Why I'm Not a Biblical Literalist

[_Hoops]

I don't want to sound proud or condescending

I can't think of a time when you ever have.

The original language (which may vary)?

Yes. But the variety is very minor. So minor that there is no real effect on core doctrine.

"single standard or reference from which to interpret the text," but I wonder what that standard is,

The original MS. From the sources we have, it seems pretty reliable, don't you think?

and who determines that it alone is authoritative

The ECF seemed to think it was. Yes, I am familiar with the objections, but I don't think that's what you're asking here.

Translators, transcribers, and interpreters (such as those who write Biblical commentary) are human and subject to mistakes and even deliberate changes of meaning. How do we know which translation, which interpretation to trust?

Certainly there have been mistakes, even deliberate changes. But to what effect? It seems this point is brought up to account for changes that might have happened that effects doctrine we don't know about. Or for which there is no other evidence than an outside source (LDS doctrine for example)

Your analoby doesn't work for me. If the sentence you are translating comes from a paragraph about babies, then I think we have a good idea about what translation should work. SAme is true with any sentence, paragraph, book, historical dispensation of the Bible.

[_Runtu]

I don't know, but I hope it's the first. We can all use some peace and good will. "Men of good will" already have peace. Why send peace to those who already have and not to those who need it? (I'm interpreting "peace" to be "inner peace," and maybe that wasn't the intention of the original text either. The problems just never end.)

But do you see my point? I'm sure someone who knows the Greek translation can tell us what the Greek says. But then the Greek is a translation of a non-extant original. How do we know that the Greek translation is accurate? We can't. And even if we could, we'd still have the problem of our reading things in a 21st-century context.

[_Hoops]

And I'm not sure why we can't factor in the idea that IF there is a God and; IF he chose to communicate with us and; IF one of those ways was through some set of sacred writing and; then why couldn't we rely on HIS protection of that set of sacred writing to some degree. The level of protection is certainly debatable, but we could make certain assumptions couldn't we?

[_just me]

And I'm not sure why we can't factor in the idea that IF there is a God and; IF he chose to communicate with us and; IF one of those ways was through some set of sacred writing and; then why couldn't we rely on HIS protection of that set of sacred writing to some degree. The level of protection is certainly debatable, but we could make certain assumptions couldn't we?

Sure. We could assume all those IF's. Then we have to look at what the text says. The text says that God is a murderer. So, it is pretty much end game for me right there.

[_Hoops]

And I'm not sure why we can't factor in the idea that IF there is a God and; IF he chose to communicate with us and; IF one of those ways was through some set of sacred writing and; then why couldn't we rely on HIS protection of that set of sacred writing to some degree. The level of protection is certainly debatable, but we could make certain assumptions couldn't we?

Sure. We could assume all those IF's. Then we have to look at what the text says. The text says that God is a murderer. So, it is pretty much end game for me right there.

I'm unfamiliar with that verse. (though I'm sure the point of this discussion is not individual verses)

Please respond to what I actually write, not what you think I write.

[_stemelbow]

And I'm not sure why we can't factor in the idea that IF there is a God and; IF he chose to communicate with us and; IF one of those ways was through some set of sacred writing and; then why couldn't we rely on HIS protection of that set of sacred writing to some degree. The level of protection is certainly debatable, but we could make certain assumptions couldn't we?

Anyone can assume whatever he/she wants. But assuming as much seems nothing but ad hoc. There is nothing from God to suggest that the text will be preserved and protected by Him. And since we know there were editors, translators and transcribers we can't assure that they too were inspired.

[_just me]

Sure. We could assume all those IF's. Then we have to look at what the text says. The text says that God is a murderer. So, it is pretty much end game for me right there.

I'm unfamiliar with that verse. (though I'm sure the point of this discussion is not individual verses)

Please respond to what I actually write, not what you think I write.

I thought I did.

You are saying that we could assume that the Bible text has been protected by God and says literally what he wants it to say. Did I misunderstand or is that correct?

The Bible literally says that God was sorry he made people and so he drowned all but Noah and company. Is that not also correct?

[_Runtu]

Yes. But the variety is very minor. So minor that there is no real effect on core doctrine.

Who determines core doctrine? I need not remind you that the Trinitarian model is not explicitly laid out in the Bible, but it is considered core doctrine. But Trinitarians will read the Bible as supporting that model, whereas other people do not bring that belief to the text and may not read the text as at all Trinitarian (Mormons, for example). To me, what we bring to the text is usually far more important than the "actual meaning" of the text. Admittedly, the notion of "actual meaning" is completely foreign to me. I don't know what to make of it.

The original MS. From the sources we have, it seems pretty reliable, don't you think?

I have no idea. The original manuscripts of the New Testament are for the most part written in Greek, which was not Jesus' language. And the earliest extant manuscripts come from at least 200-400 years AD. I'm not sure what you mean by reliable, anyway. Please clarify.

The ECF seemed to think it was. Yes, I am familiar with the objections, but I don't think that's what you're asking here.

No, I'm just wondering why we take a particular version or translation and call it "the right version." What about the ECF makes them uniquely qualified to declare a compilation of texts to be authoritative? And then how do we know our reading of it, with our biases and intervening centuries, is the same as the "actual meaning"?

Certainly there have been mistakes, even deliberate changes. But to what effect? It seems this point is brought up to account for changes that might have happened that effects doctrine we don't know about. Or for which there is no other evidence than an outside source (LDS doctrine for example)

Your analoby doesn't work for me. If the sentence you are translating comes from a paragraph about babies, then I think we have a good idea about what translation should work. SAme is true with any sentence, paragraph, book, historical dispensation of the Bible.

But here's the rub: if the sentence "De repente llega la guagua" is in a paragraph about "guaguas," it's up to the translator to decide from context whether it's babies or buses. If the context doesn't make it clear which, the translator has to choose, and there's no guarantee the choice will be the "right" one.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I don't know, but I hope it's the first. We can all use some peace and good will. "Men of good will" already have peace. Why send peace to those who already have and not to those who need it? (I'm interpreting "peace" to be "inner peace," and maybe that wasn't the intention of the original text either. The problems just never end.)

But do you see my point? I'm sure someone who knows the Greek translation can tell us what the Greek says. But then the Greek is a translation of a non-extant original. How do we know that the Greek translation is accurate? We can't. And even if we could, we'd still have the problem of our reading things in a 21st-century context.

I do see your point and totally agree with it. I'm sure many problems are clarified by context, but the underlying instability of translation makes a literal interpretation of the Bible unreliable to an objective reader. Those who are seeking assurance of salvation are not objective and see what they want to see.

[_Runtu]

And I'm not sure why we can't factor in the idea that IF there is a God and; IF he chose to communicate with us and; IF one of those ways was through some set of sacred writing and; then why couldn't we rely on HIS protection of that set of sacred writing to some degree. The level of protection is certainly debatable, but we could make certain assumptions couldn't we?

You've illustrated my point quite well, actually. Your approach to the text and its meaning is based on a lot of assumptions about the text (your IFs above). As I said, I understand and respect where you're coming from (and yes, your stated approach makes sense to me as explained; I've heard it before). I don't approach any text with those same assumptions.

For me, texts are human productions, which are always messy and bound up in failure and frailty. My view of God is that He works with and through humans, knowing and accepting their frailties, and understanding that the human is "good enough" and in its own way more beautiful and godly than the pristine "meaning" would have been. For a beautiful analogy, see George Herbert's "The Windows."

Again, even granting that God somehow preserved a pristine text and its meaning, all that goes out the window (no pun intended) the minute someone reads it. Each person reads the text differently, and what the author "meant" really doesn't come into play (this is what is referred to in literary circles as "the death of the author" or "the fallacy of intentionality.")

Biblical literalists seem to believe that there is one ironclad meaning accessible to everyone and preserved and protected by God. I understand this belief, but it is quite far removed from my understanding. The Bible got messy the minute humans put their hands on it (which is, of course, from the first stroke of the first character written).