mighty quick, too.
If you want to read the Bible in original, that is.
Of course it makes a difference to read any text in the original.
Modern Greek is just the last phase of Koine.

Aramaic has been influenced by Arabic in Syria. Hebrew and Koine are true living languages. Let the Pope have his Vulgate. Koine changed Latin to Italian.

 

[wildcat]

The Canaanite was but one race, one culture and, as long as it existed, one language.
The Ugarit, the Phoenician, the Hebrew and the Canaanite Aramaic were never diverse languages.

The semantics create a lot of confusion. They say Akkad gave way to Aramaic; on the other hand they say Hebrew gave way to Aramaic.

A double error. The Canaanite Aramaic should not be confused with the language of Babylonia/Assyria.

The Canaanite Aramaic is in no way a descendant of Hebrew. All languages consist of close knit dialects. The fact that Aramaic attained literary expression later does not make it another language.

The Ugarit, the Phoenician, the Hebrew and the Aramaic were not the only Canaanite dialects. There were half a dozen other dialects. Some of them attained literacy, some did not. The secrets lie under the sand.

Anyone who can read maps can see that even the later Canaanite names do not differ from each other.

The Ugarit tablets do bear a close resemblance to the Hebrew texts. You see the echo of the Bible in the Ugarit texts, or rather the other way around.
At the outset El was but one of the Canaanite deities. When El rose to prominence it did not take place only among the Hebrew subtribe.

The flood took place NE to the land of Canaan. It is mentioned in the earliest historical record found. The Gilgamesh Saga.

The Akkadians to the north incorporated the Sumerian culture. They preserved the records. Most of them have never been found.

It is said the Egyptian records do not mention the Hebrews in Egypt.
They do.

The story of Joseph is relatively accurate.

The Church maintains the records that depict the later dates were written prior to the records that depict the earlier dates. Another fallacy.

The order of the manuscripts found is not the order of the original texts not found.

The books of the Bible are records of history.
In the way of all the other records of history, they consist of an admixture of myths, politically motivated tales, gossip, sagas and the truth.

But of course you can interpret them literally if you want.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I thought that Aramaic was the language the Bible was originally transcribed in, and then translated to Hebrew, and finally to Greek.

From what I understand, Aramaic versions can differ considerably from their Hebrew and Greek counterparts.

The OT translation from for most bibles comes from the masoretic text which is the Jewish (i.e. Hebrew) Old Testament. The New Testament was written in Greek. At least one book, Daniel, was written in Aramaic. (There may be a couple others written in Aramaic too. That I can't remember.) There may be some OT translations that actually come directly from the Latin or Aramaic texts, but these essentially come from the masoretic text. Some translations look at all the sources when translating and give foot notes over the various ways the text can be translated.

6 original versions of the Old Testament! And those were written by a large group of Jews who were hired to translate the ideas into Greek? That is a scary thought, and now I'm almost certain that the Bible has met some alteration at the hands of man, if not complete fabrication.

It's all a plot by the Illuminati! :rolli: Actually the Dead Sea scrolls have shown two things about this. The first is that there is an amazing amount of conformity between the Dead Sea scrolls and all of the other OT texts like the masoretic text which is really the source of most OT translations. The second thing is that the few places where there is a discrepancy between the masoretic text and the Dead Sea scrolls, the Dead Sea scrolls match the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament).

In other words the Dead Sea scrolls have shown the Septuagint to be the most accuate text. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Greek Old Testament (which also happens to be the oldest text).

 

[Kiddo]

It's all a plot by the Illuminati! :rolli: Actually the Dead Sea scrolls have shown two things about this. The first is that there is an amazing amount of conformity between the Dead Sea scrolls and all of the other OT texts like the masoretic text which is really the source of most OT translations. The second thing is that the few places where there is a discrepancy between the masoretic text and the Dead Sea scrolls, the Dead Sea scrolls match the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament).

In other words the Dead Sea scrolls have shown the Septuagint to be the most accuate text. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Greek Old Testament (which also happens to be the oldest text).

That still doesn't mean that the Bible hasn't been altered through interpretive translation. There were 6 different versions of the Greek Old Testament and I bet they could all be translations of the Dead Sea Scroll. But they differed in how they were translated and interpreted by the Jews who did the work.

For example, Leviticus describes Priestly Code and ritual cleanliness, but that doesn't stop Evangelicals from interpreting homosexuality to be a "mortal sin". If homosexuality is akin to eating shellfish and some fowl, then they look like mighty stupid bastards right now. Those aren't sins punishable by eternal damnation but things that may endanger the health of the body. Considering mercury and bird flu, there might be something to those claims about shell fish and fowl. Especially considering the spread of HIV and STDs among homosexual men. In that case it only makes sense to say that homosexuality is unclean.

But certainly not "Fags are going to hell" like the heavily conservative interpreters of the Bible claim. But I'm sure they can say the Dead Sea Scrolls support their claim that "homosexuality is an abomination" but how to interpret the "abomination" part of that is proving to be interesting. So whether or not the Bible is perfect is debatable, but the people who follow it certainly aren't, so taking anything literally in that text with a limited grasp of what it could mean is down right dangerous and idiotic.

 

[Totenkindly]

For example, Leviticus describes Priestly Code and ritual cleanliness, but that doesn't stop Evangelicals from interpreting homosexuality to be a "mortal sin". If homosexuality is akin to eating shellfish and some fowl, then they look like mighty stupid bastards right now. Those aren't sins punishable by eternal damnation but things that may endanger the health of the body.

Actually, here is where I am not understanding where you're getting your conclusions from.


1. Those who committed homosexual acts were stoned to death.

2. Jews didn't have a "hell" at the time. You just were sent to this shadowy place called "Sheol" or "the grave." Death was death, for good AND bad people... there were just this hope that, somehow, God would still be able to restore the GOOD dead people to real, authentic, tangible life at SOME point in the future. (See the story of Ezekiel and the dried bones, for example.) The evil dead would stay "dead."

3. Being killed for a crime, thus, was getting sent to their equivalent of "hell" and "removed from the community."


So yes, "clean/unclean" in OT times very much seems to me to be tied to "sin/not sin." Homosexuality was a capital crime, resulting in death and thus "condemnation to the afterworld."

There were other "crimes" involving clean and unclean (such as having sex with a woman during her menstrual period) that involved not death as a punishment but simply certain rituals to make one clean again. So there were various degrees of uncleanliness.

In the NT, we see the residual popular effects of this sort of thinking. Like when Jesus was asked, "Well, why was this person born blind? Did he or his parents sin?" Sin = physical deformity/uncleanliness. The prostitutes were unclean AND sinful. People who were lepers and thus unclean were judged as as sinners. Clean/unclean = pure/sinful.

This is the big problem -- it's where those who are dangerous to homosexuals are getting their ammunition from.... because they try to apply the law of that time and its punishments to today's day and age.

(My personal opinion is that I think many of the OT clean/unclean laws, such as the shellfish and those involving communicable diseases were created not as some sort of holy mandate but as a way to protect the community's health and prevent epidemics from wiping them out. Back then, the lack of medicine meant that once an epidemic started, things would get VERY ugly. Even the sexual mandates were meant partially to prevent the spread of disease. But it got couched in moral terms or connected to morality in many instances, and that began to dominate.)

 

[Kiddo]

Actually, here is where I am not understanding where you're getting your conclusions from.


1. Those who committed homosexual acts were stoned to death.

2. Jews didn't have a "hell" at the time. You just were sent to this shadowy place called "Sheol" or "the grave." Death was death, for good AND bad people... there were just this hope that, somehow, God would still be able to restore the GOOD dead people to real, authentic, tangible life at SOME point in the future. (See the story of Ezekiel and the dried bones, for example.) The evil dead would stay "dead."

3. Being killed for a crime, thus, was getting sent to their equivalent of "hell" and "removed from the community."


So yes, "clean/unclean" in OT times very much seems to me to be tied to "sin/not sin." Homosexuality was a capital crime, resulting in death and thus "condemnation to the afterworld."

There were other "crimes" involving clean and unclean (such as having sex with a woman during her menstrual period) that involved not death as a punishment but simply certain rituals to make one clean again. So there were various degrees of uncleanliness.

In the NT, we see the residual popular effects of this sort of thinking. Like when Jesus was asked, "Well, why was this person born blind? Did he or his parents sin?" Sin = physical deformity/uncleanliness. The prostitutes were unclean AND sinful. People who were lepers and thus unclean were judged as as sinners. Clean/unclean = pure/sinful.

This is the big problem -- it's where those who are dangerous to homosexuals are getting their ammunition from.... because they try to apply the law of that time and its punishments to today's day and age.

(My personal opinion is that I think many of the OT clean/unclean laws, such as the shellfish and those involving communicable diseases were created not as some sort of holy mandate but as a way to protect the community's health and prevent epidemics from wiping them out. Back then, the lack of medicine meant that once an epidemic started, things would get VERY ugly. Even the sexual mandates were meant partially to prevent the spread of disease. But it got couched in moral terms or connected to morality in many instances, and that began to dominate.)

I don't exactly understand where we differ in opinion here. I was stating the idea that homosexuality would have been considered unclean (a sickness) in the OT. Of course they would stone homosexuals to death in order to stop the spread if they considered it an epidemic back in the old days. But I wasn't referring to Jews in my example, only Evangelicals when I talked about their interpretation. Not to mention I don't see Jews on TV holding signs saying that homosexuals should be put to death. Ultimately, my argument was that most people don't have the tools necessary to interpret the Bible accurately. Would you disagree with that assertion?

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't exactly understand where we differ in opinion here. I was stating the idea that homosexuality would have been considered unclean (a sickness) in the OT.

No, it wasn't considered a "sickness." It was actually considered sinful, idolatry, and whatnot because it violated the apparent natural order and was representative of the Canaanite "cults," which were hedonistic and idolatrous, I think.

Of course they would stone homosexuals to death in order to stop the spread if they considered it an epidemic back in the old days. But I wasn't referring to Jews in my example, only Evangelicals when I talked about their interpretation.

I do find it interesting that fundamentalist Christians seem more hung up on following aspects of the OT Law more than Jews do. Many of these denominations would consider the Jewish rabbis "liberals."

Not to mention I don't see Jews on TV holding signs saying that homosexuals should be put to death.

That is a very interesting point to bring up. I wonder if it's because Judaism is both a culture AND a religion? (So you can be Jewish and uphold many of the cultural traditions, without necessarily following some of the moralistic-sounding laws.)

Coupled with the fact that the Jews did not even have a nation they felt was their own until the mid-1900's ... and once a group of people goes through the horrors of persecution in WWII, well, I doubt you'll see them stoning homosexuals at any point in time soon. They know what it's like to be oppressed and disenfranchised and murdered.

Ultimately, my argument was that most people don't have the tools necessary to interpret the Bible accurately. Would you disagree with that assertion?

No. No, I do not [disagree]!

 

[Kiddo]

No, it wasn't considered a "sickness." It was actually considered sinful, idolatry, and whatnot because it violated the apparent natural order and was representative of the Canaanite "cults," which were hedonistic and idolatrous, I think.

Well this is one point where we seem to disagree. It was considered an "abomination" which could also be translated as "unclean" or "unproductive". Put into context, it sounds like they felt that homosexuality was a way of making the body "unclean" just as the female body was considered "unclean" for seven days after giving birth to a child or a man was "unclean" if he spilled his seed anywhere but inside a women. When the body was unclean, it was not suitable for ritual purposes. As far as being sin, hedonistic, or idolatrous, those seem to be personal interpretations of being "unclean". They clearly didn't want homosexual practices in the temple/church and were willing to stone or put to death any priest who took part in such an activity.

 

[substitute]

I'm late to the party I know, but to me, the Bible should be taken no more literally than Gulliver's Travels - another book written by an inspired human being that's both full of truth and insight, yet also error.

 

[Totenkindly]

Well this is one point where we seem to disagree. It was considered an "abomination" which could also be translated as "unclean" or "unproductive". Put into context, it sounds like they felt that homosexuality was a way of making the body "unclean" just as the female body was considered "unclean" for seven days after giving birth to a child or a man was "unclean" if he spilled his seed anywhere but inside a women.

They killed people for homosexual activities.

They did not kill a woman for having her period.

A man wasn't killed for masturbation (although there was that unfortunate instance with Onan... but that wasn't part of the Law... he rebelled specifically against God's orders to father his dead brother's child, and God smote him down).

So that's why I disagree with you. The punishment was VERY different for breaking each one of these things. They were not treated the same.

 

[Kiddo]

They killed people for homosexual activities.

They did not kill a woman for having her period.

A man wasn't killed for masturbation (although there was that unfortunate instance with Onan... but that wasn't part of the Law... he rebelled specifically against God's orders to father his dead brother's child, and God smote him down).

So that's why I disagree with you. The punishment was VERY different for breaking each one of these things. They were not treated the same.

But who was punished? All homosexuals? The priests who engaged in homosexual behavior? And even if that was the punishment they decreed, is that a correct interpretation of God's word? Was everyone who engaged in homosexual behavior to be put to death?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

That still doesn't mean that the Bible hasn't been altered through interpretive translation. There were 6 different versions of the Greek Old Testament and I bet they could all be translations of the Dead Sea Scroll. But they differed in how they were translated and interpreted by the Jews who did the work.

For example, Leviticus describes Priestly Code and ritual cleanliness, but that doesn't stop Evangelicals from interpreting homosexuality to be a "mortal sin". If homosexuality is akin to eating shellfish and some fowl, then they look like mighty stupid bastards right now. Those aren't sins punishable by eternal damnation but things that may endanger the health of the body. Considering mercury and bird flu, there might be something to those claims about shell fish and fowl. Especially considering the spread of HIV and STDs among homosexual men. In that case it only makes sense to say that homosexuality is unclean.

But certainly not "Fags are going to hell" like the heavily conservative interpreters of the Bible claim. But I'm sure they can say the Dead Sea Scrolls support their claim that "homosexuality is an abomination" but how to interpret the "abomination" part of that is proving to be interesting. So whether or not the Bible is perfect is debatable, but the people who follow it certainly aren't, so taking anything literally in that text with a limited grasp of what it could mean is down right dangerous and idiotic.

You seem to be talking about two different things. If you are talking about ancient translations, then what you find is that scribes make great efforts in translating the text as accurately as possible. Did some errors creep in? Yes, but if you look at where there are errors or differences in translation you will find that in most cases the differences are small and don't have much effect on the meaning of the text. Everyone I hear who talks about errors in the text ends up blowing them way out of proportion.

If you are talking about how various modern groups interpret the Bible, then I don't really have much to say. Everyone has their own approach. I may not agree with the approach that most people use, but that is ultimately my opinion. Regardless of how much or little education a person has about the Bible there are still different approaches to interpreting its meaning that are not agreed on. In other words it doesn't matter how literally or metaphorically a person interprets the Bible. People will ultimately come up with their own interpretations regardless.

 

[Kiddo]

You seem to be talking about two different things. If you are talking about ancient translations, then what you find is that scribes make great efforts in translating the text as accurately as possible. Did some errors creep in? Yes, but if you look at where there are errors or differences in translation you will find that in most cases the differences are small and don't have much effect on the meaning of the text. Everyone I hear who talks about errors in the text ends up blowing them way out of proportion.

I'm not talking about errors so much as selective translation. The way you translate something can portray a significant difference in its meaning. I've heard that the word for "abomination" in the Bible could also be translated as "unclean" or "unproductive". Is there not a difference between...

"Homosexuality is an abomination" and "Homosexuality is unproductive/unclean"?

The latter makes more sense in the context of Leviticus since it's generally the moral code of cleanliness for ritual and priests.

If you are talking about how various modern groups interpret the Bible, then I don't really have much to say. Everyone has their own approach. I may not agree with the approach that most people use, but that is ultimately my opinion. Regardless of how much or little education a person has about the Bible there are still different approaches to interpreting its meaning that are not agreed on. In other words it doesn't matter how literally or metaphorically a person interprets the Bible. People will ultimately come up with their own interpretations regardless.

True. Which would mean that getting the closest true interpretation of the Bible is a potshot.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I'm not talking about errors so much as selective translation. The way you translate something can portray a significant difference in its meaning. I've heard that the word for "abomination" in the Bible could also be translated as "unclean" or "unproductive". Is there not a difference between...

"Homosexuality is an abomination" and "Homosexuality is unproductive/unclean"?

The latter makes more sense in the context of Leviticus since it's generally the moral code of cleanliness for ritual and priests.

When you consider that the word "abomination" came from the King James Version there might not be a difference. Personally I don't think anyone should crack open a King James Version unless they are using a careful scholarly apporoach to studying it. It was a good translation when it was first translated, but the English language has evolved a lot in the past 400 or so years and a lot of the words don't necessarily mean the same thing today that they originally did. Anyone doing a casual reading of the Bible should stay far away from the KJV.

True. Which would mean that getting the closest true interpretation of the Bible is a potshot.

Well the phrase "true interpretation" is something of a loaded phrase. Everyone uses a different criteria. It's somewhat like saying there is a "true interpretation" for the U.S. Constitution. If there is a true interpretation then why don't the Supreme Court justices always have a unanimous vote? It doesn't mean that the Constitution is a useless document that should be ignored, quite the contrary in fact. The Constitution is a hugely important document that has plenty of nuances that people disagree on. I would say the same for the Bible. Furthermore, if the document wasn't important then people wouldn't be arguing over the finer points in the first place.

 

[Totenkindly]

But who was punished? All homosexuals? The priests who engaged in homosexual behavior? And even if that was the punishment they decreed, is that a correct interpretation of God's word? Was everyone who engaged in homosexual behavior to be put to death?

There was no such thing as "gender identity" or "monogamous homosexual." It was not an identity.

It was purely focused on behavior.

If you were born a man, and you got caught screwing a man, you were put to death. That's it. kaput. They didn't give a flying fig whether or not you felt you were "born that way" or what your natural sexual orientation was.

The Books of Law described very tangible offenses, and motivations did not really matter.

(Same thing with adultery. They didn't care if you were unhappy in your marriage, or entirely unsuited for each other, or someone was emotionally neglecting you. If you got caught dinking with another person's spouse, you were stoned. Done.)

This whole "gay as identity" rather than "gay as an action" concept seems to have spawned in the mid-late 20th century, as far as I can tell. Or at least the widespread politicalizing of it.

Well the phrase "true interpretation" is something of a loaded phrase. Everyone uses a different criteria. It's somewhat like saying there is a "true interpretation" for the U.S. Constitution. If there is a true interpretation then why don't the Supreme Court justices always have a unanimous vote? It doesn't mean that the Constitution is a useless document that should be ignored, quite the contrary in fact. The Constitution is a hugely important document that has plenty of nuances that people disagree on. I would say the same for the Bible. Furthermore, if the document wasn't important then people wouldn't be arguing over the finer points in the first place.

That's a good analogy.

I agree about the KJV as well. For what it is, it isn't bad. But it's written for a culture that lived 400 year ago (in another country), and it was based on a different source document than the modern NIV and RSV and whatnot, which use an earlier version for translation and are tailored into our vernacular.

 

[Kiddo]

If you were born a man, and you got caught screwing a man, you were put to death. That's it. kaput.

Somehow I doubt that it was that simple, but for historical argument I'll agree. But what the Jews did is beside the point. If the Bible was produced by God then it's the interpretation that matters. What a bunch of murdering Jews who interpreted it one way did is no different than what a bunch of preaching, hateful Evangelicals do with it now. There is clearly room for it to be interpreted differently and it was probably the views of the times that dictated how the Jews chose to interpret it.

 

[Totenkindly]

Somehow I doubt that it was that simple, but for historical argument I'll agree. But what the Jews did is beside the point. If the Bible was produced by God then it's the interpretation that matters. What a bunch of murdering Jews who interpreted it one way did is no different than what a bunch of preaching, hateful Evangelicals do with it now. There is clearly room for it to be interpreted differently and it was probably the views of the times that dictated how the Jews chose to interpret it.

(Thank you for discussing this, btw... the discussion is really poking and stretching in different directions than what i normally hear.)

Here is where I am coming from: Why do we need to interpret it at all?

If it was just a code of law written to govern the ancient Israelites, it has no bearing on me. I am not part of their theocracy. And those in the US live in a democracy (well, technically a republic of sorts, I guess). Even if they are Christians, the OT law was a legal document based on moral beliefs, and legally does not apply to us.

Technically no one here is really "under that law" -- and especially not, if you don't consider yourself a Christian or a Jew.

And I do think it was that simple.

Remember when Achan took gold and items (not very many, actually) dedicated to destruction to JHVH, and they searched the ENTIRE camp, eventually using lots to divine who did it, and they found what he'd done... and even though he 'fessed up, the community immediately stoned him and all of his relatives to death right there? There was no waiting period, no defense.

If they didn't catch you in homosexual union, then you were okay, but if you got caught in the act, there was nothing to discuss. Punishment, I think, was swift and irrevocable. I can imagine they would use suspicions to observe suspects... in order to catch them in the act, and then punish them. They couldn't punish for hearsay; and the eyewitness was undeniable.

A friend and I were discussing the "soul" thing and abortion and birth control, and I've just recently become aware of how little we have really understood (as a human race) about the creation of human beings until perhaps the last century.

Genetics were not really on radar until recently, all things considered. One problem that Darwin faced with his evolution theory was the method of transmission and how new beings were created at ALL.

For a long time, people thought women were just incubators at best, and the person came from the man. And once sperm was discovered (due to the invention of the microscope), the quality of focus was still not good, it looked like there was something inside the sperm, and people would draw pictures of sperm with full-fledged adult men inside of them, waiting to be born after being dispensed into the woman.

So just think, back in ancient Israel, of all the baggage attached to things. A man masturbating or spilling his seed was destroying zillions of formed human souls. And a man who is spilling his seed inside another man is doing the same. Only an act of heterosexual intercourse is honoring the life that the man is spilling.

[This needs some work because I've never stated it before, but do you see the implications of why these laws might have existed and what made them so wrong? It's fascinating to consider.]

 

[Oberon]

I think the important thing to do when interpreting the Bible is to interpret each piece of writing in a manner appropriate to its genre. For example, when you're reading Psalms, you're reading poetry, and you should consider it as poetry. If you're reading historical books, you cannot interpret them properly unless you recognize that they were written as history. If you're reading levitical law, it's going to have a different purpose and a different emphasis than either Psalms or, say, Chronicles.

And on the question of allegory: It's obvious to even the most fundamentalist reader (or can be, after a few pointed illustrations are brought home) that the Bible uses symbolic language in places to make a point. That being the case, it's foolish to assume that no part of the bible is allegorical. Therefore, where there is allegory, read it as allegory.

The trick is determining where you see allegory.