Why I'm Not a Biblical Literalist

[_Runtu]

I don't want to sound proud or condescending, as I can respect the position of Biblical literalists, such as Hoops, even though I really don't relate to their position at all.

It struck me when Hoops suggested that we "begin with what the words actually mean." I don't really know what to make of this. What words? The English words (if so, which translation)? The Greek words (speaking of the New Testament, for example)? The original language (which may vary)?

For the New Testament, we are dealing with an English translation of a Greek manuscript, which is itself a translation of the original language. We don't have the original manuscripts of the New Testament, so we rely on the accuracy of the translation, whether we're dealing with English or Greek. Hoops suggested that we need a "single standard or reference from which to interpret the text," but I wonder what that standard is, and who determines that it alone is authoritative. 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?

An analogy might help explain where I'm coming from. Suppose I have the Spanish sentence, "De repente llega la guagua."

If I consult a dictionary, I will see that "de repente" means" suddenly. "Llega" primarily means "to arrive," though there are several alternate meanings, depending on the context. Finally, "guagua" means "bus" in Central America, but it means "baby" in Andean countries, such as Bolivia.

So, I decide to translate it as "Suddenly the bus arrives." Of course, unbeknownst to me, the translator, the writer is Bolivian, and "de repente" in Bolivia means "maybe," which is not listed in most Spanish dictionaries. And again, unknown to me, the writer meant, "Maybe the baby is sufficient." I know Spanish, and the standard translation is going to be "Suddenly the bus arrives."

Once that translation is in place, it becomes the de facto authority by which translations are created. So, the German, Farsi, Greek, and so on, translations all read (in their language) "Suddenly the bus arrives."

So, some non-literalist comes along and says, "Wait a minute. Maybe this isn't what is meant. Maybe we're dealing with a baby, not a bus, and uncertainly instead of suddenness."

"Don't you trust the text?" our literalist friend asks. "Why shouldn't we stick with what the words actually mean? It means 'Suddenly the bus arrives.' Everyone knows that."

So, in the end, when we say we are investing authority in the text, we're really putting faith in the humans who wrote, transcribed, and translated the text.

[_stemelbow]

I certainly couldn't have said it better myself, Runtu.

Thinking this way makes me wonder what it would possibly mean to be a biblical literalist.

Opening that can of worms, cerainly means something quite different than actually opening a can with worms in it.

[_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.

[_Fence Sitter]

If you are in Chile it could be interpreted as "Soon the babe arrives".

Or you could pick an English word and ask what the literal definition is. I like the word 'eternal'. It is one the LDS use a lot but we seem to be rather unclear on what exactly it means.

1. Is it a measurement of time? (In some parts or LDS theology 'Eternal Time" isn't even endless but that is another discussion.) or
2. Is it an indication of something or someone who is not affected by time?

In my opinion both options above are literal definitions of the same word but mean very different things. As LDS we devote so much of our lives working toward goals that are eternal and yet we really have a very poor idea of what it means. Take eternal marriage for example, is this (1) a state where we will be married to the same person forever, or (2) a state where we are married but time does not exist or (3)just a thousand years and then it is wife swap time. I'll take door number three.

[_Buffalo]

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.

That was a significant nail for me, too.

[_bcspace]

For me, in order for the Bible to be true, many of it's historical claims must be true. For example, there must have been a Jesus Christ who is the Son of God who Atoned for the sins of the world. The story can't be a metaphor for something else. Likewise there must have been a garden of Eden and a Flood though the details and extent can be relative or metaphorical or lost in the distant past.

[_Runtu]

For me, in order for the Bible to be true, many of it's historical claims must be true. For example, there must have been a Jesus Christ who is the Son of God who Atoned for the sins of the world. The story can't be a metaphor for something else. Likewise there must have been a garden of Eden and a Flood though the details and extent can be relative or metaphorical or lost in the distant past.

It seems to me that we have a choice to decide with what degree of literalness we want to approach the text, and it varies, depending on the part of the Bible we're reading. Some people, for example, insist that Job was an actual person, whereas many others (including me) consider Job an extended allegory.

There is a difference between "true" and "literal."

[Guest]

It seems to me that we have a choice to decide with what degree of literalness we want to approach the text, and it varies, depending on the part of the Bible we're reading. Some people, for example, insist that Job was an actual person, whereas many others (including me) consider Job an extended allegory.

There is a difference between "true" and "literal."

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.

[_Tarski]

The story can't be a metaphor for something else.

why not?

[_bcspace]

why not?

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