|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
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: |
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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dave B Junior Member (Idle past 3516 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
arachnophilia 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? 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: you know. the literal definition of "literal". i apologize if taking the primary definition confused you. 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 3516 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
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. 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: (It even says right there, the literal meaning of a word.) Or this:
quote: The second definition refers to translating. The definition you're using:
quote: ...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: The answer to those questions then becomes:
By not reading them literally. (as per definition 1 or 2) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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: answer: by not believing the stories are true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dave B Junior Member (Idle past 3516 days) Posts: 12 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024