Making Litter of Literal Interpretation

[vovat]

Based on what I've read on the subject, the literal truth of the Bible is a subject that's been debated for much longer than modern fundamentalists would probably care to admit. Arguments over whether books like Job and Jonah should be taken as true history or fables date back pretty far. When Christianity was being developed, church leaders debated how much of the Old Testament they were going to accept, and how much of the old law that they were largely rejecting should still be taken as applying literally. As scientific and historical research have progressed and demonstrated that, for instance, the Earth revolves around the Sun and is much more than a few thousand years old, there are Christians who will try to reconcile these new discoveries with the Bible, and others who lash out against them and perhaps start taking the Bible even MORE literally.


I would posit that it really isn't possible to take the Bible entirely literally. It just contradicts itself way too often for anyone who actually knows the conflicting stories to accept both as the literal truth. Sure, some people will deny there are any contradictions, but when they try to explain a seeming contradiction away, they'll usually either admit that certain parts of the Bible should be understood figuratively, or come up with a convoluted excuse that hardly counts as a literal interpretation. It's apparently a common belief among fundamentalists these days that dinosaurs lived alongside humans, when the Bible obviously says no such thing, and they'll insist that this is taking the book literally. Still, while total and complete literalism is essentially impossible, there are believers who come awfully close. To them, Adam and Eve, the talking trickster snake, fruit that provides knowledge, a worldwide flood, and people living to be hundreds of years old are all actual historical details.


There are a few different ways to interpret these Bible stories non-literally. One is to regard them as fable, with the important part not being whether Adam and Eve really existed, but what their story says about the human condition. Sort of like Jesus' own parables, except not specifically identified as such. Another is a symbolic view, where everything stands for something else. One of the best examples of this sort of interpretation is the Epistle of Barnabas, a Gnostic letter attributed to Paul's companion Barnabas, but much more likely written after his time. He dismisses Judaism as a misinterpretation of the Old Testament, and holds that the passages that seem to be describing distinctly Jewish things are actually pointing to Christianity. Our pseudo-Barnabas says, for instance, that circumcision is unnecessary, but that the description of Abraham circumcising all the males in his household (318 people, according to Genesis 14:14) is significant because some number games result in letters standing for Jesus and the cross. As for the kosher dietary laws, they really just mean not to act like any of the animals that were forbidden to eat. This document obviously wasn't accepted into the canon, but I still hear some interpretations along the same lines today. Harold Camping, owner of the rather extreme even by radio fundamentalist standards Family Radio, frequently insists that just about everything in the Old Testament is "a picture of Christ" or "a picture of salvation." I know he's said King David is a representation of Jesus, because who better to represent a celibate pacifist than a promiscuous war leader, right? :P Mind you, he also considers all of these metaphorical stories to be literally true.


I'm sure some less stubborn Christians would admit that not all of the Bible is entirely true, but would still insist that it's all IMPORTANT. And I can't really argue with that, as the people who wrote and compiled the work wouldn't have included things they didn't think were important. Then again, what was important to them might not be the same as what we find significant in this modern age, when, for instance, the Temple in Jerusalem no longer exists. And I get the impression that some of the people who insist that the Bible is all important also think it has a simple message. Well, no. If it's all important, than its message is complicated, convoluted, and contradictory. And if the only important thing in the whole Bible is the part that deals with belief in Jesus, then how are the sections that have nothing to do with that important? As a non-religious person who nonetheless takes a good deal of interest in the Bible, I have to say that regarding everything in it as simply reinforcing one basic idea is kind of disrespectful to the variety of material to be found in the book. Why would we need metaphorical stories to illustrate the importance of Jesus when we have the New Testament to say that verbatim?

Comments

[vilajunkie.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear! Nothing in the Bible is as simple as certain religious leaders (and followers) make it out to be.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Well, I think a lot of them have a particular position they want to promote, and that's much harder to do when you admit that parts of the Bible actually contradict that position.

[burningofroissy.livejournal.com]

As for the kosher dietary laws, they really just mean not to act like any of the animals that were forbidden to eat.

That would be disappointing if it were true. For myself, there's no better way to pass an afternoon than going around acting like a shrimp.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

LOLing at Creationism Motivational Poster.

And I get the impression that some of the people who insist that the Bible is all important also think it has a simple message. Well, no.

Yes, I have always felt frustrated by people who suggest that The Bible has all your answers spelled out for you and you will always know the right thing to do if you just follow it. All is so much more complicated than that!

Yesterday in the comments of your one post we were talking about whether a person should try to distance themselves from the Crazies in a group they belong to, and I mentioned being so upset about Stupid Christians myself. But I HAVE been trying to be more accepting of them, to see them in the light of, well, their HEARTS are in the right place. Truly, I feel sorry for people who have to take the Bible literally-- they are constantly having to limit themselves, lie to themselves, make excuses for what they believe-- SO MUCH can tear down their faith. Whereas to believe in the metaphorical Truth Behind Story is to have a living faith, one that can take what is learned and build on it; it's to Believe on a completely different level than a literal belief.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

LOLing at Creationism Motivational Poster.

I don't know who that guy is in it, but I thought the caption was amusing.

Yesterday in the comments of your one post we were talking about whether a person should try to distance themselves from the Crazies in a group they belong to, and I mentioned being so upset about Stupid Christians myself. But I HAVE been trying to be more accepting of them, to see them in the light of, well, their HEARTS are in the right place.

For me, it really has to do with what you do with it. If someone believes something that I regard as bunk but that comforts them and gives their life meaning, I'm not going to complain. On the other hand, if you use your belief to harm others, that's a totally different story.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

I don't know who that guy is in it

Probably just some guy teaching geography!