Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is a Literal Interpretation of the Bible Even Possible?
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 31 of 40 (616264)
05-20-2011 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dave B
05-20-2011 1:52 PM


Re: No problems.
Dave B writes:
I wasn't ignoring the other definitions. I was simply pointing out that my intended use of the word is in fact valid.
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.
In fact, all of the definitions apply 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".
I guess the word literal cannot be taken literally. Strange, eh?
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dave B, posted 05-20-2011 1:52 PM Dave B has not replied

  
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3516 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 05-13-2011


Message 32 of 40 (616307)
05-20-2011 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by arachnophilia
05-20-2011 4:10 PM


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:
  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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 05-20-2011 4:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 05-20-2011 7:21 PM Dave B has not replied

  
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3516 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 05-13-2011


Message 33 of 40 (616309)
05-20-2011 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
05-20-2011 2:05 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2011 2:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 05-20-2011 7:14 PM Dave B has not replied
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 05-20-2011 7:26 PM Dave B has replied
 Message 40 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-23-2011 12:41 PM Dave B has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 40 (616312)
05-20-2011 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dave B
05-20-2011 7:06 PM


Re: No problems.
Dave B writes:
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.
You can even read the Bible literally and believe it accurate.
The issue is that you seem to want a certain answer and seem upset that people reply in a way you did not expect.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dave B, posted 05-20-2011 7:06 PM Dave B has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by arachnophilia, posted 05-20-2011 7:34 PM jar has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 35 of 40 (616313)
05-20-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dave B
05-20-2011 6:55 PM


Re: No problems.
Dave B writes:
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?
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.
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).
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.
The non-literalist faces no logical dilemma as there can be no contradiction when the stories are allegorical.
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.
The literalist, however, faces a logical dilemma when literal interpretation presents two conflicting stories.
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.
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.
or,
3. admit that the bible cannot be take as true in its entirety.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dave B, posted 05-20-2011 6:55 PM Dave B has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 36 of 40 (616314)
05-20-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dave B
05-20-2011 7:06 PM


Re: No problems.
Dave B writes:
We can quibble over semantics or we can discuss the original questions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dave B, posted 05-20-2011 7:06 PM Dave B has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dave B, posted 05-20-2011 7:51 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 37 of 40 (616315)
05-20-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
05-20-2011 7:14 PM


Re: No problems.
jar writes:
The issue is that you seem to want a certain answer and seem upset that people reply in a way you did not expect.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 05-20-2011 7:14 PM jar has not replied

  
Dave B
Junior Member (Idle past 3516 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 05-13-2011


Message 38 of 40 (616318)
05-20-2011 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by arachnophilia
05-20-2011 7:26 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 05-20-2011 7:26 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by arachnophilia, posted 05-20-2011 9:53 PM Dave B has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 39 of 40 (616345)
05-20-2011 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dave B
05-20-2011 7:51 PM


Re: No problems.
Dave B writes:
Arachnophilia... I appreciate the replies.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dave B, posted 05-20-2011 7:51 PM Dave B has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 40 (616580)
05-23-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dave B
05-20-2011 7:06 PM


Re: No problems.
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.
I did address the original questions, but instead you want to focus on whether or not it actually was equivocation or not
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.
I'll just repost what I already have:
quote:
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dave B, posted 05-20-2011 7:06 PM Dave B has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024