Is a Literal Interpretation of the Bible Even Possible?

you are conflating "literal" with "accurate". these words do not mean the same thing. while it is impossible for two contradictory statements both to be accurate, it is not impossible for both of those statements to be meant literally. one is (or both are) simply wrong. that the text literally conflicts.

---

אָרַח

no, you're still confusing "literal" with "accurate". i can take something literally without also thinking it's accurate.for example, i do not think your post (which i am quoting) is accurate. however, i do not think it is therefor metaphorical, or in some way non-literal. i take your post literally, i just think it's in error.

---

אָרַח

no i don't. the fact that stories contradict does not mean that i cannot read or interpret them literally. i just can't think they are all literally correct. sure. but that wasn't the question was it?

---

אָרַח

evidently, you do not, as this is not mere semantics. these are important definitions, which you are conflating. the words do not mean the same things. distinguishing the two easily sorts out your question. or both. i fail to see the problem. your question was not "how can you think two conflicting accounts are both right?" it was "can the bible be interpreted literally?" and yes, it can. literal, but inaccurate, is a perfectly valid way to read the bible. no. the stories still conflict allegorically. for instance, genesis 1 depicts a more universal god who creates according to a perfect plan in preparation for man. genesis 2 depicts an imperfect local god, who creates for man according to man's needs by trial and error. these are two very different interpretations of god that speaks to two very different allegorical ideas about how god and man interact. perhaps they are two different aspects of the same god, but the stories still conflict.of course, people frequently use allegory or metaphor to as an excuse about why two stories that literally conflict really don't. this is based on an initial assumption of the truth value of the stories. by assuming they're true, we're forced to retreat to allegory or metaphor as way for both to be still be true in light conflict. we do not have this problem with literature where no truth value is assumed.

---

אָרַח

i apologize for not making it clear that i interpret the bible literally but do not also believe it to be accurate. i assumed that was implied from my argument.

---

אָרַח

no, this statement is not accurate. the bible is considered to be literal when read literally. very many people who read the bible literally do not consider it to be accurate, for instance, pretty much all of academia. and very many people who consider the bible to be accurate do not read it literally, for instance, a vast majority of believers.you are conflating the two because of a very small subset of christians who claim to read the bible literally, and also think it is inerrant and 100% true. i emphasis "claim" here because, in my lengthy experience in debating scripture with this subgroup, i have found that they very frequently have neither read the bible, nor are reading it literally. on a great many (truly hilarious) occasions, they have accused me of being overly literal. the problem is that they are using the term "literal" to mean "true". do not make their same mistake.

---

אָרַח

correct. i was using this definition:

quote:

---

1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.

​

Literal Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

---

you know. the literal definition of "literal". i apologize if taking the primary definition confused you.

---

אָרַח

no, dictionaries to do not dictate valid usage. they describe how words are used. that definition is included because some people use the word that way. however, as described above, this is almost certainly inappropriate in this case. perhaps, but the problem is that you are conflating the different definitions. the problem goes away if you use a more appropriate synonym for what you mean: for instance, "accurate".edited from your OP:

quote:

---

How can a text which contains obvious contradictions be taken [as accurate]?

---

see, no confusion there. the answer is obvious, and very hard to argue (semantically or otherwise). the conflation comes in when you begin use words like "literal interpretation". no, the problem is that those of us who are arguing with you have taken the word "literal" literally, and you have not.

---

אָרַח

this is just unclear thinking, imho.the first claim, that most people who take the bible literally have already accepted that it is true, is probably not true. for instance, the vast majority of academia considers the bible to be a generally literal account, with layers of allegory, most of which is at best loosely based in historical traditions. the accuracy of the bible is a claim that remains to be justified by evidence. for the text in question, genesis, the consensus opinion is that it is an anthology comprised of at least 3 separate written sources that records the oral traditions and folk mythology of the jewish people circa the 9th-6th centuries BCE. academics may well discuss the symbolism and allegory and implications of the stories, but they are still read literally. this is precisely the same way we'd view any other work of mythology, such as the enuma elish, or gilgamesh, or the iliad, or beowulf. none of these are thought of as being non-literal.additionally, even if the claim that most people who read the bible literally accept it as true were itself true, this would not establish the two concepts as being interchangeable. just because a majority of people who hold one concept also hold another concept does not mean that the two concepts are the same thing. a group that holds the second concept, but not the first, should be enough to show this. for instance, if all people who think the earth is flat also think that the sun goes around the earth, this does not mean that geocentrism and flat-earth-ism are the same idea. looking to someone who holds geocentrism as true but not flat-earth-ism would be enough to show this. similarly, those that are non-literalists, but hold the bible as accurate, defeat your point entirely.the second claim, that it is then simply a matter of determining how literal the truth is, shows precisely why this thinking is unclear. it is cart-before-the-horse. either the person is a literalist, or they are not. no,"literalist: fact - the bible says that god created everything in six days, and it means that literally."contradictions still ensue -- but this is only a problem if the literalist also holds that what the bible says is true. this is an entirely separate assumption. yes, there can, as i explained above. if you'd like, i'd be more than happy to talk about the allegorical contradictions. "allegory!" is simply a weaselly excuse, in the hopes that your audience won't adequately examine the allegory. that audience is frequently the person making the argument, btw. no. the person who holds that the bible is true faces a dilemma, when reading literally. "allegory!" is one such attempt to weasel out of the dilemma, but by no means is it the only attempt i've seen. i've also seen subjective/creative translation trickery, the same generally fuzzy thinking that applies to "allegory!" argument applied directly to the literalist argument, and various other creative solutions like time travel, duplicate creations, etc. or,3. admit that the bible cannot be take as true in its entirety.

---

אָרַח

you have not used the words correctly. this is not "quibbling over semantics". it is an important point that eliminates the confusion in your topic. yes, see, this is more clear. perhaps you should have used something worded like this for your OP. yes, a literal interpretation of the bible does present problems for those who believe it to be true. actually, that is more or less precisely what you asked. which is why a number of us have attempted to correct your terminology. from your OP:

quote:

---

2. How can one resolve these logical contradictions while maintaining a literal interpretation?

---

answer: by not believing the stories are true.

---

אָרַח

seen this before, i have.i think it comes from a desire to get one those "AHA! gotcha!" moments, entirely deflated by "one of your initial assumptions was wrong."Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

אָרַח

no problem. there is no harm in restating your question, more clearly -- for instance, do you want to know how people who hold the bible to be literally inerrant justify contradictions? you might want to start with one particular example, though i would suggest not genesis 1 vs. 2/3. we've had several threads on this topic already.

---

אָרַח