Why I'm Not a Biblical Literalist

[_Tarski]

why not?

Because without such specification on these major events and happenings, it becomes a lie or fabrication and not a metaphor.

So it must be declared to be a metaphor by the text itself? What about Jonah and the whale?

It would be a good metaphor for self transformation (becoming a new person etc.).
Some might say that you don't need to declare something a metaphor if it walks like a metaphor and quacks like a metaphor and if it is too fantastic as to be seriously intended to be literal.

[_Runtu]

That's true. But what we can't decide is the Church's doctrine though of course we can decide what and how much of it we believe and not without consequences. If everyone realized this, I think there'd be fewer apostates.

In my experience, everyone in the church picks and chooses what they believe. It's part of being human. I've been told many times that I took things too seriously. All I did was accept the church's doctrine and live according to its teachings. And yes, I did take it seriously. It's too bad no one told me not to take it seriously until after I had left. Maybe I would have worked it out.

Those who take everything seriously and literally as doctrine tend to be the folks who start their own churches in Manti or think God has commanded them to slit a baby's throat.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hey Runtu,

First let me say upfront that I'm "functioning" on just a few hours sleep so if I totally misunderstood your point, please make allowances. :-)

When you use the phrasing analogy that you chose to demonstrate what you believe are difficulties with Biblical translations, why can't the passages of the Bible be read in context to gain understanding?

Is there a specific portion of Biblical scripture that you want to challenge here?

[_Jersey Girl]

I think that is a very good reason, Runtu.

Mine is simple. I couldn't believe a Heavenly Father would order murder. That was the nail in the literalist coffin for me.

Would it make more sense if you read it as ancient tribesmen telling the story of their perception that God was sanctioning their political ideals?

[_Runtu]

Hey Runtu,

First let me say upfront that I'm "functioning" on just a few hours sleep so if I totally misunderstood your point, please make allowances. :-)

When you use the phrasing analogy that you chose to demonstrate what you believe are difficulties with Biblical translations, why can't the passages of the Bible be read in context to gain understanding?

Is there a specific portion of Biblical scripture that you want to challenge here?

No, there's nothing specific. I'm just saying that declaring a specific translation to be authoritative and then a specific interpretation of it as the "right one" is extremely problematic.

Let's say (and I'm just making this up as a pure hypothetical) that the six days creation narrative was, in the original, meant to be taken figuratively. In context in the culture it was written, it was understood to be allegorical, not literal. A later translator, centuries later, missed the subtle language that point to allegory and translated it as literal. From that time forward, every translation treated the six days as literal, and Inerrantists insist that it be taken literally. How would we ever know that it wasn't meant to be taken literally if we don't have the original? Why invest authority in the later translation, which if we had all the facts, we would know was incorrect?

Either way, text has no meaning until it is read, and how it is read depends on context. Being a 21st-century Mormon, I will probably never read the Bible the same way that an Evangelical or Catholic would read it. We read the same text, but we don't bring the same experience, biases, beliefs to the text. Even if we were to agree on certain interpretations, there's no guarantee that we actually do agree with each other, because we can't know exactly what the other person is thinking.

In short, no two people read the text the same way. And translation is, in its own way, just one more act of reading and interpreting. To insist that one reading alone is "right" and can be somehow transmitted in a pristine state to others is, to my mind, nonsensical.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

According to Bishop Spong in Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, in the time after the people returned from captivity in Babylon (I hope my memory is correct here, it's been a while since I read it), they began to solidify and protect their national identity, enforce the old laws, and practice exclusion in various ways.

In a counter-movement, story tellers appeared in the streets with tales of Job, Jonah, Esther, etc. These stories were understood at the time to be fictional parables teaching tolerance, nonjudgment, inclusion. Thousands of years later, fundamentalists read Jonah as literally being in the belly of a fish, teaching that God must be obeyed, or that God and Satan literally conspired to torment God's most faithful servant, teaching again that God must be obeyed.

For me, the fundamentalist view of these stories is useless. I no longer subscribe to belief in a god that participates in this world. The metaphorical lessons of those stories, however, are timeless and true. This is why I'm not a Bible literalist.

[_Runtu]

Here's an example I remember from my Old English class at BYU.

The angels that announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds, said, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The KJV suggests that the angels were pronouncing peace and good toward all people.

For one exercise, we translated the text of Luke 2 from an Old English Bible (which had been consulted in the creation of the KJV). The Old English Bible translated the same verse, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will." In other words, peace was sent only to "men of good will," not to all people.

Which one is correct? Which one is authoritative?

[_just me]

I think that is a very good reason, Runtu.

Mine is simple. I couldn't believe a Heavenly Father would order murder. That was the nail in the literalist coffin for me.

Would it make more sense if you read it as ancient tribesmen telling the story of their perception that God was sanctioning their political ideals?

Oh yeah, totally. I see that now. The whole book is written from the perspective of each author and what they personally believed. Just like every other book. It is unhelpful to read the book as if God is the author, in my opinion.

[_stemelbow]

Oh yeah, totally. I see that now. The whole book is written from the perspective of each author and what they personally believed. Just like every other book. It is unhelpful to read the book as if God is the author, in my opinion.

Added to that the editing and time between when the purported author lived and when the book was written/edited, and by whom it was edited. I mean there are just far too many questions with it to side with literalist ideas concerning the text.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Here's an example I remember from my Old English class at BYU.

The angels that announced the birth of Jesus to the shepherds, said, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." The KJV suggests that the angels were pronouncing peace and good toward all people.

For one exercise, we translated the text of Luke 2 from an Old English Bible (which had been consulted in the creation of the KJV). The Old English Bible translated the same verse, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will." In other words, peace was sent only to "men of good will," not to all people.

Which one is correct? Which one is authoritative?

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.)