Why is the literalness of the Bible so important?

9-10ths_Penguin · Mar 22, 2019

Sky Rivers said:
It’s not ALL interpretation. Sometimes, you just have to read it for what it states and believe that.

The act of inferring meaning from a written work is interpretation.

Jainarayan · Mar 22, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
The Catholic Church does take the Adam and Eve story literally.

... not in the sense that they believe in a man named "Adam" and a woman named "Eve" who lived in a garden with a talling snake, but in the sense that there was an original male and female pair of humans from whom all "true humans" descended.

And it matters because without this, there's no basis for the doctrine of Original Sin.

Right, monogenesis. The RCC has a much less rigid or literal reading over all. Adam, Eve, and Evolution

Sky Rivers · Mar 22, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
The act of inferring meaning from a written work is interpretation.

I’ll be more clear then...

Sometimes, you just have to believe what’s written. The moment you read into scripture (because it conflicts with what you’re told by scientists to be true), that’s when you’ve lost the point and ended up in cycles of endless interpretation, “light years” away from Truth.

InChrist · Mar 22, 2019

Jainarayan said:
I don't think there's a literal or allegorical interpretation in those verses. What I mean by literal reading is what I said in this post Why is the literalness of the Bible so important?

I think most Christians who go by the literal interpretation of the scriptures would say it is important to take those passages about... "the universe was created in 6 days", "the flood was a real occurrence" ( I don't find anything specifically in reference to the Grand Canyon in the Bible), or "that there were literally a pair of every animal species on the ark".. as literal because; 1) if the Bible is God's Word - God does not lie and 2) because the verses are specific and plainly sound as if they are intended to read and taken literally. If the plain reading is disregarded and an allegorical interpretation is applied to these, then there is no reason to prevent one from applying the allegorical approach to any passage of the scriptures one doesn't care to take literally.

Audie · Mar 22, 2019

Audie said:
When you decide to choose, then.

Sky Rivers said:
Goodness, that’s just not true. Question: do you believe wealth defines human value? Furthermore, do you believe a person’s residence, defines their intelligence, knowledge, or value?

Fundamentalism draws its strength from the lower
socio economic rungs of the ladder.
"Trailer park" is shorthand.

No offense intended. The broad appeal
of Christianity is to not the rich and
their eye of needle prob., but to the
rich in spirit..

I said / implied nothing re value.
I've more respect for a maid who
worked for us in HK than for most of
the multimillionaires I know.

Place of residence certainly does not
define those things, though betimes
correlations show upl

Queens, or the Hamptons, say!
Quite different people.

Audie · Mar 22, 2019

Sky Rivers said:
I’ll be more clear then...

Sometimes, you just have to believe what’s written. The moment you read into scripture (because it conflicts with what you’re told by scientists to be true), that’s when you’ve lost the point and ended up in cycles of endless interpretation, “light years” away from Truth.

So, if you interpret "flood" as literal, world wide,
and research falsifies that interpretation, then what?

Vinayaka · Mar 22, 2019

9-10ths_Penguin said:
@Vinayaka - I don't think that the Bible has to be interpreted literally, but I do think that any interpretation needs justification.

I think it's often the case that when a Biblical passage is interpreted non-literally, the reason is that a literal interpretation seems absurd by a modern understanding. Personally, I think this is lazy and wrong-headed.

If there's good reason to consider a passage to be metaphor, poetry, etc., fine, but we shouldn't automatically assume that what's presented as a straightforward historical account wasn't meant to be literal just because the knowledge we've gained since the passage was written would make a literal interpretation embarrassing to modern adherents.

I mean, if a Bronze Age author would have had no reason to believe that it's impossible for the sky to be a solid dome, maybe he really did mean that the sky is a solid dome.

Dis you mean @Jainarayan?

InChrist · Mar 22, 2019

Audie said:
Everyone who reads your flippin' bible interprets as
it suits them, unless maybe "god" seized control
of their minds.

In one sense,you are correct, but in another very wrong. The amazing thing about relating to God and reading His Words is that He welcomes anyone to enter into relationship with Him as a unique individual wherever they are at in life, in spiritual understanding, maturity, or immaturity because God is a loving Father who desires to help us grow. So in one sense everyone who reads the scriptures is at a different place in their understanding and interpretation and God is patient enough to allow that, while His word reminds readers to continually seek and submit their minds to His intended wisdom and truth expressed in the scriptures.

Audie · Mar 22, 2019

InChrist said:
I think most Christians who go by the literal interpretation of the scriptures would say it is important to take those passages about... "the universe was created in 6 days", "the flood was a real occurrence" ( I don't find anything specifically in reference to the Grand Canyon in the Bible), or "that there were literally a pair of every animal species on the ark".. as literal because; 1) if the Bible is God's Word - God does not lie and 2) because the verses are specific and plainly sound as if they are intended to read and taken literally. If the plain reading is disregarded and an allegorical interpretation is applied to these, then there is no reason to prevent one from applying the allegorical approach to any passage of the scriptures one doesn't care to take literally.

Everyone ends up doing that anyway, they just choose to
draw lines in different places.

NOBODY says Jesus, a lamb, yesss, baabaa,
And hinges coz he is a door too.

Jainarayan · Mar 22, 2019

InChrist said:
because the verses are specific and plainly sound as if they are intended to read and taken literally.

When translated into a language 3.500 years removed from the alleged events. Did the original words mean the same as today? Was a day referred to in Ancient Hebrew the 24 hour period we know, or was it a metaphor for a very long time.

If the plain reading is disregarded and an allegorical interpretation is applied to these, then there is no reason to prevent one from applying the allegorical approach to any passage of the scriptures one doesn't care to take literally.

And what is wrong with that if the underlying idea or moral is preserved?

InChrist · Mar 22, 2019

Audie said:
Everyone ends up doing that anyway, they just
draw lines in different places.

NOBODY says Jesus, a lamb, yesss, baabaa,
And hinges coz he is a door too.

I would say that every single Christian who has ever read the Bible would draw exactly the same line with knowing that Jesus is not a literal lamb or a door with hinges because those passages are clearly symbolic.

Jainarayan · Mar 22, 2019

InChrist said:
I would say that every single Christian who has ever read the Bible would draw exactly the same line with knowing that Jesus is not a literal lamb or a door with hinges because those passages are clearly symbolic.

So why can't Adam and Eve and the snake be clearly symbolic? Why do they have to be literal when the same concepts are preserved with them as metaphors?

LuisDantas · Mar 22, 2019

Jainarayan said:
Not all of Christendom believes all of the Bible literally. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, and probably Anglican Churches view it as largely metaphorical and allegorical. Even when I was Christian I did not take it literally. My priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church used to say "what does it matter if Adam and Eve actually existed? The important thing is that we do exist to give glory to God". Yet there are large numbers in various Christian denominations that take the Bible literally. Why? Does taking it as largely allegorical somehow diminish any truths or lessons it holds? Does that make it false?

Using my own Hinduism for example, it's safe to say the overwhelming number of Hindus do not take most of our scriptures or stories literally, specifically the puranas. The Vedas are the exception in that they're generally accepted lock, stock and barrel because they are apauruṣeya (lit. means "not of man", i.e. divinely inspired). But they are not the equivalent of the Bible. The Vedas are hymns, poems, prayers, musings and treatises on theology, ontology and epistemology, and the world, etc. In the Nasadiya Sukta the Rig Veda even questions how creation came about. That said, that we don't take most of our texts literally doesn't diminish their value as being divinely inspired and holding truths.

So why is it so important that the Bible be interpreted literally?

Pretty good question.

Far as I can tell, it is an eccentricity of Christianity (and Islaam). Those doctrines make rather specific claims and even promises about the future that make it a bit tricky to avoid literalism.

There seems to be a bit of a... "dare" might be the best available word. Many a Christians or Muslim is pressured to be daring to some extent, to show support of and / or adherence to the doctrine even when presented with convincing evidence that the teachings are in some sense wrong or misguided. Very often that mixes with practical concerns of acceptance by family and friends.

Of course, the exact perspectives vary a lot. I am speaking about very general trends.

InChrist · Mar 22, 2019

Jainarayan said:
When translated into a language 3.500 years removed from the alleged events. Did the original words mean the same as today? Was a day referred to in Ancient Hebrew the 24 hour period we know, or was it a metaphor for a very long time.

And what is wrong with that if the underlying idea or moral is preserved?

From my research I believe the translation process from ancient manuscripts to modern Bible translations has been extremely accurate. While I think the Hebrew word for "day" is likely a 24 hour period I am not going to necessarily divide or find fault with other Christians who may see it differently if we still both believe the basic doctrines about : God is the Creator, sin, Jesus, the resurrection, etc.

All in all, the context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5–2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” seems to suggest that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5–2:2 for most of Christian history. At the same time, there were early church fathers, such as Augustine, who noted that the vague nature of the “days” of Genesis could well suggest a non-literal interpretation.
Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days?

InChrist · Mar 22, 2019

Jainarayan said:
So why can't Adam and Eve and the snake be clearly symbolic? Why do they have to be literal when the same concepts are preserved with them as metaphors?

I am interested in understanding, which "same concepts" do you think are preserved if the accounts are metaphorical?

Sky Rivers · Mar 22, 2019

Audie said:
So, if you interpret "flood" as literal, world wide,
and research falsifies that interpretation, then what?

I’d likely not care, especially since that’s not the case.

Sky Rivers · Mar 22, 2019

Jainarayan said:
When translated into a language 3.500 years removed from the alleged events. Did the original words mean the same as today? Was a day referred to in Ancient Hebrew the 24 hour period we know, or was it a metaphor for a very long time.

And what is wrong with that if the underlying idea or moral is preserved?

A day in the account of creation was (dusk until dawn), to my knowledge.

sealchan · Mar 22, 2019

Quintessence said:
Curiously, if mythology has gotten a bum rap, fairy tales are even worse off. They are spoken of as things that are unworthy of time or consideration in spite of the fact that they are repositories of cultural lore just as much as religious mythologies are. Many fairy tales contain remnants of oral religions or folk wisdom that have long since been lost or corrupted. Some Pagans - not myself - take to trying to sort all of this out, but it's something of a vain effort since all we have to work with are literary (and highly Christianized) versions of what were once oral traditions.

At any rate, it's my understanding that Biblical literalism is a thing specific to particular movements within Christianity as a whole and fairly modern. I couldn't tell you which ones, as I haven't made a study of such things and don't really remember. How important it is depends on the tradition. Hard to say how popular it really is, but it wouldn't surprise me of it is that minority that others like to ogle at and poke fun at. For my part, I largely ignore it. Mythological literalism of any sort is a rather bankrupt approach to mythos.

I think that with the advent of the widespread availability of writing and reading and access to sources we are wanting more and more to stay tuned to demonstrable facts and wanting to forget just how irrational we all are. We have biases/favorites, we ignore safety concerns habitually, we believe unquestionably in highly debatable abstract ideas without realizing it because we are immersed in a culture that functions based on those assumptions.

Myth is more like the OS that our psyches run on, in the background, and reason is an app that no one uses as much as they think they do.

Audie · Mar 22, 2019

Sky Rivers said:
I’d likely not care, especially since that’s not the case.

It most certainly is the case, many many
times over. But you do not care (wont
spoil your faith?) so you might be open to
a new understanding, which those who tie
their faith to such cannot possibly be.

It is not hard to explain, easier still
to see how "flood" is 100% incompatible
with any actual data!

Audie · Mar 22, 2019

Sky Rivers said:
A day in the account of creation was (dusk until dawn), to my knowledge.

Which really seems to me the only reasonable
intrrpretation of what the writers meant.

(I choose literal / reasonable, in this case)

Why is the literalness of the Bible so important?

1/10 Subway Stalinist

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय

Active Member

Free4ever

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

devotee

Free4ever

Veteran Member

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय

Free4ever

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय

Aura of atheification

Free4ever

Free4ever

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member