Why does it matter if its factual ?

[metis]

Why would the fact that a literal interpretation was racist mean that the interpretation is wrong? Maybe the author really did mean to express racism.

It was the church I attended that had a racist drift.

Edit: and why would we expect an ancient author to agree with modern science from thousands of years after he was alive?

I didn't and don't.

 

[sun rise]

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

I salute your progression. I too don't see personal value in literalness. And to me if the words don't inspire someone to act according to his or her best understanding, then they are not worth much of anything at all.

 

[stvdv]

As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

Good point. I never was a fundamentalist, because my parents recognized that fundamentalism was not the way.
Then my Master teached us that all religions lead to Truth, so the little fundamentalism that was left was killed at that moment.

Even the Bible Masters teach "All is vanity, even wisdom ... the wise will die as well as the ignorant"
Seems a natural process spiritual people go through

"The more I know, the more I realize I do not know"

 

[PureX]

The authors of these texts would clearly have known that what they were writing down was not known to them, or to anyone else, to be a factual accounting of history. They would have known that what they were writing down were cultural myths, and parables, and stories handed down to them through the generations of their people for the purpose of conveying some important spiritual truth held by them. And they would have known this by knowing that they were not present to witness these events for themselves, that no one alive was present to have witnessed them, and that there was no means available to them to for determining the events of the past once they have passed.

To claim that the Bible's authors, editors, and interpreters thought they were writing down a factual history is to claim that they had basically all lost their minds.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Because it’s harmonious, and context determines if it’s literal or not.....whether Bible writers - or Jesus - or Stephen, in Acts 7 - referred to whatever as a real event

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I salute your progression. I too don't see personal value in literalness. And to me if the words don't inspire someone to act according to his or her best understanding, then they are not worth much of anything at all.

If you're going to interpret scriptures to get the outcome you want, why not cut out the middleman and set the scriptures aside altogether?

 

[Dawnofhope]

As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

For me as an ex, I feel sorry for the folks who in my opinion have been hood winked, sadly some of the most closed minded people I know are fundamentalists.

It sounds like its been a valuable and fulfiling journey to free yourself from Christian fundamentalism. I had a couple of years of being on the fringes of such a movement but it was never a good fit. Fundamentalism contradicts my life experience, reason, science and the reality of other faiths. Modern biblical scholarship largely rejects fundamentalism. Seeing the New Testament without literalism opens new doors of understanding to both the Bible itself and other faiths.

 

[whirlingmerc]

As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

For me as an ex, I feel sorry for the folks who in my opinion have been hood winked, sadly some of the most closed minded people I know are fundamentalists.

It does matter. If Jesus came back from the dead then he has ultimate answers for life and death

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It does matter. If Jesus came back from the dead then he has ultimate answers for life and death

If we remove literal interpretation from the scriptures that tell us this story, we can conclude that Jesus the body will never return and that Christ the Spirit will.

It tells us also that the flesh dies and that it is the spirit that gives life. Life and death are thus already explained.

You can be alive in the flesh, but dead in the spirit.
You can be alive in the flesh, and alive in the spirit to which the first death can not overtake.
You can die in the flesh, but be alive in the spirit.

Regards Tony

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It largely mirrors my own experiences, where this group takes what good the Bible does say and turn into something ugly. After I left that all behind, for awhile I hated all Christians because of them. Fortunately it wasn't long before I met a priest (Episcopalian) who showed me some Christians would rather focus on the love and acceptance Christ taught instead being hateful, spiteful bigots who cause more problems for the world than they fix.

 

[Augustus]

I think that good scholarship tries to delve into the author's intent and state of mind, and we should definitely follow the evidence in that regard.

The Bible was written by multiple people with differing intents.

For example, Genesis would likely be the redaction and codification of oral tradition. Paul's epistles were his opinions written down to be read aloud to congregations: "Reading this, then, you will be able to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ."

Neither of these seems to presuppose the creation of a text to be interpreted literally by an individual. Oral cultures are naturally fluid, and Paul was writing letters to fellow Christians explaining his personal opinions on issues faced by an emerging socio-religious movement, not eternal truths to be interpreted literally by Bible readers for evermore.

I don't think the mere fact that a literal interpretation is embarrassing or ridiculous to modern readers is a sign that the author intended a non-literal interpretation... especially if the reasons we now consider it ridiculous wouldn't have been known to the ancient author.

If people had interpreted everything literally up until modern science proved them wrong you might have a case, but people were making exactly the same arguments in the 1st/2nd C. Non-literal readings have always been part of Christianity, as the texts have always been seen as having multiple levels of interpretation, as was also the case for pre-Christian texts in the Greek world.

Scriptural literalism is mostly a Protestant invention relating to individuals reading and interpreting the Bible as beforehand the Church was acknowledged as the interpreter of scripture, and the Church didn't adopt a literalist hermeneutic.

 

[wellwisher]

Consider, Darwin's theory of evolution and the origin of species. Darwin's book was no mentioned of DNA even though modern science knows this is critical to evolution. DNA would not be discovered for another 100 years. Yet many people still teach Darwin as literal even with this very major flaw with respect to modern science.

Newtonian gravity is still taught in school even though it was superseded by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Why maintain an old tradition that is not consistent with what modern science has proven to be true? Have these become like religions?

In both cases, the authors were way ahead of their time and their contemporaries.They both pioneered how people looked at the world, based on the evidence of their day, using the limitations of their contemporary technology. These ideas became the foundations of future thought. They are worth preserving, since they show us where we came from, so we can compare where we are. If we draw a line through these two points in time, we can anticipate the future, since it too will follow from what came before; learn from history.


The New Testament has many books that tell the same story but often in different ways. The main reason for this was early Christianity was persecuted; genocide, since it upset the status quo. An attempt was made, especially by Emperor Caligula of Rome to purge this religion of not only of its leaders and members, but also of its writings and records. It was not until about 100 or so years later that another set of text accounts were written based on the oral traditions that had survived.

If you told a friend a detailed story, and he told another person, the story changes as each person adds their own style and their own embellishment. If it was written down, then the propagation of the story result is a lot tighter story. Early book and record burning and the killing of the leaders, to purge Christianity, resulted in few if any written texts over the first hundred years. The second writing, 100 years later, was based on oral traditions, that got embellished as each generation told it. When these stories were finally rewritten, it became locked in time. It became the foundation of thought for centuries. It is part of the line to the future. Some people make it their quest to make sure these first data points are not moved or fudged; literalists, so the slope of the line stays true to the future.

 

[dybmh]

If you're going to interpret scriptures to get the outcome you want, why not cut out the middleman and set the scriptures aside altogether?

It's a very interesting question.

You asked "If you're going to interpret scriptures... why not set the scriptures aside altogether...?"

One possibility is that the scripture comes from an all knowing God who knows how the scripture will be misinterpreted, and then reinterpreted, and then eventually explained in the future.

Writing the scripture in a literal, factual manner would be a spoiler for us humans.

In this possibility God wants there to be a process of interpretation, reinterpretation, and revelation.

 

[loverofhumanity]

As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

For me as an ex, I feel sorry for the folks who in my opinion have been hood winked, sadly some of the most closed minded people I know are fundamentalists.

Nice post. To me one of the main purposes of true religion is to create peaceful, loving and intelligent human beings and foster unity and world brotherhood.

 

[Trackdayguy]

Nice post. To me one of the main purposes of true religion is to create peaceful, loving and intelligent human beings and foster unity and world brotherhood.

Yes, I would totally agree.

 

[Muffled]

I believe something may be literal without being factual. So I believe you are right that it doesn't matter.

 

[Muffled]

Good question. Lots of things. The real issue for the literalist is (Is it factual) NOT what is the text speaking to me about.
In answer to your question I think the fruit that I saw fundamentalism create. I think that fundamentalism is attractive to insecure and fragile people who need some absolutes in their life.

Judgment
Segregation
Pride
Blindness
Arrogance
Close mindedness

are all the fruits I observed in fundamentalism

I believe that has nothing to do with literal or factual but whether the view is objective or subjective.

 

[Muffled]

There is a difference between symbols and signs. A sign is literal while a symbol is less linear and much more spatial.

As an example, if I said the Stature of Liberty, the literal sign is a large copper statue of a female in NYC. As a symbol, the statue represents the concept of liberty, which is less definitive and requires studying, pondering and intuition to fully grasp.

The left brain is more about differential thinking were we break down reality into it parts. We see differences.The right brain is more integral and integrates the same data into a spatial whole. The sign is more left brain and the symbol is more right brain.

If you look at small children they love fairly tails. The literal signs of Genesis are useful in the sense of creating a type of easy to remember compression sequence of the symbol, that appeals to children. As we get older, the adult learns to fluff up or decompress the popcorn kernels and explore its 3-D symbolic meaning. The child like the state of liberty while the adult thinks deeper about its decompressed symbol.

Science is more differential and will tend to think in terms of literal signs and distinct data. It argues from the face value of the sign. Science is not yet 3-D, so it does not want to there, but stops short. The change in some people, like myself, from sign to symbol, is to attempt to puff up the sign into a symbol.

I believe a subjective view might be that the statue is holding a torch because she wants to destroy the iniquitous city of New York. However that would never work as an objective view of what the statue stands for.

 

[Trackdayguy]

It does matter. If Jesus came back from the dead then he has ultimate answers for life and death

If Jesus is coming back in bodily form what is his current location?

 

[exchemist]

There are lots of non-literalist interpretations of a piece of scripture. When you say that you "reject literalism," what's your approach?

- "the author intended this to be factually true, but the author is a fallible human, so I can overlook factual errors and focus on the overall message."

- "the author didn't make any mistakes; he intended this to be interpreted poetically/allegorically/etc. from the outset."

- "I recognize with modern knowledge that this scripture is obviously false if taken literally, but I'm still attached to it, so I'll interpret it non-literally even though I have no reason to believe that this is what the author intended."

I think a lot of "non-literalists" go for the third option.

Now... if you have good reasons for your non-literalist approach, great. I think that good scholarship tries to delve into the author's intent and state of mind, and we should definitely follow the evidence in that regard.

OTOH, I don't think the mere fact that a literal interpretation is embarrassing or ridiculous to modern readers is a sign that the author intended a non-literal interpretation... especially if the reasons we now consider it ridiculous wouldn't have been known to the ancient author.

This post seems to suggest that in the not too recent past it was normal to interpret the bible literally and that those that do not need some kind of personal excuse for not doing so.

There is abundant evidence that is is not the case at all. My understanding is that biblical literalism is largely a recent development, due to sects such as the 7th Day Adventists and similar, around the end of the c.19th and subsequently*.

The main traditions of the established churches have always realised, from 200AD onwards, that interpretation was needed, generally of the first and second kinds in your list, though sometimes latterly the third too, as science started to advance. Just about any member of one of the more established Christian denominations, with a structure to its clergy and a developed body of theology, (e.g. Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian) is a "non-literalist" by default.



* From the Wik article on biblical literalism: Karen Armstrong, a most popular liberal living historian of religion writes, 'Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.'

P.S. In fact this Wiki article is worth a read, to get a more accurate idea of how limited the prevalence of literalism actually is: Biblical literalism - Wikipedia