Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where does literalism end and interpretation begin?
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 96 (292840)
03-06-2006 9:01 PM


A literalist might say that which is written as literal is to be taken literally and that which was not meant by the writer to be literal is, of ccurse, not to be taken literally.
The parables of Jesus, for example, are not meant literally.
So when ancient writers said "heart" in the sense of "the seat of the emotions" or one's inner self, this was intended non-literally. In modern times we also use the word "heart" in this sense.
Political ad from way back: "In your heart you know he's right." (Goldwater, was it?)
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-06-2006 08:02 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 9:07 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 15 by ReverendDG, posted 03-07-2006 12:32 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 17 by LinearAq, posted 03-07-2006 10:21 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 96 (292844)
03-06-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
03-06-2006 9:07 PM


Do you take the story about Jonah and the whale literally?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 9:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 03-06-2006 10:36 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 96 (292960)
03-07-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Heathen
03-07-2006 11:36 AM


"interpretation" is not the opposite of "reading literally."
Any text has to be interpreted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 11:36 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 12:50 PM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 96 (292986)
03-07-2006 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Heathen
03-07-2006 12:50 PM


We all know the bible is interpreted in many different ways, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.
It's just a matter of knowing when to stop interpreting. and read as written.
To "interpret" just means to figure out what a text means. One can "interpret" a passage literally or figuratively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 12:50 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 1:54 PM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 96 (293007)
03-07-2006 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Heathen
03-07-2006 1:54 PM


But different people can/will interpret a passage differently no?
Sure, but the disjunction is not always "literal" or "figurative," at least not in any obvious sense. People interpret the parts of the US constitution differently too, but the US Constitution contains no parables as far as I know.
The literalist might say that if there is no indication that the passage was intended non-literally--or let's say non-historically-- then the passage is to be interpreted as historical fact. If the text reads, "The Kingdom of Heaven might be likened to" something or other, then we know right away the upcoming details are meant non-literally. But there might be other stylistic aspects which would indicate a non-literal reading as well: for example, a story about someone from God knows where living in an unspecified time and an unspecified place suggests a fable: "Once upon a time . . ."
The phrase "once upon a time" is enough to suggest a non-historical text.
Such clues might exist in certain parts of the Bible. If so, that part could be interpreted non-literally by a literalist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 1:54 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 4:04 PM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 96 (293054)
03-07-2006 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Heathen
03-07-2006 4:04 PM


yes.. not sure what point you are trying to make here.
Let's look at the title of your topic: "Where does literalism end and interpretation begin?"
This suggests that one might read a text "literally" which is not the same thing as "interpreting" it.
But I would think that any reading, literal or not, is a form of interpretation. We can interpret a text literally or we can interpret it figuratively. But we also might be able to interpret it a way that can not be called exactly literal or figurative, only different.
For example, we can interpret it based on what we think the writer's intentions were. Or we can interpret a text based not on the writer's intentions but what we think the text means apart from the author's intentions. Maybe the author said something he did not intend. Nonetheless it's part of the text.
But there are parts which read like fairly tales(Notably: genesis . . .
I'm curious as to the features of Genesis that can be called fairy-tale-like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 4:04 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 5:14 PM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 96 (293158)
03-08-2006 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Heathen
03-07-2006 5:14 PM


the creation of the entire universe in 7 days
-man being created from dirt
-woman being created from man
-no death, no disease, no pain
-a talking snake
I'll grant you the talking snake. Otherwise, there seems to be some question-begging here.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . ." is not the same kind of comment as, "Once upon a time there was this old and very powerful wizard who hankered for companionship . . ."
If you think it's the same sort of thing, you have begged the question by assuming the automatic falsehood of special creation ahead of time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Heathen, posted 03-07-2006 5:14 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 10:18 AM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 96 (293175)
03-08-2006 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Heathen
03-06-2006 2:25 PM


Problems with the OP
There's a problem with the use of the term "interpret." Interpretation need not be figurative. Also, all texts have to be interpreted and that doesn't mean there are literal and figurative meanings necessarily. Let's take the word "STOP" found on the highway. What does this mean? Does it mean a dead full stop, or perhaps a pause? If a full stop, how long must we stop? A milli-second? 2 seconds? 5? One can never cover all one's bases with words.
There's a problem with designating what's literal and what's figurative. Why should the literal meaning of "heart" be a blood-pump? Why not a different but still literal meaning? (one's inner self)?
Take the word "window." Window--a hole in the side of a house. Another meaning is a spacetime window through which a spacecraft must pass to come to earth safely. Is one literal and the other figurative? Neither deal with abstractions.
I suppose one might argue that the original meaning of a word is its literal meaning while later meanings are figurative. What was the original meaning of the word "heart"? It might have been "the inner self, located in the chest." In that case, the later meaning of blood-pump would be figurative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Heathen, posted 03-06-2006 2:25 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 10:45 AM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 96 (293242)
03-08-2006 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Heathen
03-08-2006 10:18 AM


well I honestly don't think there's that much difference between
there being a lonely God who wanted to share creation with
and there being a lonely wizard who hankered for companionship.
The difference is that "God" designates the creator whereas "wizard" does not. So God is a different order of being entirely.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-08-2006 09:43 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 10:18 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 10:51 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 96 (293249)
03-08-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Heathen
03-08-2006 10:45 AM


Re: Problems with the OP
So If the original meaning of Heart was "the inner self, located in the chest." It's wrong isn't it? your 'self' does not reside in the chest, the pump does. so when we read this we understand that it is not meant literally
Not meant literally? By whom? Aren't we talking about the original author's intent? Maybe they meant it quite literally.
ABE Or maybe they meant "the inner self" without reference to location. Is that literal? No reason why not.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-08-2006 09:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 10:45 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 11:07 AM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 96 (293260)
03-08-2006 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Heathen
03-08-2006 11:07 AM


Re: Problems with the OP
where do you decide which meaning fits?
In the case of "heart," you decide what best fits the context. What I'm trying to figure out is why you are suggesting that "heart" in the sense of "inner self" need be figurative. We can as well call it literal.
You seem to be suggesting that "interpretation" is always figurative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 11:07 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 11:51 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 96 (293336)
03-08-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Heathen
03-08-2006 10:45 AM


Re: Problems with the OP
Uhm... it means "Stop" no confusion there.
You can of course read the highway code to find out what to do after you stop.. it's quite clear and unequivocal
Does it mean "always stop" or "stop under normal circumstances"? If the latter, what constitutes abnormal circumstances? If we turn to the highway code, we will find that we have to interpret the explanations. There is no end to this. You can never cover all your bases.
So your question "Where does literalism end and interpretation begin?"
is misleading. All reading is interpretation. That's why lawyers are always finding loopholes in carefully written contracts which require "interpretation."
But "literalism" and "interpretation" are not opposed, as your question suggests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 10:45 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 3:22 PM robinrohan has replied
 Message 56 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 3:30 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 96 (293395)
03-08-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Heathen
03-08-2006 3:22 PM


Re: Problems with the OP
So, You are saying a biblical literalist must interpret what is written in the bible?
To read is to interpret. What interpretation involves is a judgement about the meaning based on certain assumptions and whatever evidence there is. The assumptions are necessary because all the bases are never covered.
The unbeliever may dismiss any part of the Bible that suggests some supernatural event. But then, so may a believer such as Thomas Jefferson the Deist.
But suppose we are not prepared to dismiss any part only on the view that the supernatural cannot be. Suppose we are or may be willing to accept supernatural events. If we are in this position, one way to decide is by noting if there are certain phrases that say that something is like something else--i.e., a parable.
Simply saying "once upon a time" does not necessarily mark a story as a fable.
"once upon a time" suggests an unidentified time and place. That is a stylistic feature of myth. There may be other features, but I'm not sure what they are. Identifying these myth-like features could be another way to try to distinguish between myth and history if one was not willing to dismiss a story just because it contained supernatural elements.
This myth-like feature--"once upon a time"--is missing from the New Testament but may be present in some of the Old Testament books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 3:22 PM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 5:49 PM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 96 (294481)
03-12-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Heathen
03-08-2006 5:49 PM


Re: Problems with the OP
two biblical literalists could concievable have differing views as to the teaching and meaning of the bible?
Certainly.
I would suggest that "in the beginning" remains rather undefined.
the beginning of what? the beginning of God? the beginning of time?
does this then suggest that this is a fable?
That's not quite the same thing. It refers to the beginning of the universe. There's no other way to express it.
The beginning of Job sounds like a fairy tale--to me.
"There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job . . ."
Was "Uz" a real place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Heathen, posted 03-08-2006 5:49 PM Heathen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ramoss, posted 03-12-2006 11:31 AM robinrohan 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