Is a Literal Interpretation of the Bible Even Possible?

Often there is no way to tell if either is accurate if you mean historically, yet both could be accurate within the context of that story.This is not a matter of semantics but rather understanding the nature of the Bible. You need to remember that it is an edited and redacted anthology of anthologies. It is NOT some monolithic structure.Let me give you an example. In the OP you mention several examples. One is the last words of Jesus in Matt, Luke and John. Yes, what is recorded in each of the stories is different, but within the context of each story it is literally what the author of Matt, or Luke or John has Jesus say last.They are different stories, there is no need for them to be internally consistent.Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 are again, different stories written hundreds of years apart (maybe thousands) and in both stories, creation itself is simply a plot device. They were written by two different cultures to serve two different purposes and both accounts are literal accurate (as far as we can tell) but neither is accurate.

---

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

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

quote:

---

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?

---

As you've noticed your use of the word literal carries more than one meaning. When it comes to Bible study it is wise to use a synonym for the confusing word. Plain text reading is a better way to refer to meaning #1.
Use the words true and accurate for the meaning #3.So what you're really asking is:
How can a text which contains obvious contradictions be taken as accurate?So the contradiction in the creation story. An author usually has a purpose for his story. In Genesis we see two different stories with different purposes. The details you shared may not be the point of the story. Really the line up is irrelevant to the second story.The same with the number of animals on the ark. The animal numbers not really the main point of the story. Two authors have different ideas to convey to their audience.For the last words of Jesus remember there wasn't a news reporter at the crucifixion. The stories were written over thirty years later. The main point is that he gave up the ghost, not so much what he said before doing so. He might have said all three. Tales of an event change over time.So without using the word "literal" or a version of it, please explain what you really want to discuss?

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 factual4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracyLiteral Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comIronic, 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.

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.

---

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Actually, ignoring the first TWO definitions.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.

---

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

True, but the second one wasn't germane to this conversation.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

The second is germane IMHO because we need to acknowledge that the stories really do say what is being claimed. There really are conflicts, contradictions and discrepancies, passages that really are mutually exclusive.Before we can begin addressing why such things exist we need to truly understand that they do exist, and that's where so much of apologetics just plain fails. They try to claim that the discrepancies and contradictions simply don't really exist.

---

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

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?

Yeah, a valid equivocation... 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)

Well, I don't doubt for one second that various "translations" of the bible have been politically influenced, some to the point that the translations says the exact opposite of what the original intended. If you were to claim that all have been, I wouldn't argue against you. However, I'm not sure that this issue bears on the point that Dave B. seems to be making. (Of course, given the discussion of the various possible interpretations of the word "literal," I can't be entirely sure, or even particularly confident, that I know what point Dave B. was trying to make, so I could be completely off base.)

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Well, that is still not related to what I have said.For example.In the flood myth there literally are several conflicting and contradictory descriptions of the onset, duration, what happened at the end, what was taken on board, what was destroyed.Before we can resolve such issues we have to actually recognize that they really, literally do say contradictory things.The classic apologist simply ignores those contradictions and tries to pretend that they actually say the same thing.

---

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

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