Why I'm Not a Biblical Literalist

[_Fence Sitter]

You didn't answer the question.

Neither did you.

[_Runtu]

Just where are these Bibles where these huge chasms of doctrinal divide are?

I remember on my mission coming across a "New World Translation" of the Bible from the Jehovah's Witnesses, which we nicknamed "The Green Dragon" because it had a green cover and a picture of a dragon on the maps of the Middle East inside the cover. Although some scholars have praised its translators' "scholarly ability and acumen" and said the translation "is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate," most mainstream Christians, I would imagine, would not accept the NWT as doctrinally consistent with other Bibles.

Some examples where you'd probably be unhappy with the JWs:

John 1:1 : In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."

Are you OK with that?

Luke 23:33: "And when they got to the place called Skull, there they impaled him and the evildoers, one on his right and one on his left." And it's a "torture stake," not a cross.

Colossians 1:15-18: "15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things."

These verses have Jesus as a created being. How does that sound to you?

[_Black Moclips]

by the way, the word "guagua" also means bus in the Canary Islands, Spain. Mainland spaniards don't use the word however (I remember several spanish missionaries form the mainland laughing at the word).

[_stemelbow]

My point is this, read The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration to see how Ehrman the scholar compares to Ehrman the popularizer. It's not that Ehrman lies in his other books, it's just that the bigger picture gets left out. It's quite frankly utterly astonishing the wealth of textual manuscripts there are for the New Testament.

It very well may be astonishing, but in the end it doesn't necessarily mean the Bible is to be read literally, nor does it say much to inerrancy, since we don't know if hte manuscripts are based off edited copies of originals or not. Plus, there is a lot for the Old Testament too, but nothing so robust, it seems. Many of the manuscripts for the Old and New testaments are copies created hundreds of years after the originals.

I also like the point raised earlier in the thread about how the New Testament texts themselves, originally written in Greek, were translations of Jesus' words.

While there's a great deal of expertise and material on the New Testament, and the Old, we simply can't answer the questions that inerrancy and literal readings of the text pose. At least I don't see how we can answer the questions.

[_Socrates]

My point is this, read The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration to see how Ehrman the scholar compares to Ehrman the popularizer. It's not that Ehrman lies in his other books, it's just that the bigger picture gets left out. It's quite frankly utterly astonishing the wealth of textual manuscripts there are for the New Testament.

It very well may be astonishing, but in the end it doesn't necessarily mean the Bible is to be read literally, nor does it say much to inerrancy, since we don't know if hte manuscripts are based off edited copies of originals or not. Plus, there is a lot for the Old Testament too, but nothing so robust, it seems. Many of the manuscripts for the Old and New testaments are copies created hundreds of years after the originals.

I also like the point raised earlier in the thread about how the New Testament texts themselves, originally written in Greek, were translations of Jesus' words.

While there's a great deal of expertise and material on the New Testament, and the Old, we simply can't answer the questions that inerrancy and literal readings of the text pose. At least I don't see how we can answer the questions.

Are you as dismissive of the literalness of the Bible as 'corrected' via the Joseph Smith Translation? Do you accept it literally?

[_Hoops]

most mainstream Christians, I would imagine, would not accept the NWT as doctrinally consistent with other Bibles.

correct

What's interesting about the NWT is that it is the first Bible translation (if you don't count Joseph Smith attempt) that had as its purpose to agree with "revelation" that is outside orthodoxy. It was a setup. So I'm not sure your example works.

[_Runtu]

correct

What's interesting about the NWT is that it is the first Bible translation (if you don't count Joseph Smith attempt) that had as its purpose to agree with "revelation" that is outside orthodoxy. It was a setup. So I'm not sure your example works.

I've heard mainstream Christians say that certain recent translations are biased to accord with accepted doctrines.

Either way, even if we accept that the manuscripts are "correct" (whatever that means), the text is created in the act of reading it. Its meaning depends on the reader. And if a person doesn't feel the need to read something literally, they won't. I still don't understand why it's so important to approach everything in the Bible literally.

[_Hoops]

From corruption

You have no evidence of this as this is a qualitative judgement.

from changed text,

No one questions this. But what has been the result?

from lost text,

This is bound up in your next point. so let's just go there

from directing with some authority what should be included in the final book-it is clear that some texts were considered authorative and eventually not included in the Bible and some that were included were considered suspect by many at various times.

You know, an interesting point, imho, here is the point many of "you" make about the compilation of the Bible. I think a good reason why the books were not assembled until later was to allow for time for the apostles/writers to write and comment on them. And those who were instructed by the apostles/writers to make comment. I think the core doctrine we have today align quite well with the comments of the ECFs.

Where are the originals?

Yes, it would be nice to have them. We don't. Does our default position have to be that what we do have is suspect to the degree you want?

Read any book by Erhman. You mention him above. I think he shows many problems. Mostly what really was authoritative and what was not. Why were some texts that seemed authoritative dismissed by the eventual winners as heretical? If the alleged heretics had won the debates what would the Bible look like today.

I've read Ehrman (not what was mentioned below though) but I'm asking you.

[_stemelbow]

Are you as dismissive of the literalness of the Bible as 'corrected' via the Joseph Smith Translation? Do you accept it literally?

I accept parts of the Bible as literal and parts of the Book of Mormon as literal. When I say I'm not a literalist, i mean to suggest there are parts of the scripture that I don't take literally. I pick and choose, kind of.

[_Hoops]

I've heard mainstream Christians say that certain recent translations are biased to accord with accepted doctrines.

I haven't. I've heard that some translations that attempt to make God more gender neutral are crticized. Translations that I don't have a problem with, for what it's worth. But those don't address the essential core of Christianity. The doctrines that make LDSism and JWism nonchristian.

Either way, even if we accept that the manuscripts are "correct" (whatever that means),

I don't know. Did I write that?

the text is created in the act of reading it.

I thought the translations were generated from the earliest documents we have? Certainly some contextual decisions were made but its my understanding that those that would effect doctrine are few.

Its meaning depends on the reader.

I disagree. The writer of any text has a meaning he/she wants to impart. Why is the Bible any different?

And if a person doesn't feel the need to read something literally, they won't.

Certanly people can read any text any way they want.

I still don't understand why it's so important to approach everything in the Bible literally.

I didn't write that and don't know anyone who believes this.