Why I'm Not a Biblical Literalist

[_Some Schmo]

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?

Well, if we're going to assume there's a god who cares about us enough to actually communicate with us, one would think it's also safe to assume that his methods of communication wouldn't be so ridiculously open to interpretation (assuming the translations actually have been protected), if he does in fact care. I mean, for an omnipotent god trying to communicate with species like humans who put such a premium on good communication, you'd think he'd be a bit more careful to be clearly understood.

So what does this tell us about god?

- He's a poor communicator
- He's a lazy communicator
- He's willing to judge and punish you based on your interpretation of poor/conflicting information
- He's a capricious dick

Yeah... this is just the sort of god I want to worship. How could anyone resist?

[Guest]

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?

If all those "ifs" were real, then why is the Bible so wide open to interpretation? Why isn't the literal meaning obvious and desirable to all (or at least most)? If God wished to save his children, that is.

Edited to add: What Schmo said.

[_Hoops]

I thought I did.

You did not.

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?

You misunderstood. Probably my fault. I did NOT say the Bible has been protected by God. I said that if all the previous questions have been answered satisfactorily, then it's logical to assume a certain level of Divine protection for Its sacred communication. That is certainly an assumption that may or may not be warranted, but as a starting point it's reasonable. I also said that level of protection is debatable. Ehrman (the favorite of LDS and non-LDS alike) believes there as been little, or none, such that the text is completely void of sacred value. Many others come to another conclusion.

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?

It certainly does. If you would like to dissect this verse I would be happy to share with you my thoughts. But, in short, I believe the meaning of that small sliver of the whole is that God indeed feel sorry for creating man and that the flood did kill. But that hardly tells the whole story and I don't think it's fair to the extracted text to make the whole dependent on the part.

[Guest]

A couple of corrections.

First, Greek is the original language of all the books of the New Testament. Some ancient authors said that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. But, they were speaking many years after Matthew was written and there is zero evidence for a Hebrew version of Matthew. Also, the words of Jesus would most likely have been originally in Aramaic. But again, except for a few phrases (which tend to be transliterated into Greek and which provide evidence that the original language of the first writer was Greek speaking), there is no evidence that any of the manuscripts were ever in Aramaic.

Second, I hate to cry presentism since it is so abused in these circles, but for many of the books in the Bible, literal/figurative/literal is presentism. What I mean is those distinctions were first made by the ancient Greeks, and many of the Old Testament books predate those distinctions. Take for example the book of Genesis, a book which many moderns will read as largely figurative/allegorical. That's fine, but when read in context Genesis was neither figurative nor allegorical nor literal, it just was. We as moderns have to make those distinctions because of the cognitive world we live in. It's just good to remember that the ancients did not necessarily make those same distinctions.

[_Hoops]

If all those "ifs" were real

I don't know what this means.

then why is the Bible so wide open to interpretation?

It's not.

Why isn't the literal meaning obvious

It is.

and desirable to all (or at least most)?

I don't know what you mean by this.

If God wished to save his children, that is.

What would you have Him do?

[_stemelbow]

Runtu said,

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.

I'm with Runtu on this, but that's no surprise since we're both Mormon...oh wait he's not a believing Mormon but it appears his LDS apologetic training had some effect on him.

Anyway, I just wanted to add if I may, studies of textual criticism, to be fair, has pegged the New Testament text as fairly reproducable based on the manuscript evidence. Meaning the agreement, that hoops seems to be relying on, among the manuscript pieces is fairly high. That's encouraging to Hoops' view, but what is assumed by this is that the manuscipts were based solely on originals. Sadly it seems more and more likely the manuscripts were based on copies, according to some like Erhman. That puts us in a bit of a pickle when it comes to the claims of textual critics because all that we can surmise is that the amount of agreement means what we can piece together basedon the manuscripts could be nothing more than edited, copied, and translated sources. It just makes the idea of inerrancy and literalist views very untenable.

[cacheman]

A couple of corrections.

First, Greek is the original language of all the books of the New Testament. Some ancient authors said that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. But, they were speaking many years after Matthew was written and there is zero evidence for a Hebrew version of Matthew. Also, the words of Jesus would most likely have been originally in Aramaic. But again, except for a few phrases (which tend to be transliterated into Greek and which provide evidence that the original language of the first writer was Greek speaking), there is no evidence that any of the manuscripts were ever in Aramaic.

Yes, I understand that, and I should clarify. The writers of the New Testament may have written in Greek, but they are recounting events that were not spoken in Greek, for the most part. So, even before the writer put the words down, he was translating in his head from Aramaic, at least the parts where Jesus was teaching. Heck, even if Jesus had spoken Greek, the New Testament would still have been created from memory, which is a notoriously tricky thing. What I'm getting at is that there is a lot of distance between the "actual meaning" and us, and choosing a point or version or translation as "the actual meaning" is problematic.

Second, I hate to cry presentism since it is so abused in these circles, but for many of the books in the Bible, literal/figurative/literal is presentism. What I mean is those distinctions were first made by the ancient Greeks, and many of the Old Testament books predate those distinctions. Take for example the book of Genesis, a book which many moderns will read as largely figurative/allegorical. That's fine, but when read in context Genesis was neither figurative nor allegorical nor literal, it just was. We as moderns have to make those distinctions because of the cognitive world we live in. It's just good to remember that the ancients did not necessarily make those same distinctions.

Again, this illustrates my point. Try as we may, we cannot escape some degree of presentism. We cannot discard our own biases, beliefs, culture, history, or experience and approach the pristine meaning of a text. It just doesn't happen. And I don't think God intended it to happen. But that's just me.

[_just me]

You misunderstood. Probably my fault. I did NOT say the Bible has been protected by God. I said that if all the previous questions have been answered satisfactorily, then it's logical to assume a certain level of Divine protection for Its sacred communication. That is certainly an assumption that may or may not be warranted, but as a starting point it's reasonable. I also said that level of protection is debatable. Ehrman (the favorite of LDS and non-LDS alike) believes there as been little, or none, such that the text is completely void of sacred value. Many others come to another conclusion.

Ah, I see now, I jumped ahead. Ok, then how would we go about answering all those IF's satisfactorily? That would be they key question, yes? It sounds like they can't be since it is hotly debated.

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?

It certainly does. If you would like to dissect this verse I would be happy to share with you my thoughts. But, in short, I believe the meaning of that small sliver of the whole is that God indeed feel sorry for creating man and that the flood did kill. But that hardly tells the whole story and I don't think it's fair to the extracted text to make the whole dependent on the part.

The Flood is not the only example I could come up with, though. That is the problem. The Flood is just the largest and worst example. Most people won't try and argue that innocent people didn't die, they just try and show that it is okay for God to kill innocent people.

[_Hoops]

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).

Except my "ifs" above are not assumptions. I think it reasonable for one to answer those questions based on a process that can include or entirely ignore assumptions. That's up to you. Not veer away too far, but I think God would (and has) asked you to use all your available faculties to answer these questions. And that He would ask that you pursue them honestly.

Again, even granting that God somehow preserved a pristine text

I don't know anyone who argues that. Certainly not me.

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.")

I'm familiar with this as well.

Biblical literalists seem to believe that there is one ironclad meaning accessible to everyone and preserved and protected by God.

No, that's incorrect. Biblical literalists believe we should take the Bible literally whenever possible.

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).

Assuming we both have a good idea of what you mean by "messy", how would you know this? Couldn't I argue that you are making assumptions as well? And ones that serve your argument in the same way my assumptions serve mine (assuming I've made the assumptions you claim, see above)?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

If all those "ifs" were real

I don't know what this means.

then why is the Bible so wide open to interpretation?

It's not.

Why isn't the literal meaning obvious

It is.

and desirable to all (or at least most)?

I don't know what you mean by this.

If God wished to save his children, that is.

What would you have Him do?

If you say the Bible is not wide open to interpretation, how do you explain the many interpretations which have been made of it? (I'm really hoping you've got something better than Satan here.)