Biblical literalism and all it entails.

[Orlion]

Do you think every word in the bible should be treated literally? How do you explain unusual occrences? If you think part of it is symbolic, how do you distinguish between the two? This topic created to steer theological discussion from the Gen Disc.

[Orlion]

I literally interpret the bible. I see a moral problem with not, as the bible clearly instructs to do so.

I'm curious as to why you think taking the bible literally is morally problematic, or can it be read symbolically so long as it is also read literally?

[rusmeister]

The very question deserves thought. If the obvious and generally assumed "Everything written in it means exactly what we understand it to mean from a direct meaning as we understand them", then obviously not. Understandings differ, especially personal ones.

There are believers who treat the Bible in much the way Muslims treat the Koran - as if it fell out of the sky, straight from God in one piece. Even a passing familiarity with the history of what we call the Bible reveals that this is not so.

I've been listening to Fr Tom Hopko - a good pastime for people who want to expand their minds on intelligent understandings of ancient Christianity, and he put it very well when he said that the Bible is not man's story about God. It is God's story about man. It is about God's faithfulness in spite of our faithlessness; God's love in spite of our indifference - and the Bible is chock full of faithlessness, indifference, and wildly ungodly people - even the most godly of which do awful things.

ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko

A particularly relevant 'cast (minus transcript, unfortunately):
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/how_to_read_the_bible

The Orthodox view is to see the Bible as a collection of books - a wide variation of literature, which is written by man inspired by God. It is written in the local understandings - cultural, scientific, etc - of the writers - thus, it describes the sun rising and setting in the sky and does not speak of the earth's orbit rotating away from the sun, etc. A great many of the writers being Hebrew, Hebrew ellipsis and repetition (the paired repetitions, such as those found in the Psalms, generally acknowledged to have been written not only by David, are a good example) and even sense of humor, which pops up in stories like that of Jonah.

Many things are symbolic, and symbols are not generally taken literally. "Our God is a consuming fire" does not mean that oxygen deprivation or a bucket of water will douse Him.

The Bible gives many instructions in different places for different people at different times. But the early Christians lived without a Biblical canon for several hundred years. Reading and attempting to apply all instructions to all the people addressed in the different books is, well, not terribly logical to say the least. Unbelievers rightly point out to such people that they would have to refrain from foods x, y and z as prescribed in Leviticus, stone homosexuals on sight, etc, and in many cases act as if they lived in the ancient world - a world where Christ had not been born.

The Biblical canon is a thing that was produced by the Church. Most Protestants today take a high view of Scripture - as do orthodox and Catholics, btw, but a low view of the Church. They treat the Bible as absilutely to be trusted and the Church - even and particularly the early Church - as not. It's an illogical stand, for if the Church could not be trusted to produce truth in the 4th century, then the Biblical canon it proclaimed is vain. Many authors over a great span of time wrote the various books - but the Church wrote the table of contents. So attempting to use the Bible without reference to the Tradition (Holy Tradition as opposed to "traditions of men") begins with an inability to correctly interpret what is being read - and only a fool would insist that the Bible is completely self-explanatory and sufficient unto itself. If it were, there would be no such things as Christian book stores, talk shows and programs, Bible studies, etc. All one would need to do would be to hand out Bibles and read and quote them, with no need or even desire for explanations. It is self-evident that the Bible can be interpreted wrongly. So the need for the right interpreter is paramount. The eunuch in the book of Acts HAD Scripture (Old Testament Scripture, to be sure). What he needed was an interpreter, and we ALL put interpretations on what we read. One could say that the Reformation did not do away with the Pope. It made everyone into their own private Pope.

A great four-part series on the topic - here is part one: ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_and_tradition_-_part_1

(Please note: transcripts are usually on the same page, but I strongly recommend listening with ears if possible - it helps deliver important thins like tone of voice that cannot be sensed in transcripts (to avoid certain misunderstandings, like reading a tone of arrogance into statements where listening would reveal affability and compassion).

[aliantha]

Do you think every word in the bible should be treated literally? How do you explain unusual occrences? If you think part of it is symbolic, how do you distinguish between the two? This topic created to steer theological discussion from the Gen Disc.

Fist, feel free to merge the threads, now that I've dumped the original one in your lap. Oh -- and you're welcome!

[Orlion]

Do you think every word in the bible should be treated literally? How do you explain unusual occrences? If you think part of it is symbolic, how do you distinguish between the two? This topic created to steer theological discussion from the Gen Disc.

Fist, feel free to merge the threads, now that I've dumped the original one in your lap. Oh -- and you're welcome!

But that'll break my link in the other thread! The consequences could be dire!

[Avatar]

It's probably already broken.

And hey, I agree with Rus! The bible contains a lot of good advice for living a "moral" or "good" life. But it's a product not only of when it was written, but of all the time that has passed since then as well.

I'm in favour of several of the central ideas. (Not all of them obviously. ) But I don't think it can be taken literally.

--A

[Zahir]

I like to say "The Bible was inspired by God, but not dictated by God."

[SerScot]

Orlion,

Do you think every word in the bible should be treated literally? How do you explain unusual occrences? If you think part of it is symbolic, how do you distinguish between the two? This topic created to steer theological discussion from the Gen Disc.

No. The Bible should not be taken as word for word literal. I think Zahir summed it up nicely.

[TheFallen]

The Orthodox view is to see the Bible as a collection of books - a wide variation of literature, which is written by man inspired by God.... The Biblical canon is a thing that was produced by the Church. Most Protestants today take a high view of Scripture - as do orthodox and Catholics, btw, but a low view of the Church. They treat the Bible as absilutely to be trusted and the Church - even and particularly the early Church - as not. It's an illogical stand, for if the Church could not be trusted to produce truth in the 4th century, then the Biblical canon it proclaimed is vain. Many authors over a great span of time wrote the various books - but the Church wrote the table of contents.

And hey, I agree with Rus! The bible contains a lot of good advice for living a "moral" or "good" life. But it's a product not only of when it was written, but of all the time that has passed since then as well.

I'm in favour of several of the central ideas. (Not all of them obviously.) But I don't think it can be taken literally.

I like to say "The Bible was inspired by God, but not dictated by God."

I'd also agree that plenty of what we know today as the Bible is pretty plainly allegorical and not literal. However, as both Rus and Av have said, when viewed overall (and especially the New Testament, which has to take clear precedence over the Old Testament), the Bible does indeed contain sensible guidelines as to how one can lead a "good or moral life".

Rus's other point is also interesting, though I don't agree with his statement that "most Protestants today take a high view of Scripture - as do orthodox and Catholics, btw, but a low view of the Church. They treat the Bible as absolutely to be trusted and the Church - even and particularly the early Church - as not." I completely agree with him that this view would be crazily illogical - which is why I don't think that most Christians hold it.

It is indisputable that the contents of what we know as today's Bible have been subject to significant human editing and censorship, which brings into discussion the selective colouring of message by human intervention. The Old Testament is still the subject of some controversy, with the various books of the Apocrypha representing that which has been excluded by some Churches. However, the 27 books of the New Testament that we know today seem to be the subject of far less dispute, having been accepted by most Churches.

I am sure Rus would know more about the Councils of Laodicea, Hippo and Carthage which decided that which 27 New Testament books were the ones that should be ratified - those that didn't make the 5th Century cut are known as the Antilegomena and include the Apocalypse of Peter which is full of extremely controversial stuff.

Take a look at Wikipedia's entry on the Apocalypse Of Peter

...and especially the contents synopsis. Lots of unequivocal stuff on the post-death fates in store for homosexuals and those who undergo abortion that would cause a riot in today's modern world.

Plus and most controversially of all, there's a revelation from God to Peter that actually eventually even those damned to Hell will be saved by God's mercy. So damnation will not be eternal - this may well sit easier with several who have issues squaring eternal damnation with a merciful Almighty. However, God then apparently tells Peter not to tell anyone about this (!!!), because if this becomes known, people are liable to not be so concerned about sinning and will probably sin all the more, knowing that they'll eventually benefit from a "get out of jail free" card. God's apparently quite Macchiavellian...

If I'm to be cynical, and given that the rule of fear seems to be an integral part of much of Christianity, I'm not at all surprised those early prelates were so keen to exclude it.

[Harbinger]

I have an employee that thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old and that the ark had brontosauruses on it.

[Orlion]

I just don't think the buoyancy of gopher wood would be able to keep the ark from sinking. Hence, I tend to view the Bible (and most scriptures) in a purely symbolic light.

Even if accounts are based on history, I view it as symbolic. Mainly because I don't think (for the most part) scripture attempts to provide a history.... at least nowadays, anyway.

[Auleliel]

I believe that the Bible is mostly truth/history, with (as rus said), bits of other literary styles mixed in throughout (allegory, fable, parable, legend, poetry, humor, etc.).
Back when the writers of the Bible were writing, the point of historical writings was not to record every detail exactly as it happened, but to record the author's interpretation of the events, so of course when reading historical works in the Bible and other ancient writings, it is important to realize that there will be some inaccuracies/contradictions, but this does not take away from the essential truth that the author is trying to convey--in this sort of history, it is often the author's interpretation of the event and not the event itself which is important. In the Bible, the interpretation of the historical events often revolves around God's involvement in human events and his constant love for a people who frequently ignored and disobeyed him.
When reading the Bible, one must consider the intent of the author for each book (or part of the book--some books, especially in the Old Testament, had more than one author), the literary style in which it is written, the intended audience, the culture and current events of the time, etc. A few books, such as Genesis, are mostly legend/allegory/analogy, with some history mixed in. Some books are social commentaries. Other books are mostly fact with some allegory and analogy mixed in.
In any case, it is inaccurate and dangerous to say that the entire Bible is completely factual in every detail, or that it is completely made up and "just a guide for living morally".
Just my 2 cents...