Non-literal interpretations of the Bible

[lovemuffin]

To what specific claims are you referring?

The existence of an early polytheistic influence on Genesis, with male and female Gods including Yahweh and Asherah.

 

[lovemuffin]

Again, I think the important question is not whether a text lends itself to allegorical interpretation but whether or not it was intended as such.

Sorry Jayhawker I was trying to answer Burl's question before reading the thread. I think all interpretations are possible.

And I think that such a position is absolutely bankrupt.

I don't want to strawman your position, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears your view of interpretation is that a text has one objectively true meaning, and that meaning is fixed by the understanding of the author(s) of the text. Is that correct? Based on the other thread, I also am under the impression that you look at archaeological or anthropological tools mainly as a means of approaching what the author meant. Please forgive me and correct me if I'm mistaken.

Assuming that I'm not way off base, I'd suggest that I think that approach is a very useful place to start with any text, and I'm not overly fond of the tendency some people have of making wildly exotic readings of ancient texts and then asserting that those readings are authoritative. Nor is it reasonable to try to assert that an interpretation is original when the claim is unsupported by evidence. On the other hand, I would also argue against the proposition that the intention of an author absolutely fixes the meaning of a text. I will make two claims. The first is descriptive, and the second is normative.

1) As a matter of describing basically every existing religion with traditional sacred texts, it's quite clear that the meaning of those texts within the religion changes over time, as well as from place to place, in any number of ways, from differing ideas about the meanings of words to subtle shifts in priority given to some passages over others, or different approaches to systematizing disparate texts. I am mostly familiar with examples of this within Christianity and Hinduism, but within Judaism the transition from the second Temple period to Rabbinical Judaism seems like an obvious example. With the caveat that I think it's certainly possible to go too far with post-modernism, it seems clear that in order to adequately describe the actual processes by which humans find meaning in texts, you have to understand those processes in a relative way. What does it mean to whom? At what time? It is untenable to call such an understanding bankrupt, at least intellectually. Beyond that, this applies to basically all of human communication, and the more symbolic the communication, the more obviously it applies. Again, it may be bankrupt for someone to claim that some arbitrary interpretation is authoritative and represents the author's intent when it doesn't, but I don't believe that's the claim being made by "all interpretations are possible."

2) From a normative perspective (and this is more subjective), I can't find any compelling reason to say that a person ought to understand a text only as it was intended by the original author. I think a person ought to be reasonable and realistic about what the text meant to its original authors and readers (or current readers!) -- that is just intellectual honesty -- but why shouldn't a reader be free to take from any text (religious or not) such value as they can find in it? Again conceding that one should be honest about what one is doing. It seems to me that the obvious downside of morally prohibiting novel interpretations is that it makes it impossible for religion to adapt, whether to advances in knowledge or changes in culture. One can argue that in more fundamentalist strains of Christianity the inability to adapt is the greatest source of social negatives associated with the religion. There are other problems. Given that the Bible in particular has many authors and it's unlikely that their intentions can all be harmonized, from a religious perspective it would be nearly impossible to strictly apply this principle while still treating the texts in aggregate as having some authority to guide one's own understanding of how to live. There is a problem with coherency. Beyond that, given that the likely intent of the authors in many passages seem morally repugnant, there is also a moral objection, again insofar as one is reading the text as some kind of authority in the present. It's not a problem if your interest is purely academic.

 

[robocop (actually)]

OK. I've taken a great interest in this thread and will study it carefully to try to make helpful remarks.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Intolerance and hate by christains that they probably got from some two-bit preacher can be met with independent analysis by concerned Christians – that’s what Luther was about - “abomination”/”detestable” is the reason given for punishing homosexuality – yet that reason clearly doesn’t exist as much now, so why punish them so much?

If it’s really by a high enough power, you should be able to find a message anywhere. For instance the 49-49-7-49-49 trick. I believe in the 5 books of the Bible if you count by those numbers you get Torah in the 4 “49” books and the Lord’s name in reverse at the start of Leviticus by 7s. If you start with a parabola, the first few letters spell “Learn health” or I think “Safe home,” which might be significant to a lot of people. Anything can be looked up, but the less you think it matters probably the more minor the effect you will get out of it.

Give me examples of science denial or social repugnance. I just talked about homosexuality. There is a verse where it basically says pi is three but by dividing the two spellings of the key word you get pi to 5 digits. I am old-earth creationist and I believe in the Bible as far as it didn’t have to be watered down for its audiences.

Question:
For those of you who do not interpret the Bible literally, how do you interpret it?

However I want. I’ve even heard Jews say you can read the Torah however you think is best, so if all you know is the pictures of the letters you can do it that way.

What shifts in understanding does that produce? Communicating and trust with others builds meaning or detracts if you can’t agree.

How does that change the religion and its message for you?

It makes it a very valuable book worth careful respect, but I don’t believe people should cling to trying to make everything work all the time when our knowledge is limited too and it might be wrong like I believe lovemuffin just said at the end of his comment.

“There is a problem with coherency. Beyond that, given that the likely intent of the authors in many passages seem morally repugnant, there is also a moral objection, again insofar as one is reading the text as some kind of authority in the present. It's not a problem if your interest is purely academic.”

How does the symbolism of the Bible reveal truths to you? Does your practice change the way you relate to others? I believe I’ve answered these questions. I have found various geometric patterns in Genesis 1:1; two of mine encrypt the word “Torah” very powerfully. One is a Dradel and one is a Chinese checker board (Star of David).

If you think Judaism is not about Christianity is Christianity about Judaism? Didn’t Christ do the Jewish law?

Revelation 7:14 is interpreted literally by some.

I think the Catholic Church vulgarized God as the Universe and as Jesus Christ to help keep the concepts alive.

Sorry I can’t read all your books but did look at your websites. Yes there are many different lenses.

I think information survives in many ways including not just whether it is true or not.

Jayhawker didn’t believe Christianity intended in Old Testament – wasn’t Judaism inherent in Christianity

1. What I absolutely reject are pathetic attempts to read into the text in an effort to make millennia old narratives seem reasonable. Even more bankrupt are attempts to sanitize the text by those who have never taken the effort to understand what the text actually says or the cultural context in which it was understood.

Well my tries are not pathetic or attempts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't want to strawman your position, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears your view of interpretation is that a text has one objectively true meaning, and that meaning is fixed by the understanding of the author(s) of the text. Is that correct?

No. I am saying that there is no reason to doubt that the text had a principle intended meaning. How that meaning gets reframed or repurposed over time and across cultures may well be of interest but it is, from my perspective, an entirely secondary matter.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The existence of an early polytheistic influence on Genesis, with male and female Gods including Yahweh and Asherah.

On what grounds would one assume Genesis 1:26,27 reflects "an early polytheistic influence on Genesis, with male and female Gods including Yahweh and Asherah"?

 

[metis]

I think it's likely that many, if not most, of these early narratives came from oral traditions and probably weren't exclusive "Breaking News!" put forth by the author(s). Tracing oral traditions back to their origins is undoubtedly in most cases all but impossible.

Also, with many cross-cultural studies on this, oral traditions tend to evolve, plus they often spread to other societies and cultures whereas they tend to become modified. A case in point that one can use is what you run across of you google "Santa Clause".

 

[Orbit]

On what grounds would one assume Genesis 1:26,27 reflects "an early polytheistic influence on Genesis, with male and female Gods including Yahweh and Asherah"?

I already answered this. The text + archaeology.

 

[lovemuffin]

I think it's likely that many, if not most, of these early narratives came from oral traditions and probably weren't exclusive "Breaking News!" put forth by the author(s). Tracing oral traditions back to their origins is undoubtedly in most cases all but impossible.

This is an important point that I left out of my last post because I was worried it was overly long already. Thanks for making it.

 

[lovemuffin]

No. I am saying that there is no reason to doubt that the text had a principle intended meaning. How that meaning gets reframed or repurposed over time and across cultures may well be of interest but it is, from my perspective, an entirely secondary matter.

Based on your second sentence, it would seem then that you have no reasonable basis for claiming that the statement "all interpretations are possible" is "bankrupt." It's one thing to say it's not of primary interest to you, and another to imply that it shouldn't be of interest to anyone.

 

[lovemuffin]

On what grounds would one assume Genesis 1:26,27 reflects "an early polytheistic influence on Genesis, with male and female Gods including Yahweh and Asherah"?

I already answered this. The text + archaeology.

Right. that's probably enough said but I'm going to chime in anyway: "On what basis do you describe the conclusion of a reasoned argument based on academic research as an assumption?" It seems especially cheeky given that an answer was already given more than once.

I offered the disclaimer before that I'm not an expert. I invited you to point out where I was misrepresenting the book I cited, which you say you have. That wasn't rhetorical. I haven't read the book, only second or third hand summaries of it and other works. If I'm wrong, I really would love to be corrected. That's also why I asked if you thought I was incorrect about the academic consensus. You claim to be more knowledgeable than I am on this subject. I concede that could easily be the case, since I'm mostly ignorant. But what I was hoping was that you might use your advantage to educate me. I don't see the purpose in your question here other than to try to re-frame the claim in contention as an "assumption," which it clearly is not. After all this back and forth I still have no idea what your objection is.

 

[savagewind]

This is an important point that I left out of my last post because I was worried it was overly long already. Thanks for making it.

I don't mind reading your long posts. I think you are the best writer on the forum and I think most people agree with me. Oh my goodness! Look at your post/like ratio.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Of course some parts of the Bible are poetry, some are case law, some is history, some is prophesy
it's true in the sense of the literature but that sense needs to be sought

 

[OTPEuJill42]

Seeing the intolerance and hate by Christians in my newsfeed every day, from anti-trans protests to this: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/geo...h-at-christian-gathering-let-his-days-be-few/ , I started thinking that a lot of intolerance could be eliminated by a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. This thread is for those of you who practice that to some extent.

Background:
Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that says the Bible is the one, literal, inerrant source of all religious truth, didn't exist in the early Christian church. It was a Protestant invention in the 1500s. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do not subscribe to this idea. I greatly admire the apophatic mystic theology of the early Eastern Orthodox church, which owes to mystic experience and not Biblical text.

Sola Scriptura is responsible for science denial, for example the refusal to see the Genesis account of creation as the creation myth that it is, replete with borrowings from Sumerian myth, and just like any other creation myth around the world. Sola Scriptura leads to intolerance against women, gays, and nonbelievers because it refuses to see the Bible as a collection of writings, quite literally written by men who were products of a violent, patriarchal culture, time, and place.

To fully appreciate the Bible, it needs to be contextualized as the mythologized history that it is, and understood anthropologically. When we do this, many of the negatives fall away. Some may say "If you do that, it's not Christianity any more!". No, it's not Christianity as YOU know it, but it is a Christianity. The idea that salvation depends on "correct" belief is a relatively modern one.

Question:
For those of you who do not interpret the Bible literally, how do you interpret it? What shifts in understanding does that produce? How does that change the religion and its message for you? How does the symbolism of the Bible reveal truths to you? Does your practice change the way you relate to others?

Please no preaching about the "only" true Christianity. Thanks.

You seem to be saying that the religious beliefs that someone else has are mere mythology. Meaning you're syaing that it's not true.

As for the trans thing, there are people who aren't religious that see transsexuality as a mental illness.

 

[OTPEuJill42]

Revelation 7:14 "Washed in the blood of the lamb" isn't taken literally I'm sure, which is associated with a non-literalism that people can accept.

That's true, some parts are more literal than others.

 

[Burl]

The problem with non-literalism is the introduction of a human perspective to a miraculous narrative in which a multitude is fed with 5 loaves and 2 fish. In accepting that we can also accept that 144,000 robes were washed clean in one half bucket of lambs blood.

 

[Orbit]

You seem to be saying that the religious beliefs that someone else has are mere mythology. Meaning you're syaing that it's not true.

As for the trans thing, there are people who aren't religious that see transsexuality as a mental illness.

I never said anything about transgender issues- except to note their oppression by religious fanatics--where did that come from? No religious text can be proven to be true--it's all the product of human authors and human interpreters. If you believe your interpretation to be true, that's your belief--but it doesn't make your interpretation factual. I treat religious writings as the cultural expressions I think they are. You can choose to treat them differently, just don't oppress others while you do it.

 

[OTPEuJill42]

I never said anything about transgender issues- except to note their oppression by religious fanatics--where did that come from? No religious text can be proven to be true--it's all the product of human authors and human interpreters. If you believe your interpretation to be true, that's your belief--but it doesn't make your interpretation factual. I treat religious writings as the cultural expressions I think they are. You can choose to treat them differently, just don't oppress others while you do it.

You said "Seeing the intolerance and hate by Christians in my newsfeed every day, from anti-trans protests to this:"
It made it sound as if you were pro-trans, as transgender folks will accuse anyone of hate for simply disagreeing with what they do.

 

[Demonslayer]

That's true, some parts are more literal than others.

Something is either literal or not right? Something can't be more literal than something else?

 

[Orbit]

You said "Seeing the intolerance and hate by Christians in my newsfeed every day, from anti-trans protests to this:"
It made it sound as if you were pro-trans, as transgender folks will accuse anyone of hate for simply disagreeing with what they do.

oh, i see. ok. i'm pro "be who you are as long as you don't harm others"
ps hi mm