This is specifically geared towards the theists, but atheists can join in as well. How should religious texts be interpreted? For example, if you're a Christian and you believe that Jesus died for our sins and did all those miracles, but don't accept the literal stories of the Noah and Moses, and Adam and Eve, what are the guidelines into reading it, how can we, non-believers, separate the stories from literal and figurative/allegorical?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
The bible was written more than 2000 years ago and the old testament's text are even more than 2000 years ago. It is possible that the bible was been edited numerous times and changed its real story. Interpreting it literally does not make sense for me. I don't even believe on some of the stories written on it. Besides religious leaders call it the word of God when we know the fact that every word written on it were written by men like us, so whether we interpret it or not it will never be accurate to the truth.
A friend of mine told me that we should not interpret it literally. And he happens to be a priest :)
but does this priest believes in the resurrection? If so, isn't he interpreting it literally?
I don't believe in all stories in the Bible. I don't interpret most stories literally. Like what Mysticrose said, it's been edited so many times already and humans wrote it. So exaggerations can't be helped.
Lol, I love it when Christians point out some things in the Bible and aim to take it literally, but then just kind of ignore the *entire* book of Leviticus and it's rules about how to spend your money and plant your crops.
Also, it is impossible to take the Bible literally. It was written in a language that pretty much no longer exists, and translated so many times that it's a faint shadow of the original. For example, Aramaic, one of the languages of the 7 tribes, does not have a word for virgin. The closest word found simply refers to an unmarried woman, but that was translated as virgin by prudish Western languages who inferred that sexual activity and marriage go hand in hand and never without. None of the original texts make any claims of Mary being a virgin, just that she hadn't married Joseph yet. Additionally, Mary Magdelene does not have to be a whore. She was an "Entertaining Woman". She could have been a dancer, singer, or juggler - in Aramaic there is not difference in the words (nor need there be, imo).
Try running the recipe for apple pie through Google translator a dozen times and see if you'd take any of those instructions literally :)
Sammy you are obviously as intelligent as you are attractive what a delightful combination. Keep up the good work!
Like the WW2 Anti-aircraft gunner ordered to shoot ANY planes sited, I'm afraid I'm going have to call you out on necroposting to an account that's been dead for at least a year.
Wow I'm such a newb
I can't tell if your being serious or sarcastic. Most 45 year olds I know don't use the word newb, much less using it seriously.
Okay enough already with the salacious objectifying of women posters. We get that you are lonely, but it is entirely inappropriate to make such comments.
I would put the religious texts in the same category as the Harry Potter books. In fact I believe it is better to take the Harry Potter books literally rather than the Religious ones.
lets see.... the morality in harry potter is better.
The Lead character is more believable and he too was coincidentally resurrected.
The authorship is well established unlike most religious texts and the story much more believable. (a hidden school for magic is more believable than the entire world being submerged under a massive flood)
So to sum up. Religion must be treated as it deserves .... as fiction. Plus the authorship isn't as impressive as the likes of Shakespeare and J K Rowling etc.
Actually I would prefer Noddy to these shoddy books (The take home message in Noddy is definitely much more palatable then these retarded texts)
I think that Bible doesn't have to be something specific. Some people use the Bible for attack to people.
Yeah it's a thick book to get hit with!
The bible is a book of allegory. It's a collection of stories and folklore stolen from many old cultures. It is purely a book of propaganda used by political spin doctors to enslave the will of the masses.
The Bible needs to be taken literally. The people who wrote it meant it literally not allegorically. Except for the parables.They thought the universe was created in 6 days, we are born sinful because some curious woman ate an apple, Great Flood, resurrection of Lazarus and Jesus, virgin birth, etc. Since it was meant as literal truth it can now be dismissed as pure bullshit. Fairy tales of iron aged despots and schizophrenics.
The bible is a political document and nothing more. It has been amended by politicians and used for the sole purpose of political gain.
It is written as to appear factual in the manner of any spin doctor. It places pure fiction among known facts.
Example: There was a flood, many actually, but there was no ark and probably no Noah.
The Romans did crucify people but there is no record of a jesus of Nazareth being crucified. the Romans kept very accurate records, still no jesus crucifixion.
There was a Sodom and Gamorrah but every aspect of the biblical story has been scientifically explained away. The pillars of salt, fire and brimstone etc.
So the bible is a collection of fables meant to force obedience through fear. It's a political tool and nothing more. It's filled with lies, propaganda, spin, and folklore.
One shouldn't take it literally. One shouldn't even take it seriously.
According to the oldest known bible (Codex Sinaiticus) there wasn't even a resurrection.
I do not mean literal as true. I mean the writers believed what they wrote. To say it was meant as allegory gives that demonic book an authenticity it does not deserve.
Okay lets get to the nub here. Theologians with phd's teach the bible figuratively! Does that answer your question John?
OK so I opened my bible to a random place to select a random chapter, which I read using John 6IX Breezy's instructions (that it is to be read literally). Genesis Chapter 4 came up so here we go:
-------
Gen 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door
Apparently sin is some kind of creature(?) that can actually crouch at a door!
------
Gen 4:10 The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.
Apparently blood can cry/speak!
-------
Gen 4:11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.
Apparently the earth is also a creature, that sucks blood, and has an actual mouth!
I would agree with you here John that the Bible must be "read logically, taking context and purpose into account, same way you read anything else. "
However I have found on a cursory reading of the Bible that it does not make sense when read logically in some places neither when analysed with context or purpose and finally it falls apart at places we find scientific errors.
Let me give you one examples.
1 - " Genesis 1.1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
Now let us analyse this stanza as best we can
a) literally - In the beginning (most likely of the universe) god created a place called heaven and a place called earth, the stars, galaxies etc came later. The earth was formless which I cannot understand what it means did it lack matter or was it in a pure liquid or gaseous form ? then as the sun and source of light was not made yet obviously darkness was over the earth. Now the spirit of god was hovering which when taken literally means god exists in spirit and corporeal form and so far his spirit was flying above only the waters and so either decided not to go over land or that land didn't exist yet. additionally since water is mentioned I am guessing the formlessness refers to the earth being in a liquid state with only water. (so literally it does not make sense.)
b) logically - So God (not defined yet, but we can gather what he is about) created first a place called heaven possibly for himself (and maybe us if we are good) and earth a place he obviously created for us but beginning of what? wouldn't any place he inhabits BE heaven and so he wouldn't have to create one. and since he always exists wouldn't heaven always exist as well. why would he have to create a heaven. I am told that heaven was a mistranslation from the greek or it is supposed to imply sky at certain places so lets take that into account. In the beginning of (x) (we don't know what the begining is of) he made the earth and sky but really the sky isn't really a thing so now I am confused did he make heaven an abode for himself or the sky which isn't really a thing. Darkness was over the surface of the deep would imply he didn't make a light source yet and that means the earth preceded the sun chronologically which is absurd, so we could say it was night, but he made the world which is a sphere so night at one place means light at another so why would god only talk about the dark side? the spirit of god was hovering over the waters is a tough one to understand as it makes you ask what is this spirit? where is the body? you may say christ is the body but if it wasn't made yet why talk about it here? if there is no body then logically the only thing present aka the spirit is the only thing. and why over the water? where is the land?
c) Now lets look at context and purpose - the title and following stanzas are meant to describe the order of creation (most likely of the universe but the story goes on only to explain the creation of the world, not much about the rest of the cosmos but that may be because the book is more concerned with earthly affairs, fine , moving on...) if contextually this is the order that was followed why is it scientifically wrong? why is the earth formless? what does formless mean? the earth was formed much after many stars and galaxies were destroyed and so could not have been first to be built in the que. Finally the rest of the order of creation is also contradicted by the same book at a different chapter in the book (I mean the problem of Genesis 1 & 2).
Herein lies the fundamental problem. This is the very first stanza of the book and here itself I am confused at to what method must I use to decipher this text. Literal, Logical, contextual, all approaches lead me to absurdity so I am stuck.
What options are left?
a) Literal approach - I say this is how it was no matter what anyone else has to say --> (the approach of the evangelists)
b) Logical approach - I say I must look at the big picture that the book is trying to introduce the character of god and adam and eve. 3 key players and I can ignore the small stuff --> which is what most believers do
c) contextual & purpose - I say that I realise that I was created and so was the universe and so was my ancestor and so I must be in awe of the creator and worship --> this is what any apologist or religious person would believe.
But in essence all three approaches have left the same text wanting. none was able to explain the text.
This is where as an atheist I feel the bible contradicts itself and makes it difficult to follow and this is not the only place.
Charvak,
The Genesis I creation account will never make sense without a knowledge of Babylonian cosmology, i.e., the prevailing Middle Eastern view of the cosmos at the time. The very first verse is probably an introductory summary, an ancient version of a title, which is followed by the actual account.
In a tiny nutshell: In the beginning there was darkness and the primeval waters of chaos. God's spirit (literally wind or breath, the ancient symbol of life force) was moving over these dark waters. Light gets created and then God sorts it out from darkness. This (I suspect) means periods of blue skies and night skies. Only later the sun, with its intense brightness, gets created. Then God divides the primeval waters by creating a sky-vault. Some of the waters are now above this vault, which also creates a space for earth, and some of the waters are below the floor of the vault. I suppose that's why the sky is blue! All that water above! Windows in the vault can be opened to let water fall through as rain. Then the waters below are separated from land and dry earth appears. The pancake earth either floats on the primeval waters below (like a mat) or is supported by great pillars. I guess the latter is pillars all the way down! I don't think the ancients really thought some of these things through. Plants then get created. After that the sky dome gets its lights, the sun, moon, and stars, in the order of their importance. The stars are more like little Christmas lights that can be shaken loose and fall to the earth below in a God-inspired calamity. Note that the moon has its own light! Nobody realized that moonlight was reflected sunlight. Air and water then get their animals, and the next day earth gets its animals. Finally, man and woman are added, the crowning touch.
There was no meaningful universe beyond this little theater! The Babylonian cosmos is a 3-layered cake, the heavens (upper sky and some space above the sky-dome), the earth (the flat pancake under the sky-dome), and the deep (the primeval waters under the pancake earth whose extent was unfathomable. David Presutta (The Biblical Cosmos versus Modern Cosmology) does a tremendous job in making the connection between biblical verses and the ancient cosmos of the Middle East.
So, we get a literal interpretation after all, but it conforms to an ancient concept of the cosmos.
I agree with you on this. And I am aware of the babylonian myth. In fact this same myth managed to find a place in the Koran.
I was hoping the theist in the room would acknowledge this. But unfortunately they will twist words and interpretations to justify their belief.
If you think the Bible should be read literally you should take a look at Dan Barker's "God, the most unpleasant character in all fiction". He shows how the Bible makes the Big Guy look like a nasty piece of work.
One last thing.
In reference to taking the Bible literally, Richard Dawkins addressed it in the introduction to Dan Barker’s book “God, the most unpleasant character in all fiction”.
(Apologists will say) “The bible was never meant to be taken literally.” Wasn’t it? Did the generations upon generations of scribes faithfully reproducing the story of Adam and Eve and the talking snake not take it literally? Really? Were the pious generations of churchgoers, through the Dark and Middle Ages, “theologically” sophisticated to realise it was all a metaphor? Really? When the peasants mustered to defy Richard II and sang “When Adam delved and Eve span/who was then the gentleman?” did they mutter apophatically under their breath that, of course, it was never meant to be taken literally? Don’t be so ridiculous. Even today, more than forty percent of Americans think the world began exactly in the way Genesis describes, less than ten thousand years ago. The pretence by “sophisticated theologians” that the typical Christian in the pew doesn’t take the Bible literally is nothing short of dishonest.
But anyway, if not literally, how else might our apologists wish to interpret the Bible? As a set of moral tales? A handy guide to what’s right and wrong? What? Moral tales? You cannot be serious! Read the book.
Serious Bible scholars (they do exist!) would certainly acknowledge that a number of different genres may be found in the Bible, such as poetry, song, history, and advice (Proverbs). Metaphors, allegories and other non-literal usage pops up quite often. However, if there is a first rule of good interpretation it must be to take the text literally unless there are good reasons (usually contextual) for doing otherwise. Saving a pet doctrine is NOT a "good reason" for abandoning a literal interpretation. The ancient author must be heard--not one's prejudices!
Interpreting a text literally is not a validation of that text. (Literal bullshit is the purest kind of bullshit!) It just means that you interpret the author according to the everyday meaning of his words. You continue to do that until the context makes it clear that another meaning, such as metaphorical, is intended. Failure to follow that procedure means that you will write your own prejudice into the translation.
I was raised in a Catholic household where the Bible was always taught as a compilation of literal and metaphorical ''interpretations.'' Then, I left faith a few years ago, and identified with atheism for about two of those years, largely because I didn't take any of the Bible, literally. Then, returned to Christianity last year due to having an experience of faith. I think faith and spiritual beliefs are very much an experience, and should be more then merely clinging to ancient texts which often seem confusing and contradicting. Maybe the moral messages can be gleaned from the pages of the Bible, but we live in a different time now, is it necessary to cling to it as literal? I don't think so. That's just my view, anyways. :)
And, it being an experience, is the very reason why it serves as proof for nothing. And, due to there being no proof, is why I assert that you were never truly an atheist. The only ones who believe are those who always believed. And the ones who don't were the ones who woke up and smelled the coffee. In the words of Mark Twain? "The believers, once they start, never stop. Not because they can't, but because they don't want to.
Not so sure everyone fits into your cookie cutter mold of how life should be. Atheism is a lack of belief, but it isn't a certainty with knowledge. You don't have proof that God doesn't exist, and my proof wouldn't satisfy you.
There is no "Each man/woman has their own idea of proof." Either it constitutes proof or it doesn't. Plain and simple. If it doesn't count for one, it shouldn't for another. In what I know are the words of Mark Twain:
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
@ deidre - its admirable that despite being a believer you can think from an atheistic position and therefore do not impose your belief on us.
However the problem here is that you do not put much stock in the bible. You believe in Jesus christ and most of his teachings but not all. you may be live in salvation but not hell. In short you cherry pick. The problem with religion is that it gives no room for cherry picking. Its all or none or eventually will be.
You see each generation after finding a revelation goes from more liberal to more conservative as long as the hold on to the 1 belief. They become more dogma centric until finally they chance upon that one verse you do not believe in and use it to accomplish horrific acts.
Would you stone or linch homosexuals? (I am guessing no of course). But your book demands it.
This book and all such like it give no indication as to how they are meant to be interpreted. Some like you may take it as purely a mental exercise, others metaphorically however some may believe it to be literal. Its when people begin taking a literal view of the pages when the atrocities begin.
Morality from the bible or any religious text at best is obsolete and at worst sadistic what good can come from meaning the pages. Human rights and civil liberties offer a more moral framework today than any religion ever has. If all that religion is, is an experience then it is nothing more than a narcotic or hallucinogenic drug. Gives you a high but leaves you in a decrepit state.
Pages