On Steve Benson’s Adam and Eve thread, “lostinutah” says:

“The Bible believers are now stuck. Either you take it as a literal document (the word of god) and therefore you have no way out of this conundrum, or you get with the times and say parts of it are symbolic.”

Christians in certain denominations have always stated that “parts of it [the Bible] are symbolic”. Even Christians in traditionalist (“fundamentalist”) churches have always seen symbolism in some parts of the Bible (i.e., Song of Solomon, many parables, etc). It’s not a case of suddenly taking that as a fallback position due to new discoveries in the world.

”Problem is, who gets to decide which parts are symbolic?”

There is a cohesive ‘interpretation’ of scripture, including what is literal, historic, symbolic, allegorical, parabolic, etc. that has existed for centuries, according to my understanding, which varies slightly in meaning and focus from one denomination to another. The basics are generally agreed upon, and thus, there is the “worldwide body of the church”; i.e., the believers, at least in mainstream/EV Protestantism, where people in different denoms are still considered to be fellow Christians.

My long time understanding and observation is that even those who consider themselves “Bible-believing” (traditionalist/fundamentalist to others) see symbolism and other literary devices in the Bible. When they say they believe in the Bible literally, there are still parts that are seen to be symbolic.

As to who “gets to decide” which parts are which, it’s a case of linguists, such as translators in the first instance (who translate into various languages from the original languages, not from one “modern” translation into another) and acknowledged scholars who write “commentaries” who help readers/believers to understand the original language and meaning, and trained ministers who teach the ‘interpretation’ in a three-fold way, what things meant back in the day, the application to our modern day in general, and to our individual lives.

”Whatever's convenient??? Yup, I suspect that's it.”

There is a pattern to it, from a believer’s point of view, which outsiders may not recognize or appreciate. It’s really not a case of a bunch of dolts sitting around in pews completely clueless about the most obvious issues known by atheists. There have been decades of “new information” that hasn’t caused frantic scrabbling to chop and change the scriptures or our understanding of them. In fact, that could be a valid criticism, that change is glacial when at times it could have been beneficial to move more quickly.

”So much for the infallibility of the gospel. What a crock.”

I don’t see it as Christians madly scrambling to stay relevant. I can see how others may view it differently. I don’t remember hearing of the ‘infallibility’ of the gospel. I think Protestants tend to stay away from that word (lol). Literal? Yes. All scripture inspired of God? Yes. Subject to interpretation? Yes. Possibly subject to changing views? Yes.

I agree that some Christians hold fast to the idea of a literal Bible and see it as a vital tenet of the faith to never change. Some, though, have never held that view. I’ve been to many a Bible study where believers hold different opinions about what a passage means and/or how it applies to us. It’s common to go back to the original languages and study words and meanings to ensure the closest understanding possible. I see abundant evidence of people trying to understand the basis for their faith and doing their best to put the ideals into practice in their lives. I’ve always found that to be a good thing.

Reference thread:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,266350,266350#msg-266350



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2011 08:31PM by Nightingale.

. . . some posters here (the ones apparently threatened by evil atheists, heh-heh) would rather go after the poster than address the fact that the number of Christian scholars who reject literal Bible-based opposition to evolution is on the rise.

(see: Barbara Bradley Hagerty, "Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve," on "Morning Edition," National Public Radio, 9 August 2011, at http://www.npr.org/2011/08/09/138957812/evangelicals-question-the-existence-of-adam-and-eve)



After all, it's so much easier just to attack the woefully wicked atheists who dare make public note of the Christian crusades being waged by Christian crusaders against fellow Christians over the heretical topic of evolution. Go for it. Survival of the fittest. :)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2011 09:19PM by steve benson.

We were never told to take it literally. Everything in the bible is meant to be understood, thought about, and then applied to circumstances today. That means you have to interpret on your own and find meaning. I've never understood the obsession over whether to accept the Bible as word-for-word truth. It obviously isn't to anyone with half a functioning brain.

I think this is what defines the moderate Christians...an open mind to new ideas.

Many Christians do not take the Bible literally and are aware of how it was written. They are not an ignorant bunch who would leave the faith if they found out that Adam and Eve were not real people or that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or even people who knew Jesus. The fact is, they already know this-at least many do.

How is the story of Lot offering his daughters up for gang rape supposed to be interpreted then applied to circumstances today?

If the writers wanted to teach that strangers should be protected, don't you think they could have done it without suggesting that a father turn his daughters out to be raped?

In those days the guest/host relationship was sacred. A guest took precedence over family. It is a reflection of the mores of the time.It was not only the custom in the lands of the Bible but in pagan lands as well. A guest came before family. I don't recall that it was praised or that it was something that everyone was order by God to do.It was just stayted as something Lot did. Besides, the story is a myth. A lot of Biblical characters did bad things and that hardly means we are supposed to follow their example

You gave a good explanation as to why the bible is NOT to be looked at for relevance for today, but Outcast stated "Everything in the bible is meant to be understood, thought about, and then applied to circumstances today"

So, again, how is Lot offering his daughters up for rape applied to "Everything in the bible is meant to be understood, thought about, and then applied to circumstances today" ?

As for "I don't recall that it was praised or that it was something that everyone was order by God to do." This is the story of Lot being saved from the destruction of Sodom as a reward for being a GOOD MAN. God rewarded Lot big time. The symbology seems pretty clear, off your daughters up for rape to protect strangers, be saved from the destruction of your city.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2011 09:07PM by MJ.

Ask Outcast. I am not responsible for what he said.

for me is in a Gestalt-like way so that every character and object has a symbolic psychological meaning...and hence everything described is happening RIGHT NOW. (Yes, the Garden of Eden is NOW, and the Fall, and the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection...Time is a dramatic illusion.) My term for this is "the simultaneous bible"...though I know there is also a more pedestrian meaning for this phrase.

I think this way of understanding was characteristic of the language of parables, and so the bible itself is an extended parable. One pioneer in this approach to interpreting was the Scottish Jungian psychologist (and Gurdjieffian) Maurice Nicoll (in The New Man, and The Mark).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2011 09:09PM by steve benson.

perhaps I assumed too much with "Gestalt." As in a dream where all elements are parts of ourselves, so with the (sometimes bizarre) elements in the bible. It's all internal.

I don't commonly read bibles, but when something's quoted I try to find a personally helpful, "meta" perspective on it. And there are psychological ways of analyzing parables so that this interpreting isn't a self-centered free-for-all. Besides, it's for my own growth, not something to proselytize to others.

If I understand correctly, you mean the Bible may be read as a psychological/imaginative process. Jungians have indeed done a lot of work in that direction.

Just to throw something else in, the Old Testament was written with much different narrative assumptions than those which we moderns hold and this likely affects our modern interpretations. Robert Alter has written a fascinating book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Biblical-Narrative-Robert-Alter/dp/0465022553/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1312940010&sr=1-1

P.S. It's good to hear from you, Richard :-)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2011 09:56PM by robertb.

. . . therefore representing the superstitions, attitudes, beliefs, biases, ignorance and male-dominated political and social structures of those eras--which representations the male leaders of the various tribes projected on to their mythological warrior man-gods which appear in their "scripture."

In other words, the Bible is a demonstration of creating "God" in man's image.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 12:37AM by steve benson.

Scott McKnight, an Evangelic writer, proposes an interesting approach to interpreting the Bible in his book The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible.

http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Parakeet-Rethinking-Read-Bible/product-reviews/0310331668/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_next_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=2&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

I see the biblical writings as a cornerstone to our literature. There's a lot of range to the mythology of the Bible. I know Galileo and Newton made the works obsolete, but I listen to 78 rpm records. Sometimes it's not the quality, but the age of a thing. A 78 record sounds scratchy, and the Bible reads scratchy. But both have a place in history.

None of it can or should be taken literally. The Bible stories that work as metaphor are as important and relevant as Greek and Roman myths. Since all myths are man-made, we can learn a lot from them about ourselves.

If I could start a church, it would be based on the stories of Shakespeare.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2011 10:09PM by wine country girl.

There is some real history in parts of it.

The final books of the OT, parts of the Gospels and Acts.Of course there is mythology mixed in but that does not mean none of it happened



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2011 10:07PM by bona dea.

but the rest contained myth, would we cling to the historical and use the rest as myth?

I love Shakespeare. I took three courses of The Bard's literature at Sacramento state. I must have read Hamlet four times...Alas poor Yorick... Funny that Shakespeare's English is similar to the King James English of the Bible. The big difference? Shakespeare could be funny.

Sure. I would, but probably not the believers

that we're back to cherry-picking the parts we WANT to believe in, the parts we HOPE or WISH were true, the parts we CHOOSE to include in our Gestalt, etc., etc., etc. (Pardon all the upper case, it's just for emphasis.)

In other words, the Bible is whatever you make of it which is either the literal, God-dictated gospel Word or some constantly morphing dream-state or some vague incomprehensible stuff in between those two extremes.

Yeah, that's about it.

Any work that is not strictly scientific, especially a work of art or literature, is at least partly "what we make of it." We assign personal and cultural meanings. We interpret. We prefer some parts over others and some meanings over others. I don't see a problem with that kind of activity.

As for "wanting to believe"--some people may, others not. Appreciation of something and enjoyment of it is not necessarily belief. I can enjoy the Bible and find meaning in it without it being an object of belief, although for many people it is, of course, and that is their main relationship to it. (I think that relationship is a form of idol worship, but that would be another discussion.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2011 10:57PM by robertb.

I agree.

And would be no more authoritative than any other books of myth of fiction.

The idea that one can interpret the passages means they can interpret it to justify their own beliefs. The bible stops being any sort of authoritative moral guide at that point. If individuals are free to cherry pick what they want and interpret it to reflect their own values, then the bible becomes nothing more than a tool to reinforce preexisting personal beliefs and preexisting morals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/2011 11:27PM by MJ.

that everyone is trapped by self-enhancing bias. People can learn to interpret things critically and to hold themselves up to scrutiny. This is supposedly the goal of higher education: to lead people out of comfortably familiar interpretations and instead adopt the standards of an academic discipline. Granted, many universities act as extended high schools and students don't mature in their thought processes. But it is cynical to assume that everyone wants merely to continue in habitual ways.

This kind of ego-undermining interpretation is also true for those who are serious about a spiritual discipline. They do aspire to self-honesty.

When you say "one," "individuals," and "they" in your post, do you include yourself in that number?

robertb was first to put it forward.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,266987,267111#msg-267111

And I know few people that use the bible that hold themselves up to non-faith based scrutiny. Thus would not hold themselves up to the standard you claim they might.

Oh, and the goal of higher education does NOT included making a religion out of the text books. Well, other than the religious schools like BYU and Oral Roberts University.

I would agree with you IF you were willing to say that people do not use the bible in any way to maintain Faith.

Oh, and it is a big assumption on your part that people of faith do what you claim in regards to the bible.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 12:31AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The idea that one can interpret the passages means
> they can interpret it to justify their own
> beliefs. The bible stops being any sort of
> authoritative moral guide at that point. If
> individuals are free to cherry pick what they want
> and interpret it to reflect their own values, then
> the bible becomes nothing more than a tool to
> reinforce preexisting personal beliefs and
> preexisting morals.

I think Christians Fundamentalists would agree with you. They say the very same thing, in spite of their *own* "cherry-picking." Other people don't see it that way and yet maintain the Bible is authoritative, but authoritative within a community tradition rather than as a separate object. An example of one such approach would that the book I reference above, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible. Certainly that approach introduces tension in interpreting the Bible and into the question of Biblical authority, but it also introduces reflection and thinking.

My own belief about Biblical authority is that is *a* voice of authority where it speaks about wisdom that has proven its worth over a long time and across cultures. In that case, perhaps, we can speak of the Bible as *a* holder of wisdom and authority (the authority of experience) rather than an object or source of authority. Anyway, for people who value the Bible, there are other ways to view the issue as other than all-or-nothing.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 12:19AM by robertb.

Especially if you can, as you claim, make "what we make of it."? How can it be any sort of authority if you can, as you say "We assign personal and cultural meanings. We interpret. We prefer some parts over others and some meanings over others. I don't see a problem with that kind of activity."

If you can assign your personal meaning, the meaning assigned by the writers is lost to your personal assigned meaning. In regards to claiming the bible as authoritative on any issue, I see a problem with that, even if you don't



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 12:33AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If you can assign your personal meaning, the
> meaning assigned by the writers is lost to your
> personal assigned meaning. In regards to claiming
> the bible as authoritative on any issue, I see a
> problem with that, even if you don't

Some post-modern thinkers believe that meaning is essentially unknowable because we assign our own meaning. That is not my view. I think it an extreme view that ignores the interplay between an author's meaning and the experience the reader brings to what the author has written and the influence the writer has on the reader. My view is meaning is constructed by the reader in relation to what is written. There is not a 1:1 correspondence between writer and reader, but neither is there a complete disconnect. I feel like you keep trying to turn this into an either-or proposition and I don't agree it is. I think will we not agree on this.

I also want to say my earlier statement which you referred to when you to Richard, "It is not my assumption. robertb was first to put it forward.":

"Any work that is not strictly scientific, especially a work of art or literature, is at least partly "what we make of it." We assign personal and cultural meanings. We interpret. We prefer some parts over others and some meanings over others. I don't see a problem with that kind of activity."

is not equivalent to yours:

"The idea that one can interpret the passages means they can interpret it to justify their own beliefs. The bible stops being any sort of authoritative moral guide at that point. If individuals are free to cherry pick what they want and interpret it to reflect their own values, then the bible becomes nothing more than a tool to reinforce preexisting personal beliefs and preexisting morals."

I think most people will be able to see the difference if they read them both.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 01:12AM by robertb.

If you assign your own meaning, you are not dealing with objective truths, if you are talking literature as in fiction, you are not dealing with objective truths, you are only talking about subjective truths. You are the only authority on what is subjective truths for you, thus the bible would not be authoritative for either objective or subjective truths.

This is all based on what you say, not me. It is you that is claiming the bible is literature thus not a historical text. It is you that says we apply our own subjective truths to the text which means it is you that is the authority on what it means, not the text itself, which of course is my point.

You are making my point for me. Everything you are saying devalues the bible as an authoritative source of anything. If you supply the meaning then you are the authority of the subjective meaning.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 01:20AM by MJ.

It was written as pieces that originally had no idea that they would be cobbled together (and some of the original authors would probably murder people if they had known who they'd be placed together with). Then after cobbled together, they were mangled further over time again and again.

So some of it is myth and always was meant to be myth. Some of it was historical and meant to be. And some of it was pure propaganda, and was meant to be.

What it wasn't meant to be by the original authors was shoved together and then butchered to try to make it all coherent.

I now find it so ironic that anyone who points this out is usually labeled by a fundy as being "arrogant" when the most arrogant thing I can think of now is putting the bible on some kind of pedestal and calling it one "thing" and then also trying to turn it into the ultimate textbook for everything ranging from science to ethics to political policy.

The bible is just the bible and the best thing we can do for it and ourselves is to just be honest about it. What it was and is.

Obviously one cannot take it literally, and for symbolism, all great literature contains symbolism, BUT I do not consider the holy babble to be great literature. Anywhere in literature one can find something to surpass the bible for any given "message" it has to offer, and I mean the good messages only. Literature has far superior examples of poetry, aesthetic appeal, morality tales, etc., when compared to the writings of tribal bronze & iron age goat herders.

To me the difference is what are you willing to swallow in order to cling to a belief in the great sky daddy & co. When I look at all of the evidence: the "scriptures" (their substance, and content), the "evidence" of prayer or anything else supernatural, evolutionary arguments against an intelligent creator, the massive bloodshed caused by religion over history, my own observations, etc., I see any interpretation, literal or symbolic, as worthless, because the book's importance relies solely on the idea of wanting to believe in the existence of the grand sky daddy et. al.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2011 12:54AM by atheist&happy:-).