How literally should the Bible be interpreted?

[Kiddo]

No.

There may have been some drift across transcriptions and translations... the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts are not absolutely identical, it's true... but to say that "...the text has become hardly more than an empty vessel for anyone to fill in with whatever spiritual and political notions serve their purpose" is unsupportable.

It is true that various people have abused biblical texts in this fashion, but it is not true to say that the texts lend themselves to such abuse. In fact, to make the claim in itself might be evidence of an agenda.

Any text has the capacity to be interpreted in ways that suit political agendas. However, the Bible has proven to be exceptionally useful because it has contradictions within itself that allow people to grasp onto particular verses and justify their thoughts and actions. You can call it "abuse" but its been the fundamental nature of the scripture since its conception. It's the same with any major religious text. Fundamental Evangelical Christianity is practically a mirror to Fundamental Islam. Both interpret their respected texts in a way that suits their political agendas. Why would that clearly visible claim be evidence of an agenda?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

You should either make a case or stop conjecturing.

The question is not whether it might at all be possible that the interpretation is different (I don't even think that's an issue we disagree on -- it's obvious that our culture brings a different framework to Biblical understanding than a culture that existed 2000+ years ago), it's whether or not it actually IS far different. And to do that demands you make a case... Oberon's actually offers up a few details in his response.

So far you've only offered a stance, not an argument.

And really, look at your other contribution:



I know you're fully aware of the haphazard nature of this statement -- you're going out FAR on a limb here, without providing any hard evidence as to your reasoning -- and obviously you need to provide some foundation for such a comment if you want it to be taken seriously.

This isn't the sort of [philosophical] discussion where you can escape digging into concrete detail.

Look at the manifold of interpretations of scripture we have in our present day? Does this not suggest to you that one clear and most likely to be true interpretation of the Bible is far from being discovered? And do you not see how this makes it easy for us to exploit the writings for our own gain? Or the reason why we are at a point where we are.

 

[Oberon]

Any text has the capacity to be interpreted in ways that suit political agendas. However, the Bible has proven to be exceptionally useful because it has contradictions within itself that allow people to grasp onto particular verses and justify their thoughts and actions. You can call it "abuse" but its been the fundamental nature of the scripture since its conception. It's the same with any major religious text. Fundamental Evangelical Christianity is practically a mirror to Fundamental Islam. Both interpret their respected texts in a way that suits their political agendas. Why would that clearly visible claim be evidence of an agenda?

Because it's not "clearly visible," though I freely admit it's part of the zeitgeist at present.

 

[Totenkindly]

Look at the manifold of interpretations of scripture we have in our present day? Does this not suggest to you that one clear and most likely to be true interpretation of the Bible is far from being discovered? And do you not see how this makes it easy for us to exploit the writings for our own gain? Or the reason why we are at a point where we are.

Your comments seem to suggest an extremity that is non-existent. Think about bell curves a bit, and you might understand where I am going with this.

You seem to be focusing on the tips of the curve; I'm saying, yes, there is variability, of COURSE there is... but it tends to be clustered and clumped. It's the reason why a few predominate schools of Christian theology can even be defined at all; if reality conformed to your comments, there would be no schools at all, interpretation would be completely arbitrary.

Perhaps you simply need to add some qualifications to your opinions, which has been expressed as extremes so far. (Along with perhaps showing some detailed knowledge of Bible text transmission and its actual history.)

Any text has the capacity to be interpreted in ways that suit political agendas. However, the Bible has proven to be exceptionally useful because it has contradictions within itself that allow people to grasp onto particular verses and justify their thoughts and actions. You can call it "abuse" but its been the fundamental nature of the scripture since its conception.

Take some lessons from Kiddo, BW... He actually points out features of the text and explains why this contributes to misinterpretation. That's not opinion, that's an actual assessment of the nature of the document.

 

[Oberon]

Look at the manifold of interpretations of scripture we have in our present day?

Well, let's take a look at some examples. Genesis 1:1 is as good a place to start as any:

King James: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

New International Version: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

American Standard Version: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Vulgate: "in principio creavit Deus caelum et terram"

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible: "In the beginning God created heaven, and earth."

Geneva Bible: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Tanakh Online: "In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth."

Blue, if this is typical of the vast gulfs of meaning enabled by the centuries-long game of "telephone" that is text transcription, I'm afraid I do not see your point. If you wish to pick nits over the Jewish tradition of not fully spelling out the name of G-d, or Jerome's persistent habit of favoring Latin over English in his Vulgate, well, I guess you've got me there.

Compare translations on specific verses and you will find that the above is much more the rule than the exception. Yes, there are specific cases where versions differ; but taken as a whole, the integrity of the text is strong... far stronger than that our texts of, say, Aristotle.

EDIT: Please note that, in the above translations, I have deliberately selected sources both old and new, and across creeds and traditions. I have represented contemporary Protestants and Catholics, Reformation-era Protestants and Medieval Catholics, and Jews.

 

[The Ü™]

Jericho.

What do you make of Jericho?

I heard that game sucked.

Anyway:

Why are the dogmatic fundamentalist Christians considered to be "Old Testament"-minded? Remember the Book of Revelation? I'd say that's pretty sadistic and dogmatic.

 

[Nocapszy]

No.

There may have been some drift across transcriptions and translations... the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts are not absolutely identical, it's true... but to say that "...the text has become hardly more than an empty vessel for anyone to fill in with whatever spiritual and political notions serve their purpose" is unsupportable.

It is true that various people have abused biblical texts in this fashion, but it is not true to say that the texts lend themselves to such abuse. In fact, to make the claim in itself might be evidence of an agenda.

Er... you misunderstand both my and BlueWing's point. The error is not necessarily in the script, or the translation of the writing, but in the conceptual fabric that most individuals spin (or don't) whether we're reading from the original document in its original, immaculate conception, or from the carbon copy, english piece of garbage we have today.

We may have similar words written down on the piece of paper in comparison to what we had 2000 years ago, though, I'd bet they are now interpreted radically differently from what they were intended to be by their initial authors.

Which is what I was approaching with my masquerade.

I also threw in a dig on how people use non-synonymous words interchangeably. They confuse them, and often understanding is distorted because of bad linguistic agility.

The same phenomenon is currently taking place with bad understanding and subsequently [false] belief in things like Nostradamus' predictions as well as astrology.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

EDIT: Please note that, in the above translations, I have deliberately selected sources both old and new, and across creeds and traditions. I have represented contemporary Protestants and Catholics, Reformation-era Protestants and Medieval Catholics, and Jews.

These sects tend to have much in common with each other. However, if we look at the Gnostics for example, or some other school of religious thought that does not accept the divinity of Jesus, yet still proclaims to be Christian we will see how different the two schools of thought may be whilst recognizing Jesus as their primary teacher.

As for the sects you've highlighted, we likely will notice this or that Catholic church for instance interpret the scripture in one particular way and this will be enforced in all congregations belonging to the enterprise. Other sects you've highlighted who also read the same Bible as the Catholic church will vary only slightly in interpretation of the piece of scripture we have in mind. However, if we go to each congregation individually, and ask them how they read that particular line in the scripture, they will give us similar, if not identical answers. Yet if we observe their practices which were supposed to be inspired by their reading of that scripture we will notice that they have little in common with each other. They pay lip service to the orthodox interpretation of hermeneutic yet practice it in a way most fitting to their tastes and prejudices.

 

[Oberon]

Er... you misunderstand both my and BlueWing's point. The error is not necessarily in the script, or the translation of the writing, but in the conceptual fabric that most individuals spin (or don't) whether we're reading from the original document in its original, immaculate conception, or from the carbon copy, english piece of garbage we have today.

In my judgment, the text is clear enough to provide honest answers to honest inquiry. If you start from the position that you want to twist a passage to serve your own ends, you're screwed from the beginning... but this is not a fault that can be attributed to the text, translated or not.

If your comment was to address the proliferation of denominations and sects in Christianity based on varying interpretations of scripture, again that is a fault that cannot truly be blamed on the text. The text is what it is.

If you consider the attempt to derive some kind of cogent belief system out of such a diverse group of books as those that make up the Christian bible to be futile, well...

Like I said: Good luck with that.

 

[Oberon]

These sects tend to have much in common with each other. However, if we look at the Gnostics for example, or some other school of religious thought that does not accept the divinity of Jesus, yet still proclaims to be Christian we will see how different the two schools of thought may be whilst recognizing Jesus as their primary teacher.

So you favor including more diverse groups in your inquiry, in the interest of proving a greater disparity of "christian" doctrine?

Well, certainly. If you'll include animists in the mix things get even more loopy.

 

[Nocapszy]

In my judgment, the text is clear enough to provide honest answers to honest inquiry. If you start from the position that you want to twist a passage to serve your own ends, you're screwed from the beginning... but this is not a fault that can be attributed to the text, translated or not.

If your comment was to address the proliferation of denominations and sects in Christianity based on varying interpretations of scripture, again that is a fault that cannot truly be blamed on the text. The text is what it is.

If you consider the attempt to derive some kind of cogent belief system out of such a diverse group of books as those that make up the Christian bible to be futile, well...

Like I said: Good luck with that.

In my judgment, my text was clear enough that honest inquiry should have yielded an answer that I wasn't blaming the text. I'm blaming the idiots who read it [wrong]. I said explicitly that it's not the fault of the text, and you still come at me with a rebuttal as if I said that it was.

I'm saying, people make false perceptions and judgements. Can I be any more clear? Can someone clarify that for me? Apparently I've not learned to weave words in a way that I can say one thing and have it interpreted as such. Sort of like the bible, as it's proven to be such.

 

[Nocapszy]

Aw man... I gotta go to work. Don't anyone say anything too poignant while I'm gone. I don't want to miss it. Though in a religion argument thread, I probably don't have anything to worry about.

 

[Kiddo]

Because it's not "clearly visible," though I freely admit it's part of the zeitgeist at present.

You honestly can't think of some times people have used the Bible to further political agendas?

The Crusades
The Subjugation of women
The American institution of Slavery
The American institution of Segregation
The Discrimination of Homosexuals
The Iraq war (when good ol' Bush said that he believed God wanted him to invade)

Just to name a few off the top of my head.

People have been using the name of God and Jesus through loose interpretations of the Bible in order to justify their political actions for centuries! This isn't a product of the times, it is a product of religious ideology mixed with political agenda. It's human history.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

So you favor including more diverse groups in your inquiry, in the interest of proving a greater disparity of "christian" doctrine?

Well, certainly. If you'll include animists in the mix things get even more loopy.

See, what we have here is the gospels that maintain Jesus is god in our cannon. Many other followers of Jesus maintain that he was not god, just a wise teacher. The soundness of a gospel is to be determined in accordance to its faithfulness to the original teaching of Jesus. We dont know if what Jesus truly taught was in line with what Catholics and Protestants teach, or what is in the canon now. One can plausibly argue that the Gnostic writings are equally deserving of being canonized as those that we have in our canon. The point here has nothing to do with making it more diverse but with finding the teaching that is most in line with what Jesus preached. Our reason for embracing the current Christianity as the teaching of Jesus was inspired wholly by Constantine's appraisal of this spiritual faith. There was no sound argument given in favor of the proposition that this teaching is more representative of the views of Jesus than the rival ones, such as the Gnostic. They merit our consideration in order to ensure we've established the most authoritative doctrines.


But the real problem is not what teachings we accept as Orthodox and authoritative, but with how people only pay lip service to this or that dogma yet continue to practice the teaching in a fashion most favorable to themselves.

 

[Nocapszy]

You honestly can't think of some times people have used the Bible to further political agendas?

The Crusades
The Subjugation of women
The American institution of Slavery
The American institution of Segregation
The Discrimination of Homosexuals
The Iraq war (when good ol' Bush said that he believed God wanted him to invade)

Just to name a few off the top of my head.

People have been using the name of God and Jesus through loose interpretations of the Bible in order to justify their political actions for centuries! This isn't a product of the times, it is a product of religious ideology mixed with political agenda. It's human history.

Are you a woman?

Also, 'manifest destiny' as number seven.

 

[ptgatsby]

I've been thinking about how to say this in as few words as possible.


It should be taken as literally as it can be morally literally applied.


Tadaa! My original 400 words down to 13! I was aiming for ten, but no go. I'm not sure this is even a correct sentance (it can be parsed more than one way...). Well, I suck at languages, so meh.

 

[Totenkindly]

I've been thinking about how to say this in as few words as possible:
It should be taken as literally as it can be morally literally applied.

oops.. sorry, i forgot... i en't allowed ta bow down before no udder gods, even if de're Ptgatsby...

 

[substitute]

One of the problems is when people TAKE the Bible as a religious text, singular. It isn't. It's lots of different texts, all conveniently bound up in one volume.

If you were Jewish in the Roman period and you wanted to read the book of Isaiah, you'd have gone into the synagogue and asked for the scroll of Isaiah. You would have been aware that this was 'one of many'. You would not necessarily have felt the need to hold it alongside the scroll of Deuteronomy and check for consistency, nor would you expect that lack of consistency would necessarily invalidate either text. edit - this would, IMO, have created a greater sense of perspective as to the context-bound areas of scripture; a better sense of the latter superceding the former, and of certain parts having been written for certain times and situations, therefore no longer necessarily binding at the present time (whenever that was).

Not only was the Bible in one volume as we know it today, an artificial creation long after its constituent parts were written, but the division into chapters and verses is even more recent and artificial, done for the convenience of modern era printers.

I believe all of these innovations make a difference as to how the Bible is taken, what's expected of it, etc.

When you have one volume, you sorta expect everything within it to be 'a story'; to be coherent, and corroborative with itself.

I don't think St Paul thought of his letters to his friends as being on a par in authority with the Ten Commandments, but many modern Christians do. When he said 'All scripture is inspired of God', I don't think he was referring to his own letters but to those texts he considered as Scripture - no official 'Gospels' yet; and yet that quotation is taken as evidence of the bindingness of those letters on others.

and fwiw pt, that was awesome

 

[substitute]

Oh, and I also think y'all should think for a bit on the implications of the concept of "scripture" or just writing, period, for a culture of mass illiteracy. I mean really imagine if you had absolutely no idea what writing was all about or how it was done; imagine nobody you talk to on a regular basis does, and everyone you know of who can write and read is a figure you consider holy and authoritative.

What effect would that have on the importance/level of awe that you feel towards the written word?

Think of all the superstitions that have arisen from the sense of awe and 'magic' that has surrounded the concept of literacy in mass illiterate cultures. For example, in China a Taoist priest would write 'blessings' on pieces of paper for someone to tear off the pad and scatter on the wind whilst ringing bells. There are all kinds of superstitions in European history involving the inscribing of letters and/or words in 'magic' practices. Why would it matter to scatter those pieces of paper? Why is it any different or better than just saying the words they denote, yourself?

If you don't understand how writing works and see it as a closely guarded secret of the elite, then you might consider it 'magic' or evidence of some kind of divine favour, that these people can recall, perfectly, in vivid detail and exact replica, words that were spoken long ago by others before they were born. You might well consider it 'magic' that this mere scratched symbol on a piece of wood can be recognized by certain people to represent something holy or sacred. How do they know what it says? Is it because they've all just learned to read? Or is it because the symbol itself is magical and transmits its meaning to those it deems worthy?

I'm just saying this by way of keeping a bit of context, historically, on what motives or impressions people might've had in the past for viewing the written word as sacred or particularly authoritative.

 

[Kiddo]

Are you a woman?

Nope.