The Cellar - View Single Post

Beestie · 12-11-2003, 08:18 PM

I don't see a contradiction between the two positions because I have never accepted that a literal interpretation of the Bible is a valid position.

For example, the Bible has been translated many times between many languages since it was originally written. When confronted with the inherent problem in communicating a thought/idea/chain of events between two languages, the theologeans have consistently proffered that the Bible is the Word of God and that God guided their hand in the translation. Taken another way (my way), I understand that to mean that God guided their interpretation of the source text.

Another example supporting the validity of interpretation is that Jesus often made his important points in the form of parables (e.g., the prodigal son). The prodigal son story ONLY makes sense if one understands the underlying principal and applies the personifications that allow the story to make sense (apologies to those not familiar with the story).

Hence, I cannot fathom a justification (but remain open should anyone offer one/some) to take the words in the Bible literally. Taken literally, a large section of the Bible has no application to anyone other than the characters involved. Hardly divinely inspired if it has no application to anyone else.

So, basically, I am advancing the (hardly original) idea that the Bible must be interpreted with divine guidance in order to be useful and that taken literally, the Bible is really hamstrung.

Given that (which is where I am coming from), I understand the Bible as written in metaphors that one can apply to one's own paradigm. That someone several thousand years ago thought the world was created in 7 days does not bind me to the same specific thought. 7 days or 7 millenium - whatever - God made the world/universe/singularity that led to its existence.

In my view, the Bible sets forth that God set the wheels of creation in motion and has pretty much "let it happen" after that - minor divine inflections notwithstanding.

Regarding the fallacy of literal interpretation of a paradigm-inspired understanding, I'm reminded of Eric vonDaanekin's (sp) book Chariots Of The Gods. In that book, he asserts that the "lines in the deserts" are really ancient landing strips. Only in the age of the Boeing 747 would he postulate that. I guess he never bothered to figure that a craft capable of transversing unfathomable distances would have rubber tires and need a freakin' landing strip a half-mile long to decellerate to a stop.

This is the problem I have with literal interpretations - they preclude subsequent and more logical explanations.

Corrected two spelling errors - content unchanged

12-11-2003, 08:18 PM	#11
Beestie -◊\|≡·∙■·∙≡\|◊- Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Parts unknown. Posts: 4,081	I don't see a contradiction between the two positions because I have never accepted that a literal interpretation of the Bible is a valid position. For example, the Bible has been translated many times between many languages since it was originally written. When confronted with the inherent problem in communicating a thought/idea/chain of events between two languages, the theologeans have consistently proffered that the Bible is the Word of God and that God guided their hand in the translation. Taken another way (my way), I understand that to mean that God guided their interpretation of the source text. Another example supporting the validity of interpretation is that Jesus often made his important points in the form of parables (e.g., the prodigal son). The prodigal son story ONLY makes sense if one understands the underlying principal and applies the personifications that allow the story to make sense (apologies to those not familiar with the story). Hence, I cannot fathom a justification (but remain open should anyone offer one/some) to take the words in the Bible literally. Taken literally, a large section of the Bible has no application to anyone other than the characters involved. Hardly divinely inspired if it has no application to anyone else. So, basically, I am advancing the (hardly original) idea that the Bible must be interpreted with divine guidance in order to be useful and that taken literally, the Bible is really hamstrung. Given that (which is where I am coming from), I understand the Bible as written in metaphors that one can apply to one's own paradigm. That someone several thousand years ago thought the world was created in 7 days does not bind me to the same specific thought. 7 days or 7 millenium - whatever - God made the world/universe/singularity that led to its existence. In my view, the Bible sets forth that God set the wheels of creation in motion and has pretty much "let it happen" after that - minor divine inflections notwithstanding. Regarding the fallacy of literal interpretation of a paradigm-inspired understanding, I'm reminded of Eric vonDaanekin's (sp) book Chariots Of The Gods. In that book, he asserts that the "lines in the deserts" are really ancient landing strips. Only in the age of the Boeing 747 would he postulate that. I guess he never bothered to figure that a craft capable of transversing unfathomable distances would have rubber tires and need a freakin' landing strip a half-mile long to decellerate to a stop. This is the problem I have with literal interpretations - they preclude subsequent and more logical explanations. Corrected two spelling errors - content unchanged __________________ ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦ Last edited by Beestie; 12-11-2003 at 08:22 PM.