The mistake of interpreting holy books literally.

[loverofhumanity]

And like I said, it does not refute the Bible if one does not interpret it literally. There are quite a few Christians that insist that it was a historical fact. That all of the Earth was flooded. In fact they appear to think that refuting the flood myth is "refuting God". It is of course only a refutation of their personal version of God.

Another myth or misinterpretation is, I believe the creation story.

Science has proved beyond any doubt that the world is about 4.5 billion years old.

So how can the 7 days of creation be interpreted to make sense and be perfectly logical and reasonable?

The Bible is not a scientific journal but a ‘Divine’ Book about spiritual matters and occurrences. So could not the seven days be referring to Divine Days? In the Bible it states that a Day of God is as a thousand of our years. So that would mean seven thousand years.

What then did God create in seven thousand years if it wasn’t the physical world?

Just as the physical world has its sun so too does the spiritual world has its own Sun also.

But this Sun gives spiritual light and truth. One example of a Sun of Truth is Moses, another Jesus. So if we examine just how many Suns of Truth there have been since Adam we will likely find there have been about seven. Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah.


So we we have perhaps an explanation in the creation story of a ‘Divine nature’, of how the entire history of religion up until the present day could have been foretold in a few short passages.

So the story of creation I believe is not about the physical world, but about the creation of the Adamic Cycle and the Seven Days of God or Revelations that have appeared.

 

[JoshuaTree]

The Catholic Church learned a lesson from their opposition to Galileo. Now they treat literalism as it should be, as blasphemy.

My understanding is that catholics support science in some instances but not in others, evolution for example is accepted by the church as science for all living things except for man as adam and eve remain literal and are requirements of faith recited in literurgy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My understanding is that catholics support science in some instances but not in others, evolution for example is accepted by the church as science for all living things except for man as adam and eve remain literal and are requirements of faith recited in literurgy.

That may be the case for some Catholics, but it does not appear to be the case for all. It would be interesting to hear a Catholic perspective on this. I know of at least one very devout Catholic biologist that does not appear to believe this at all. Dr. Kenneth Miller understands human evolution quite well and he is a devout Catholic. He keeps his religion out of his science.

 

[SalixIncendium]

None, that is why I asked about literal interpretations in other religions. Who knows? There may not be any stories that are easily refuted. I am interested in learning about other religions since this is one trait that may be common to all of the them.

The Hindu scriptures, at least those that I've read, do not read like the holy books you may have read. They are moral based books, and whether or the stories told actually happened, such as the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna, isn't really relevant. What is relevant are the morals, ethics, and values they represent. So there is really nothing in them to refute.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Why would there be any need of the event? As told God is an immoral monster that kills guilty and innocent. It would be better to focus on the faith of Noah as the lesson.

Please note. This is not an anti-religion thread. It is an anti-literalism thread, regardless of religion.

I feel some events are given as an explanation of observations. The tower of babel for example in a neat explanation as to how/why people speak different languages around the world yet everyone descended from adam and eve speaking the same language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Hindu scriptures, at least those that I've read, do not read like the holy books you may have read. They are moral based books, and whether or the stories told actually happened, such as the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna, isn't really relevant. What is relevant are the morals, ethics, and values they represent. So there is really nothing in them to refute.

And I openly admit to being ignorant of their content. I have to admit that I have not heard of Hindu creationists. Just out of curiosity are there any sects of Hinduism that take it to the same extreme that American creationists do?

 

[Vinayaka]

I look at scripture generally in two categories ... fiction, and non-fiction. Some are stories, and others are essays on philosophy, ethics, etc. Personally, I ignore the first category.

 

[SalixIncendium]

And I openly admit to being ignorant of their content. I have to admit that I have not heard of Hindu creationists. Just out of curiosity are there any sects of Hinduism that take it to the same extreme that American creationists do?

None that I'm aware of. Of course this doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that I'm not aware of any that do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None that I'm aware of. Of course this doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that I'm not aware of any that do.

Looking it up it appears that if the problem exists it is the reverse of what we see in the U.S.. Hindu "creationists" appear to believe in devolution and not evolution:

Hindu Creationism, Just Like Our Own

I have no idea how widespread those ideas are or if they are harmful in the same way that creationist beliefs in the U.S. are harmful.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I was going to limit this to Abrahamic religions, but the problem almost certainly exists for other religions as well. At least when it comes to the Abrahamic religions reading the Old Testament, Torah, or whatever name it goes by in Muslim sects literally can only refute those particular beliefs. For example the mere fact that ice floats (and a thousand other scientific facts) refutes the Old Testament if one interprets it literally. Other examples are welcome or an explanations of why the refute those books are welcome. Also questions about how the books are refuted is welcome too.

There is an out, at least for Christianity, and probably one for Judaism and for others religions as well. Many Christians misinterpret the following verse:

"16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Please note, it does not say that the Bible is literally true. It does not even imply that it is . It merely states that it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. If one treats the stories of Genesis, Exodus, and other parts of the Bible as being instructional and not factual they still "work". It is so odd that so many Christians do not understand this.

Okay, have at it. Bring up any stories myths etc. from your various holy books and tell us how they cannot be taken literally

I think there is the story, the lessons, and that they can mix on many levels.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Looking it up it appears that if the problem exists it is the reverse of what we see in the U.S.. Hindu "creationists" appear to believe in devolution and not evolution:

Hindu Creationism, Just Like Our Own

I have no idea how widespread those ideas are or if they are harmful in the same way that creationist beliefs in the U.S. are harmful.

I suppose any religion can have its fundamentalists.

I wouldn't say these views are too widespread, especially given what is written at the end of the article from the link you posted.

As you may have been suspecting, the article, written for a Hindu readership in India, isn’t terribly enthusiastic about the situation. It concludes:

If we are troubled and tickled by the creationist challenge to the scientific understanding of evolution in America, it is time, perhaps, to look at the anti-scientific creation stories that we ourselves subscribe to. Can we, in all honesty, believe in Vedic creationism and still think of ourselves as modern, scientific and enlightened?
​

There are apparently some sensible people in India. We need a few more like them here in the West.​

 

[Nakosis]

When we talk in English we understand each other in a way that goes well beyond the words we use.

I think we, in modern times, really lack that understanding with the authors of the Bible. So while we parse the words a large part of what was being communicated by the authors that other people of their time, culture would understand is lost to us.

 

[Augustus]

The Catholic Church learned a lesson from their opposition to Galileo. Now they treat literalism as it should be, as blasphemy.

They didn't learn anything from Galileo as they didn't reject his, as then unproven, thesis due to it contradicting literalism per se.

The problem was it was still unproven and rejected by many astronomers and so hadn't reached the level of proof required to force a revision in an established theological position (and numerous other petty and personal factors).

The idea they had to stick to an obviously wrong position 'because literalism' is just a myth.

 

[Quintessence]

Not sure I understand what is being asked for.

Any literature - though this applies also to any form of information, really - can be approached or interpreted in different ways. One can take a science textbook as a piece of mythic literature (I do this regularly) as well as take it in a more literalistic fashion (which I also do regularly). I can read a science text to get fact-based information about the world, but then also think about the deeper implications and meaning it can have for my way of life and my relationships to the gods the science book is writing about. For instance, one can learn about the bare facts of the water or nitrogen cycle, but then take it a step further and see this as reinforcing mythic lessons about cyclicality and interconnectedness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They didn't learn anything from Galileo as they didn't reject his, as then unproven, thesis due to it contradicting literalism per se.

The problem was it was still unproven and rejected by many astronomers and so hadn't reached the level of proof required to force a revision in an established theological position (and numerous other petty and personal factors).

The idea they had to stick to an obviously wrong position 'because literalism' is just a myth.

Sorry, but you do not threaten someone with a charge of heresy for disagreeing on the interpretation of data. This is just a lie that you were told by Catholic apologists. Look at some of the arguments against him by Catholic church officials.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Science interferes with omniscience, might that be the issue?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science interferes with omniscience, might that be the issue?

How could it?

 

[Augustus]

Sorry, but you do not threaten someone with a charge of heresy for disagreeing on the interpretation of data. This is just a lie that you were told by Catholic apologists. Look at some of the arguments against him by Catholic church officials.

No it is nothing to do with 'Catholic apologists' but secular historians of science.

The Catholic Church was not married to positions of inerrant Biblical literalism.

"I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false." Cardinal Bellarmine

Long before Galileo, Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was literally dedicated to the Pope.

Post-reformation Catholicism was not necessarily the most enlightened and tolerant institution, but the idea that it had to oppose Galileo 'because literalism' is a myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it is nothing to do with 'Catholic apologists' but secular historians of science.

The Catholic Church was not married to positions of inerrant Biblical literalism.

"I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them, than that what is demonstrated is false." Cardinal Bellarmine

Long before Galileo, Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was literally dedicated to the Pope.

Post-reformation Catholicism was not necessarily the most enlightened and tolerant institution, but the idea that it had to oppose Galileo 'because literalism' is a myth.

Yes, that was a political move to try to get Church acceptance. It did not work. Copernicus's views were not accepted immediately. And Galileo was charged with heresy for teaching that the Earth went around the Sun. Heresy could have a death sentence attached. I know that you want to defend the Church but in this matter it cannot be defended:

Galileo is accused of heresy.

 

[Martin]

I think it's a mistake to view ancient religious texts through a modern lens.
Attempts to understand the intention of the original authors are likely to be more revealing. That requires an understanding of the historical and cultural context.