How literally should the Bible be interpreted?

[Totenkindly]

The trick is determining where you see allegory.

I don't see him in the Oval Office.

 

[Oberon]

I don't see him in the Oval Office.

He's been in there before, but only for staff meetings.

 

[substitute]

The trick is determining where you see allegory.

And where you see propaganda, or that is, "yes, we committed mass genocide and wiped out entire peoples and their cultures so we could take over their land, but it was okay because God told us to do it and they were evil and nasty anyway"...

Books like Nehemiah send shudders through me...

 

[Oberon]

Jericho.

What do you make of Jericho?

 

[Totenkindly]

The archeology isn't even clear on Jericho. (At the moment, it still seems to stand that the city walls/gates did not exist at the time the Bible suggests the conquest occurred.)

The conquest story itself has two flaws. One is the historicity of it (no proof found yet that it happened in the timeframe the Bible suggests). The other is that the strategies used either don't make sense, or they seem like human strategies, not God strategies.

(Well, perhaps that is not the conquest I'm thinking of. But all of Gideon's schemes are attributed to God, whereas they just seem like human cunning at work. And which battle was the one where the men smashed their jars and let all their torches flare at once, suggesting there were a lot more men there than than Israel had? That is a human strategy and says nothing about God whatsoever. This is why the Biblical account seems like a jumble of geographical fact, some healthy folklore, and human wisdom all rolled together.)

Then again, I still have not even figured out how millions of Israelites wandered around a rather small (geographically) desert wilderness for 40 years without leaving a trace of themselves, and had enough resources to survive as a people. (Aside from the obvious, "Oh, it was a miracle!" scenario.)

The field of archeology has been changing its approach for the last 50 years, looking at evidence and then comparing to the Biblical narrative, rather than using the Biblical narrative to interpret the evidence. Much of that information is still trickling its way down to public knowledge, which seems to think that archeology offers resounding proof that the Bible is completely true; in reality, it's much more gray.

 

[Oberon]

The archeology isn't even clear on Jericho. (At the moment, it still seems to stand that the city walls/gates did not exist at the time the Bible suggests the conquest occurred.)

Eh. I don't care about the archaeology of Jericho (or, rather I am, but that's not what I was getting at in my post). What I was asking sub about was the record in Joshua of a divine mandate to put every living thing in the city to death.

I presume sub would see this as one of those cases where the history was invented as an apology for genocide.

 

[Totenkindly]

I presume sub would see this as one of those cases where the history was invented as an apology for genocide.

It could be.

Then again, it's like trying to say that George W. Bush has fabricated his beliefs in God in order to invade Iraq for purely pragmatic reasons. (I believe he sincerely believes the spiritual narrative he has created.)

 

[Oberon]

It could be.

Then again, it's like trying to say that George W. Bush has fabricated his beliefs in God in order to invade Iraq for purely pragmatic reasons. (I believe he sincerely believes the spiritual narrative he has created.)

Oddly, I don't.

I think the US invaded Iraq for purely pragmatic reasons.

I also think George Bush has a sincere faith in God, but I don't think that faith is what drove the move to invade. I think Bush may have found himself personally forced to reconcile his faith with the invasion, and that's the answer he came up with.

But this post threatens to move the discussion off-topic, so I'll desist.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oddly, I don't.
I think the US invaded Iraq for purely pragmatic reasons.
I also think George Bush has a sincere faith in God, but I don't think that faith is what drove the move to invade. I think Bush may have found himself personally forced to reconcile his faith with the invasion, and that's the answer he came up with.
But this post threatens to move the discussion off-topic, so I'll desist.

Fine then, go ahead -- go to your petty threads elsewhere and talk about big butts, see if I care!

How on earth did we end up on each other's side of this discussion?

 

[Oberon]

If you'd like, move posts 67 through 70 to a new thread in the Politics forum, and we can take it up there.

 

[substitute]

Eh. I don't care about the archaeology of Jericho (or, rather I am, but that's not what I was getting at in my post). What I was asking sub about was the record in Joshua of a divine mandate to put every living thing in the city to death.

I presume sub would see this as one of those cases where the history was invented as an apology for genocide.

Yeah, that too. I suspect that some of those things might also be exaggeration. Like, they didn't really put everything to death and there was no divine mandate. It was more like a case of, generations after the event, what with their major 'purity' complex, they were getting a bit tetchy about who was descended from whom, so it might've been a convenient sorta leveller of kind, or serve some purpose socially anyway, to pretend that their ancestors killed everyone in the city when they came there, so therefore everyone here is still a 'son of Abraham' and we don't need to worry about who is and who isn't, or something like that.

pure speculation on my part, but the point being I can see several different reasons why people would write that, or have a vested interest in attributing something to 'divine mandates'... it's just the old trick of having an 'official history' written by the victors, sorta thing... and I find it odd to think that a God who Isaiah claims is fed up with the Jews because of their unrighteous ways and who prefers a contrite heart and a humble and meek spirit to animal sacrifices, would be the same God who said "Yep, that's it, go in and murder every single one of them, and if you're merciful and spare a single one then I shall smite thee! Yes, even the little children! They're evil and sinful because their parents are pagans, so kill them too!"

Hmmm....

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm having trouble when I start overlaying my own parenting experience with descriptions of God in the OT.

My parenting experience much more closely resembles that of the "patient father" in The Prodigal Son NT story.

And God is supposed to be an even better, more loving parent than I am... and He is supposedly the source of all people and thus their parent.

I'm sorry, but I can't identify with Jehovah anymore, who found it necessary and even preferable to slay his own children because of his "wrath."

Perhaps the God depicted in the Jonah story is a little better, because he spares Ninevah when they momentarily repent, but he decides against it 80 years later or so.

I don't quite know what to do with it, and all this stuff about, "Well, at some point you just have to kill people before their sin makes life worse for everyone" or "God knew they'd never repent" or whatnot just really sounds like hedging around the issue to me.

It doesn't change the relationship between parent and children: Either the parent is the perfect parent, long-suffering, always willing to sacrifice to bring the child home despite their reaction, or the parent is fallible and has limits and at some point exercises them to the point of hatred.

God's definitely not a God of endless love... not unless hell is something that is chosen by the prodigal child, not inflicted on him by God. Which rather than blows holes in the sails of Jehovah, the loving but "wrathful" and punishing deity.

 

[substitute]

I've many thoughts on that... but unfortunately it's time for bed. Hopefully I'll get around to sharing them with you tomorrow

But basically I don't think the punishment for disobeying God comes from God. I think it's basically us punishing ourselves... sorta like karma, in a way. He just tells us how to live in a way that's best for us, but when we rebel against it, we meet with the inevitable consequences of our folly, and that's all it is... sorta like if you tell your kid not to eat that 6lb bar of chocolate all in one go, and if they eat it anyway, and get sick, y'know, it's not you making them sick as a punishment, is it? But if they'd listened to you, it wouldn't have happened.

But then, I tend to disregard most of the Bible when it comes to theology, but especially the earlier OT books and many of the epistles. I do have good reasons for that, but, as I said... time for bed right now!

 

[anii]

Not at all literally. Besides it can't be... how many conflicting 'literal' interpretations are there, anyway?

 

[Oberon]

Not at at literally.

That's not possible. Some things were clearly intended to be taken literally. For example, the decalogue was intended literally, and was (and still is) interpreted as such by observant Jews and most Christians.

And when for example the Torah instructs its adherents to take a male child on the eighth day after his birth and cut the foreskin off his penis, that means that on the eighth day after his birth observers of the law were to cut the foreskin off the child's penis.

You can certainly argue whether such instruction is the word of God or the work of men, and you can certainly argue whether it should apply to people today or not, but one cannot argue that the language of the instruction was symbolic or allegorical. The act of observing these points of the law may have had symbolic resonance, but the instructions themselves were intended to be taken literally.

 

[Totenkindly]

And when for example the Torah instructs its adherents to take a male child on the eighth day after his birth and cut the foreskin off his penis, that means that on the eighth day after his birth observers of the law were to cut the foreskin off the child's penis.

I always thought that penises were metaphorical.

In any case, it's a good reminder. And it does depend on the book, on how it should most likely be read.

 

[substitute]

I always thought that penises were metaphorical.

me too!!!!

*hi five*

 

[The Ü™]

That's not possible. Some things were clearly intended to be taken literally. For example, the decalogue was intended literally, and was (and still is) interpreted as such by observant Jews and most Christians.

And when for example the Torah instructs its adherents to take a male child on the eighth day after his birth and cut the foreskin off his penis, that means that on the eighth day after his birth observers of the law were to cut the foreskin off the child's penis.

You can certainly argue whether such instruction is the word of God or the work of men, and you can certainly argue whether it should apply to people today or not, but one cannot argue that the language of the instruction was symbolic or allegorical. The act of observing these points of the law may have had symbolic resonance, but the instructions themselves were intended to be taken literally.

What is it with the Hebrews and all these ridiculous rules?

 

[Oberon]

What is it with the Hebrews and all these ridiculous rules?

Paul had an answer for that. You can find it in the book of Romans, if you're interested. He was a Hebrew, so he can speak to this with some authority.

Other writers, of course, have other opinions.

 

[substitute]

What is it with the Hebrews and all these ridiculous rules?

They had a big thing about making themselves stand out as different to the other tribes and peoples around them, so sought to define themselves by these convoluted laws and customs and whatever that distinguished them from others. And the purity complex thing too, they believed doing these things made them 'purer' or kept them pure.

Like say, if they moved in next to a tribe called the Rotisserons, who ate mutton with gravy but also happened to worship idols, they'd make a point of not eating mutton with gravy to show they were different to the Rotisserons.

(IMO of course)