|
Author
|
Topic: Is a Literal Interpretation of the Bible Even Possible?
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
|
Message 1 of 40 (615999)
05-13-2011 10:06 AM
|
|
|
There are actually two parts to this question: 1. How can a text which contains obvious contradictions be taken literally? This appears to create a logical dilemma which cannot be solved with a literal interpretation. 2. How can one resolve these logical contradictions while maintaining a literal interpretation? Some examples of contradictions within the Bible include (but are not limited to): The stories of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Namely, the in order in which creation occured. Jim Meritt Bible Contradictions » Internet Infidels The number of animals taken on the Ark by Noah in Genesis 7:2 and 7:8 / 7.9. Jim Meritt Bible Contradictions » Internet Infidels The last words spoken by Jesus as told by Matthew, Luke and John. Jim Meritt Bible Contradictions » Internet Infidels Edited by Dave B, : Added examples of Biblical contradictions.
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
Re: Needs more content
Added examples of Biblical contradictions to proposed topic including references to specific passages.
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
Re: easy.
arachnophilia writes: Dave B writes: 1. How can a text which contains obvious contradictions be taken literally? This appears to create a logical dilemma which cannot be solved with a literal interpretation. 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.
2. How can one resolve these logical contradictions while maintaining a literal interpretation? that the text literally conflicts.
Agreed. It is not impossible for both to be meant literally. However, it is impossible for both to be taken literally. And that was my question.
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
|
|
Message 10 of 40 (616016)
05-18-2011 10:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
05-18-2011 9:40 PM
|
|
Re: No problems.
jar writes: Of course you can read the Bible literally. The only real issues are thinking that it is actually one book and so different stories need to be consistent and thinking that it can't simply be wrong.
Exactly. If you want to take the Bible literally you need to explain away the stories that conflict with your literal interpretation. It is not possible for two contradictory stories, taken literally, to both be correct.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by jar, posted 05-18-2011 9:40 PM | | jar has replied |
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
Re: easy.
arachnophilia writes: Dave B writes: Agreed. It is not impossible for both to be meant literally. However, it is impossible for both to be taken literally. And that was my question. 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.
I completely understand the semantics. But you cannot take two contradictory statements regarding the same truth, literally, without confronting some sort of logical dilemma. One of the two statements has to be incorrect (not accurate). Let's assume we do not take the Bible literally, and instead we take it allegorically; both statements could be correct. Would you agree with this?
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
|
|
Message 14 of 40 (616022)
05-18-2011 10:57 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
05-18-2011 10:32 PM
|
|
Re: No problems.
jar writes: Dave B writes: jar writes: Of course you can read the Bible literally. The only real issues are thinking that it is actually one book and so different stories need to be consistent and thinking that it can't simply be wrong.
Exactly. If you want to take the Bible literally you need to explain away the stories that conflict with your literal interpretation. It is not possible for two contradictory stories, taken literally, to both be correct. But the Bible is not one book. And it is certainly possible for two conflicting statements to be literally true within two different stories.
So which of the two stories is accurate? One is to be taken literally and the other would be... what? Incorrect? Allegorical? If both describe the same event they cannot both be correct. I see you want to argue semantics so let me clarify: The Bible is considered to be accurate when read literally. When two accounts contradict one another which one do we accept as accurate?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by jar, posted 05-18-2011 10:32 PM | | jar has replied |
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
Re: No problems.
arachnophilia writes: Dave B writes: Exactly. If you want to take the Bible literally you need to explain away the stories that conflict with your literal interpretation. 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.
It is not possible for two contradictory stories, taken literally, to both be correct. sure. but that wasn't the question was it?
I apologize for not making it clear that those who interpret the Bible literally also believe it to be accurate. I assumed that that was implied in my asking of the question.
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
Re: No problems.
arachnophilia writes: Dave B writes: I apologize for not making it clear that those who interpret the Bible literally also believe it to be accurate. I assumed that that was implied in my asking of the question. 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.
So you're using a different definition of the word literal than I was using in my original questions. Literal: 3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual 4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy Literal Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Ironic, to say the least, that a discussion about literal interpretation has failed because of your inability to interpret my questions... literally. Thanks for answering my question.
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
|
|
Message 26 of 40 (616236)
05-20-2011 1:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 22 by subbie
05-20-2011 11:02 AM
|
|
Re: No problems.
subbie writes: Ironic, to say the least, that a discussion about literal interpretation has failed because of your inability to interpret my questions... literally. Interesting, to say the least, that to make your point you have to ignore the primary definition of the word from the source you choose to make your point.
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.
I wasn't ignoring the other definitions. I was simply pointing out that my intended use of the word is in fact valid. In fact, all of the definitions apply in this case. I guess the word literal cannot be taken literally. Strange, eh?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 22 by subbie, posted 05-20-2011 11:02 AM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied |
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
Re: No problems.
arachnophilia writes: Dave B writes: So you're using a different definition of the word literal than I was using in my original questions. Literal: 3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual 4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy Literal Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com correct. i was using this definition:
quote:
- 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.
- 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.
I would have to disagree. Most people who take the Bible literally have already accepted that what is written is true. It's simply a matter of determining how literal that truth is. Did God's creation take six, literal, twenty-four hour days or are the "days" to be taken figuratively? Non-literalist: Fact - God created everything. Who cares how long it took and in what order? It's not meant to be taken literally. The fact is God created everything. Literalist: Fact - God created everything in six literal days in this order... (contradictions ensue). The non-literalist faces no logical dilemma as there can be no contradiction when the stories are allegorical. The literalist, however, faces a logical dilemma when literal interpretation presents two conflicting stories. So the literalist has two options: 1. Explain the contradiction literally. 2. Admit that the Bible cannot be taken literally in its entirety, in which case the whole concept of Biblical literalism has to be questioned.
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
Re: No problems.
Catholic Scientist writes: I wasn't ignoring the other definitions. I was simply pointing out that my intended use of the word is in fact valid. Yeah, a valid equivocation...
In fact, all of the definitions apply in this case. No, when people talk about reading the Bible literally, they are talking about either this:
quote:
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.
(It even says right there, the literal meaning of a word.) Or this:
quote:
following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
The second definition refers to translating. The definition you're using:
quote:
true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
...has nothing to do with reading or translating the Bible. Now, if we do accept your incorrect definition, the questions in the OP become:
quote:
1. How can a text which contains obvious contradictions be taken literally as truthful? This appears to create a logical dilemma which cannot be solved with a literal truthful interpretation. 2. How can one resolve these logical contradictions while maintaining a literal true interpretation?
The answer to those questions then becomes:
By not reading them literally. (as per definition 1 or 2)
Apparently, you don't understand what an equivocation is. I did not intentionally use ambiguous language with the intent to deceive. I even clarified my use of the word so as to avoid confusion. That you take issue with my use of the word does not constitute an equivocation on my part. We can quibble over semantics or we can discuss the original questions. At this point I could care less as it seems no one wants to address the fact that a literal interpretation of the Bible presents problems for those who believe it to be true. Can you read the Bible literally without believing it to be accurate? Sure! But that's not the context in which the questions were asked.
|
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3546 days) Posts: 12 Joined: 05-13-2011
|
Re: No problems.
I am going to concede that perhaps my original questions were not worded correctly. Thanks, everyone, for all the replies and criticisms. Look forward to talking to everyone. Arachnophilia... I appreciate the replies.
|
™ Version 4.2