Literalist Atheists

[jan]

It seems to me some atheists prefer a literalist interpretation of the Bible and even claim that this is the only possible interpretation. On the other hand, it seems quite obvious to me that any literalist interpretation is grossly misleading about the real intentions of the writers of the Bible. It sometimes borders on the strawman fallacy — if the only interpretation of the Bible you can argue against is the literalist one, I pity your debating skills.

One prominent example is the creation story of the Genesis. There are obviously two different stories, with conflicting details. Several possible interpretations:

• Wreck your brain until you find a bizarre literal interpretation that makes the contradictions disappear.
• Assume that the writers of this part of the Bible were incredibly stupid, drunken and/or drugged.
• Maybe the decision to include both stories was based on the feeling that we mere mortals are unable to know the details of the creation, therefor two different accounts should be included to make clear that the details are just guesswork.
• The writers of that part used to think in mythological terms, therefor, the concept of a single truth, corresponding to a single reality, never occurred to them.
• ...

Whatever you choose, the first and second interpretation seem to me to be the most weak of all.

Another example is the claim that the Bible claims that π=3. I used that argument myself, and I admit that it can be a lot of fun, especially if your opponent is convinced that every single letter of the Bible is filled with divine revelations. But most Christians have no problem at all with the corresponding quote, and if you insist that the Bible indeed claims π=3, and therefor, God is stupid, I think you will sound like a jerk yourself.

More weak examples, I think, are the claim that the Bible claims that bats are birds, or that God is unable to defeat an iron chariot. They are fine if you are arguing with a literalist, but they are not always applicable (the "bats are birds" argument isn't even then applicable, because the modern definition of birds is just a definition, not an empirical truth).

Time for some hasty generalisation, I think:

1. Every interpretation of the Bible can be endlessly defended. This is just a corollary of the more general insight that any position can be defended endlessly, if one has enough patience and ignorance at hand. If you doubt that, try arguing with a homeopath. Or a member of the flat earth society. Or a Bible literalist.
   
2. Nevertheless, there is one and only one correct interpretation, that is based on what the writers had in mind while writing. This is based on the assumption that they had something in mind while they had been writing what they had been writing.
   
3. It is sometimes possible to find an approximation of this interpretation. Some texts are, of course, so incomplete, ancient and dark that we might never be able to find out what they supposedly meant. But note that the passages of the Bible are not special in this regard: even when you read the newspaper, you have to make some guesses what that you are reading is supposed to mean. An old text might be more difficult to understand than a new text, but the difference is just one of degree.
   
4. In the case of the Bible, this interpretation is often not a literal one. At least that seems to be the overwhelming consense of serious scholars. But I don't have to appeal to authority: I have given an example above why I think that a certain piece of the Bible (that is, the creation story) shouldn't be interpreted literally.

[triadboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by jan
It seems to me some atheists prefer a literalist interpretation of the Bible and even claim that this is the only possible interpretation.

This is the stance taken by fundamentalists - the people who cause problems in the world. I don't think atheists have any problem with normal people quietly believing their own version of god.

Quote:

One prominent example is the creation story of the Genesis. There are obviously two different stories, with conflicting details. Several possible interpretations:

Assume that the writers of this part of the Bible were incredibly stupid, drunken and/or drugged.

Remember - the first creation tale is from the time of the Babylonian captivity (~550 BC). ("On the first day...etc) It was written by an author known as the Priestly Author ("P"). His creation story was influenced by the Babylonian creation tale.

The second creation tale (Adam and Eve) is from ~900 BC. (This was the "J" author)

"P" grabbed all these stories and crammed them together. (There are also two versions (P and J) of the Noah story crammed together!)

While the author may well have been drunk - P is the culprit for the confusion.

[Beady]

Quote:

Originally posted by jan
It seems to me some atheists prefer a literalist interpretation of the Bible and even claim that this is the only possible interpretation.

If this is your basic premise, it is completely incorrect. Atheists and agnostics, by definition, cannot believe that the Bible should be taken literally either in whole or in part. As triadboy says, the literallness of the Bible is a fundamentalist Christian view.

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beady
If this is your basic premise, it is completely incorrect. Atheists and agnostics, by definition, cannot believe that the Bible should be taken literally either in whole or in part.

Not quite. There is an ambiguity in the phrase "take literally." It can mean simply interpreting a text according to its word-for-word meaning, and using that interpretation to judge whether text is true or false. This is how an atheist would take the Bible literally, so to speak. It can also mean interpreting a text according to its word-for-word meaning, and accepting that interpretation as true, which is how a fundamentalist would take the Bible literally.

I have to be a bit careful about the meaning of "literal," though. Fundamentalists use the word both to mean "word-for-word" and as a synonym for "inerrant." It is this latter use of the term that will cause a fundamentalist to say things like "literal figure of speech," which otherwise would be an oxymoron. Obviously, jan is not using "literal" in this latter sense.

[pgwenthold]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
Not quite. There is an ambiguity in the phrase "take literally." It can mean simply interpreting a text according to its word-for-word meaning, and using that interpretation to judge whether text is true or false. This is how an atheist would take the Bible literally, so to speak.

And personally, as an atheist, I can see no other way it could be done. Theists might suggest that certain aspects of the bible should not be interpreted literally, and that they are metaphorical or contextual, but one of my problems as an atheist is to understand exactly which of those passages are to interpreted that way? When I hear it from theists, it is apparently only the troublesome passages that have alternate or non-literal meanings. Why is it when Jesus says, "Think that I did not come to unite but divide" that this gets dismissed as contextual, while "Blessed are the poor in spirit" is considered absolute?

From a logical perspective, unless there is a rational reason to dismiss one of the statements, all must be treated equally, whether they are good or bad for christianity or religion. The talking donkey is absolutely, 100% just as legitimate as the resurrection. It makes no sense to accept one and dismiss the other (unless you are Jewish, in which case you dismiss all of the NT). However, oddly enough, it seems that the only things in the bible that are "context" or "metaphor" are the things that make the religion look bad. You never hear a christian come around and explain how Jesus raising Lazerus from the dead didn't really happen is only a metaphor (although there are scholars who will certainly say such things).

Of course, christians will also say that you have to read the bible with the "Holy Spirit in your heart" and you will understand. As a non-believer, it's not something I can do. Therefore, all I can do is take the bible at face value. Some good, some bad, mostly boring.

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by pgwenthold
And personally, as an atheist, I can see no other way it could be done. Theists might suggest that certain aspects of the bible should not be interpreted literally, and that they are metaphorical or contextual, but one of my problems as an atheist is to understand exactly which of those passages are to interpreted that way? When I hear it from theists, it is apparently only the troublesome passages that have alternate or non-literal meanings.

So, when Song of Solomon 7:8 says "I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches," you cannot tell from the context that it obviously isn't about climbing trees? Or that when Genesis 7:4 has God tell Noah, "[E]very living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground," you cannot tell from the context that Noah and his family are obviously an exception to this sweeping statement? Or that the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is a parable and that the events it described were understood as fiction, even though this is not stated explicitly? Or that when Jesus is portrayed as saying "I am the true vine" (John 15:1), he does not mean that he is a plant? Or that when Jesus says "I am the gate for the sheep" (John 10:7) and then shortly after that says, "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11), that he did not contradict himself and that he did not actually mean either that he was a door to a sheepfold or that he herded sheep for a living?

There are plenty of places in the Bible that are obviously not quite literal even though they are not always marked as such, ranging from minor imprecision (i.e. Genesis 7:4) to outright metaphor (the "I am" stuff in the book of John).

[gnome]

The point, I think, is that if you accept that the bible is not literal, then interpretations come down to opinion. It can be an educated opinion, but still cannot carry any true authority.

The reason that doesn't lend itself to debate much, is because atheists by and large really don't have a problem with someone having an opinion about the bible. It's those that claim their version of the bible is perfect in every way that tend to wind up in arguments, usually by citing the bible itself as an authority to try to settle something.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Originally posted by jan
It seems to me some atheists prefer a literalist interpretation of the Bible and even claim that this is the only possible interpretation. On the other hand, it seems quite obvious to me that any literalist interpretation is grossly misleading about the real intentions of the writers of the Bible. It sometimes borders on the strawman fallacy — if the only interpretation of the Bible you can argue against is the literalist one, I pity your debating skills.

I will assume that you do not recognize the divinity of Lord Krishna. Is your lack of belief based on a literal interpretation of the Bhagavad-gita or on a broader interpretation of it? Is your lack of faith in Allah based on a literal interpretation of the Quran or a figurative interpretation of the holy scriptures?

Are there really that many people who become atheists because they reject a literal interpretation of the Bible?

[jan]

Quote:

Originally posted by triadboy
This is the stance taken by fundamentalists - the people who cause problems in the world. I don't think atheists have any problem with normal people quietly believing their own version of god.

Those are two different topics, I would say; a certain atheist may be able to let others live in peace and harmony, but if others start a debate (for example, because they are trying to proselyte), he may be unable to recognize that non-literal interpretations of the Bible are possible.

Quote:

While the author may well have been drunk - P is the culprit for the confusion.

While I agree that the summary you provided is a state of the art account what most professional scholars believe (and I have no good reason to doubt any of this), it still leaves the question why P, the culprit, felt it necessary to include all this J stuff. At first glance, a more natural reaction would have been to omit all what contradicts your own favorite version. Once again, there are several possibilities (perhaps the older version was still in wide circulation, and it would have been impossible to construct a unified version without it; or P was mad; or P tried to collect as much as possible; or P tried to construct a book of fairy tales, like the brothers Grimm; or P thought that God might show himself in different and conflicting stories; or P used to think in mythological terms and didn't feel that contradictions are a threat to the credibility of a story; and so on). Even if we assume that P attempted to construct a collection of fairy tales, that doesn't rule out the possibility that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

[jan]

Quote:

Originally posted by pgwenthold
And personally, as an atheist, I can see no other way it could be done. Theists might suggest that certain aspects of the bible should not be interpreted literally, and that they are metaphorical or contextual, but one of my problems as an atheist is to understand exactly which of those passages are to interpreted that way? When I hear it from theists, it is apparently only the troublesome passages that have alternate or non-literal meanings. Why is it when Jesus says, "Think that I did not come to unite but divide" that this gets dismissed as contextual, while "Blessed are the poor in spirit" is considered absolute?

I agree that the distinction between what should be treated as a metaphor and what shouldn't can be used quite arbitrary to save a prefered interpretation of what the message of the Bible is supposed to be. I also agree that this selective picking is often encountered. Nevertheless, this is not always the case.

There are theistic scholars who came to the conclusion that some parts of the gospel have Jesus saying that the end of times will occur during the lifetime of his contemporary audience, a prophecy that seems to miss the mark for at least two thousand years.

Some of them conclude that the writers of the gospels made a mistake. This would disprove the position that the Bible is inerrant, but it could still be true that the Bible is inspired. Not all Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant.

It is even possible to assume that Jesus got it wrong, and still believe that Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins, since that doesn't require that Jesus is unable to make mistakes. My lament is that many different fantastic, bizarre, original, interesting, far-fetched or sensible positions are possible, but unfortunately, only one of them gets all the attention.

I also agree with what jjramsey has written: for some parts, I think it is quite obvious that they shouldn't be taken literally.

Quote:

From a logical perspective, unless there is a rational reason to dismiss one of the statements, all must be treated equally, whether they are good or bad for christianity or religion.

I agree. As I said, I think that the most likely and plausible interpretation of certain quotes in the gospels is that the end of times was supposed to happen pretty soon. But that doesn't preclude me from saying that I think that the most likely and plausible interpretation of the creation story is not that the writer of it literally believed that God made the world within six days.

Quote:

You never hear a christian come around and explain how Jesus raising Lazerus from the dead didn't really happen is only a metaphor (although there are scholars who will certainly say such things).

Not only are there scholars who discuss the context of this story and why it was included in the Bible, quite often they are Christians.

[Darat]

Quote:

Originally posted by jan


...snip...

Even if we assume that P attempted to construct a collection of fairy tales, that doesn't rule out the possibility that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

Well nothing can rule that out, however it has no more explanatory power then to say it was the inspired word of ghtyuojop or the well known invisible pink unicorn.

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
The point, I think, is that if you accept that the bible is not literal, then interpretations come down to opinion. It can be an educated opinion, but still cannot carry any true authority.

This is a confused statement. Unless you are talking about interpreting all of the Bible in a figurative fashion, for example, as a series of allegories, then it really doesn't make sense to talk about the Bible as a whole being literal or not literal. Rather, it is better to speak of the "plain meaning" of text within the Bible, which may be determined by literal and/or various degrees of figurative interpretation, depending on the genre of the text, various contextual cues in the text, and so on.

Now say for the sake of argument that the Bible is an authority. If the plain meaning of a text in the Bible is unambiguous, then there is one obvious interpretation, and that interpretation is authoritative. If the plain meaning of a text is not clear, then there can be many educated opinions on what is meant, so there is no interpretation of that particular Bible passage that is authoritative. Notice that literal or figurative doesn't really enter here. It is easily possible to have a literal text that is ambiguous and a figurative text whose meaning is clear and obvious. Notice, too, that it isn't all or nothing. That some texts within the Bible are too ambiguous to have authority does not mean that all of the Bible is too ambiguous to carry authority.

Of course, whether it is even proper to use the Bible as an authority is a question whose answer has yet to be established. This question, though obviously related to how clear the various bits in the Bible are, and how clear it is as a whole, is separable from issues of literal vs. figurative interpretation.

[jan]

Quote:

Originally posted by gnome
The point, I think, is that if you accept that the bible is not literal, then interpretations come down to opinion. It can be an educated opinion, but still cannot carry any true authority.

I think if I try to interpret the Bible literally, it is still a matter of opinion how this should be done. "Take it literally" is not really sufficient to settle all issues and to decide all problems. Even if you try to take the Bible literally, there are infinite many possibilities to fill the remaining gaps.

Furthermore, I already conceded that nothing more but an educated opinion is possible (see the first item in the list in my first post). But I would say that this is always the situation we are in. Bush made a statement about teaching "alternatives" to evolution in school. How was this statement supposed to be interpreted? You can form an educated opinion, but that doesn't prevent the formation of a several pages thread about the true meaning of his words.

Nevertheless, there are some opinions based on serious scholarship, study of history, comparison of different myths and believe systems, and other opinions just out in space.

Quote:

The reason that doesn't lend itself to debate much, is because atheists by and large really don't have a problem with someone having an opinion about the bible. It's those that claim their version of the bible is perfect in every way that tend to wind up in arguments, usually by citing the bible itself as an authority to try to settle something.

Usually, this is true. If I am in a debate with a Christian (and outside discussion boards, I don't seek them), I try to figure out what interpretation of the Bible the Christian I am discussing with prefers, and I adjust my arguments accordingly. This may even mean that sometimes I use the old π=3 stunt.

But it seems that, for example, pgwenthold has a different approach and denies that any other besides the most literal interpretation of the Bible is honest.

[jan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
I will assume that you do not recognize the divinity of Lord Krishna. Is your lack of belief based on a literal interpretation of the Bhagavad-gita or on a broader interpretation of it? Is your lack of faith in Allah based on a literal interpretation of the Quran or a figurative interpretation of the holy scriptures?

I don't have to justify my lack of believe. The burden of proof is for someone who believes in Krishna. The point is: I am willing to hear the arguments of the believer in Krishna, regardless whether she prefers a literal or a broader interpretation.

If somebody claims that all those complicated exercises mentioned in the Bhagavad-gita can be replaced by simply repeating "Hare Krishna etc.", I feel free to point out that it is a bit odd that Krishna takes so much time to explain Arjuna all those exercises, if "Hare Krishna etc." is all you need.

My willingness to hear different interpretations doesn't preclude me to form my own opinion about the Bhagavad-gita, or, more generally, the Mahabarata. For example, if somebody claims that a certain weapon mentioned in the Mahabarata was a nuclear bomb, I think I have reasons to disagree.

The Quran has many descriptions of heaven. Are those descriptions meant literally or are they just meant to give the believers some impressions how great heaven is? I think that this is an interesting question, even if I don't believe anything the Quran says. Personally, I don't know the answer, but I think the question could be more seriously and scholarly examined than it is currently the case.

Quote:

Are there really that many people who become atheists because they reject a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Perhaps not, but who claimed this?

[jan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Darat
Well nothing can rule that out, however it has no more explanatory power then to say it was the inspired word of ghtyuojop or the well known invisible pink unicorn.

Assume that the Bible contained some unlikely predictions that became true; furthermore, assume that we had independent evidence to believe that P didn't believed one word of what he was writing (for example, we found some of his private notes, or his correspondence). In such a situation, it wouldn't be completely implausible to assume that God inspired a writing that the writer himself didn't take serious.

If somebody just claims that the Bible is the inspired word of God, while at the same time conceding that all of the available evidence points to the contrary, then that of course isn't a very interesting position, and not a fruitful base for a discourse.

[Taffer]

Quote:

Originally posted by jjramsey
So, when Song of Solomon 7:8 says "I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches," you cannot tell from the context that it obviously isn't about climbing trees?
[snip]
"I am the true vine" (John 15:1), he does not mean that he is a plant? Or that when Jesus says "I am the gate for the sheep" (John 10:7) and then shortly after that says, "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11), that he did not contradict himself and that he did not actually mean either that he was a door to a sheepfold or that he herded sheep for a living?

This is from an old post, but something about it annoys me. Here, jjramsey seems blissfully unaware that the bible was not written in english, and that the versions of the NT that we are all reading are probably 3rd generation translations. Who knows what the original wording implied in its native language. So there is always the possibility that the wording now is simply wrong (compared to the original intent). And since we can never know what the original was (lost language? Lost copies? I'm not up to date here, someone fill me in?), we can only take a literal translation of things, as it would be fallacious to assume we know the original intent. Therefore yes, we must assume that the original writers really meant say that Jesus said he was a gate. Maybe he was just high on hash?

[Dr Adequate]

Quote:

Originally posted by jan
It seems to me some atheists prefer a literalist interpretation of the Bible and even claim that this is the only possible interpretation. On the other hand, it seems quite obvious to me that any literalist interpretation is grossly misleading about the real intentions of the writers of the Bible. It sometimes borders on the strawman fallacy...

Well, YEC would be a straw man if no-one believed in it. Ptolomaism still exists, too.

Quote:

They are fine if you are arguing with a literalist...

But we invariably are arguing with a literalist. You don't see us rushing to convert jmercer or stamenflicker or kittynh or Roadtoad or Tmy or MLynn or --- et cetera, whoever --- to atheism. What we would shake, if we could, is the fundamentalists who take some passages of the Bible (the ones that appeal to them) as the literal word of God and don't even look at a lot of the other passages.

[Dr Adequate]

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffer
This is from an old post, but something about it annoys me. Here, jjramsey seems blissfully unaware that the bible was not written in english, and that the versions of the NT that we are all reading are probably 3rd generation translations. Who knows what the original wording implied in its native language. So there is always the possibility that the wording now is simply wrong (compared to the original intent). And since we can never know what the original was (lost language? Lost copies? I'm not up to date here, someone fill me in?)

Of course we still have access to the text in the original languages. And jjramsey is a scholar as well as a gentleman, and would not have quoted the KJV if it significantly misrepresented the original texts.

As the metaphors Jesus used are quite comprehensible, there is no need to suppose any corruption in the meaning of the text through scribal error.

You say that "we" are all reading "third-generation" translations. No "we" are not. Nor need you be. Modern "first-generation" translations are available in bookshops and on line.

[Taffer]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Of course we still have access to the text in the original languages. And jjramsey is a scholar as well as a gentleman, and would not have quoted the KJV if it significantly misrepresented the original texts.

As the metaphors Jesus used are quite comprehensible, there is no need to suppose any corruption in the meaning of the text through scribal error.

You say that "we" are all reading "third-generation" translations. No "we" are not. Nor need you be. Modern "first-generation" translations are available in bookshops and on line.

So you have the original texts, do you? Are you sure they are the originals? If you can prove to me that they are, I will happily concede the point (I've done a sum of 0 hours research on this). And again, I point out that even if they are first-generation, they are still a translation. Every language has words and ideas that do not translate to other languages. How do you know these are not them? How do you know that they have not been mis-translated?

And I'm amused by your "a scholar and a gentleman". A) I never said he was stupid, which is what I gather you mean by "a scholar", and I don't even know why being a "gentleman" or not has any bearing whatsoever to this debate.

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
Are there really that many people who become atheists because they reject a literal interpretation of the Bible?

I don't know. I suspect, though, that there are a number of people who have become or remained theists because they saw atheists use bad arguments, such as absurd woodenly literal interpretations of the Bible. Remember that Christians have often said that atheists are really just running away from God. If a Christian sees an atheist use transparently lame arguments, he or she may conclude "Gee, if that's all this atheist can muster as an argument against God, maybe he has an ulterior motive for unbelief." Now this is not fair, of course, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

This is a bit off-topic, but what I find frustrating is that junk arguments are ridiculously common in skeptical circles. For example, the long-discredited Kersey Graves' book The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors is still sold at EvolveFish, while a work like The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible, which actually has some scholarly heft despite being written at a popular level, is nowhere to be found there. This should not be.

BTW, Dr. Adequate, just for the record, I actually used the NRSV, cut-and-pasted from http://bible.oremus.org. I also don't know Greek or Hebrew, except for a cursory knowledge of their alphabets and a few of their differences from English, although I know enough to make use of concordances, lexicons, and so forth, so that I can do word studies.

[pgwenthold]

Quote:

Originally posted by jan
I agree. As I said, I think that the most likely and plausible interpretation of certain quotes in the gospels is that the end of times was supposed to happen pretty soon. But that doesn't preclude me from saying that I think that the most likely and plausible interpretation of the creation story is not that the writer of it literally believed that God made the world within six days.

Outside of "No one can be that stupid," any reason for that?

Did ancients once actually believe that the sun was pulled across the sky by Apollo's chariot? It's no more idiotic than believing it was literally 7 days.

How is your explanation any more likely or plausible "they were written by folks who were far less knowledgable about how things worked and therefore attributed it to acts of gods"? And if it is a god, why couldn't it create a universe in 7 days?

Here's another example of where even you are giving the bible more credence than it deserves. You say, hey, the writer really didn't mean 7 days creation. But why not say, hey, the writer really didn't even mean god as the same dude YHWH that is the father of Jesus? (Note that the story even implies _gods_). It seems awfully plausible to me that the authors had a very different version of God in mind than the one who became the God of Abraham. An honest reading of the OT would see this, but do you think the modern theists will entertain the possibility that the author of Genesis envisioned the same being as our current God? Heck, they still argue that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch, conflicting creation stories and all, despite scholarly analysis that says uh-uh, mainly as an attempt to show that they are all from the same basis.

This is an example of how appeals to symbolism are regularly used to reconcile the bad parts of the bible, but not the stuff they like.

Scholars who study the bible as just another ancient text notwithstanding.

[Taffer]

There was a farmer, had a dog...

[jan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Well, YEC would be a straw man if no-one believed in it. Ptolomaism still exists, too.

I am aware that proponents of YEC exist. And if somebody defends a literal interpretation of the Bible, it can be useful or inevitable to attack a literal interpretation. But there is a similarity between telling others what they are believing, and attacking a straw man (even if the straw man is a position that has some proponents).

Quote:

You don't see us rushing to convert jmercer or stamenflicker or kittynh or Roadtoad or Tmy or MLynn or --- et cetera, whoever --- to atheism. What we would shake, if we could, is the fundamentalists who take some passages of the Bible (the ones that appeal to them) as the literal word of God and don't even look at a lot of the other passages.

Who, exactly, is "us" and "we"? I hope it's obvious that I didn't accused all atheists of sticking to a literal interpretation as the only possible one. That would be quite absurd, since it would include myself. pgwenthold, on the other hand, seems indeed to argue that a literal interpretation is the only honest one, and that the only reason to search for other interpretations is to improve apologetics.

[Taffer]

Quote:

pgwenthold, on the other hand, seems indeed to argue that a literal interpretation is the only honest one, and that the only reason to search for other interpretations is to improve apologetics.

Exactly, because we have no basis to decide when something is not ment literally and when something is. If the book were written in English, where we could get ahold of the original and read it for ourselfs, then perhaps we could have more of an argument then the current "it looks like a metaphor, therefore it must be!".

[jan]

Quote:

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Outside of "No one can be that stupid," any reason for that?

What's wrong with that argument, by the way? Trying to make sense of an ancient text I have troubles understanding, I try to avoid the possibility "they just have been that stupid", if I can. There seems to be some passages in the works of Plato that seem to be rather stupid. Perhaps they are stupid. Other passages indicate that Plato was able to find some good arguments. And anyway, the interpretation "just stupid" can be applied to any difficult text, but is unlikely to gain you much insights.

Quote:

Did ancients once actually believe that the sun was pulled across the sky by Apollo's chariot? It's no more idiotic than believing it was literally 7 days.

It's indeed as idiotic. And indeed I doubt that it was supposed to be understood that way. A similar reason applies, by the way: it seems several different myths about the same thing (like the movement of the sun) could coexist, and nobody saw the necessity to decide which one was the right one. It seems to me that this indicates that those stories don't work as you seem to assume.

Quote:

How is your explanation any more likely or plausible "they were written by folks who were far less knowledgable about how things worked and therefore attributed it to acts of gods"? And if it is a god, why couldn't it create a universe in 7 days?

Certainly a god could create a universe in 7 days or in three minutes or whatever you like. I never claimed that such an idea would be so unlikely and stupid that no one would ever believe something like that. Actually, we know people who do.

How do you explain that there are two different creation myths with contradicting details? Just the inevitable consequence of people "far less knowledgable about how things worked" writing books?

Quote:

Here's another example of where even you are giving the bible more credence than it deserves. You say, hey, the writer really didn't mean 7 days creation. But why not say, hey, the writer really didn't even mean god as the same dude YHWH that is the father of Jesus? (Note that the story even implies _gods_). It seems awfully plausible to me that the authors had a very different version of God in mind than the one who became the God of Abraham.

You are not the only one who found such an interpretation plausible. In fact, several sects believed this.

Quote:

An honest reading of the OT would see this, but do you think the modern theists will entertain the possibility that the author of Genesis envisioned the same being as our current God?

Do you honestly believe that the NT god is supposed to differ from the OT god? If you do, you are free to explain why you think so. Write books about it, become famous.

Quote:

Heck, they still argue that Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch, conflicting creation stories and all, despite scholarly analysis that says uh-uh, mainly as an attempt to show that they are all from the same basis.

I claimed that this scholarly analysis often comes from Christians (or other Theists). You didn't address this claim, but this quote seems to indicate that you think that such a thing is impossible.

Quote:

This is an example of how appeals to symbolism are regularly used to reconcile the bad parts of the bible, but not the stuff they like.

I can't follow you here. I don't believe that you claim that all Christians (or Jews) believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. But that seems what you have written.

If I take it literally.

[jan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffer
Exactly, because we have no basis to decide when something is not ment literally and when something is. If the book were written in English, where we could get ahold of the original and read it for ourselfs, then perhaps we could have more of an argument then the current "it looks like a metaphor, therefore it must be!".

Does this apply to all texts written in a foreign language?

[Taffer]

No, of course not. Many of these books are Fiction. To problem there. Many (for example, Philosophical works of the greeks) aren't. But they are surrounded with explanations, so the interpretation is fairly fixed. Many are non-fiction, but are translated with the help of the author (for example, articles written for peer-review scientific journals).

The Bible, however, is total illogical. Things are not explained, and if they do not make sense to us, how can me know what 'they' really ment if things are not explained? Also, the Bible is supposed to control our lives. It tells us how to live, love, eat and sleep. Should these important things be left to a book who's interpretations are compleately subjective, and who's meanings are totally ambiguous?

[Dr Adequate]

Quote:

Originally posted by jan
I am aware that proponents of YEC exist. And if somebody defends a literal interpretation of the Bible, it can be useful or inevitable to attack a literal interpretation. But there is a similarity between telling others what they are believing, and attacking a straw man...

I would do neither. I would just say: if you believe that the first few books of Genesis are science, doesn't that include the stars being fixed in the firmament? et cetera.

If you believe that the whole Bible is true, then how about the Almighty being unable to withstand iron chariots? And so forth.

These are good questions for fundies. They leave sane Christians unharmed.

Quote:

Who, exactly, is "us" and "we"?

All of us. The whole community. We do not go after the Christians I've mentioned and try to deconvert them. Although maybe most of us are atheists, the mood of the forums is pro-science, not anti-religion.

[Dr Adequate]

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffer
Exactly, because we have no basis to decide when something is not ment literally and when something is.

Well, we do have such a basis. Parables are parables. When Jesus talks about the good Samaritan, no-one supposes that he's reading the evening news. Still less when he says "I am the real vine and you are the branches".

[Taffer]

And you know this how? Because it says so in the Bible? Circular reasoning!

What is your reason for you to be able to say if you are interpreting the text right?

[bpesta22]

What's the problem with using the iron chariot reference???

Seems fairly clear, literally or not, god has a problem with iron?

[Dr Adequate]

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffer
And you know this how? Because it says so in the Bible? Circular reasoning!

Well, no. If the Bible says: "This is a parable", and then there's a parable, then it is not "circular reasoning" to suppose that it's a parable.

Quote:

What is your reason for you to be able to say if you are interpreting the text right?

Everyone else who's read the Bible knows which are the parables and which aren't. There is no real doubt as to when Jesus is talking in metaphors and when he isn't.

[Dr Adequate]

Quote:

Originally posted by bpesta22
What's the problem with using the iron chariot reference???

Well, if the Bible is the literal word of God, then God is claiming that despite being omnipotent, he can't withstand iron chariots, which would be silly. So this should blow away the literalists.

On the other hand, maybe the Hebrews lost a battle, blamed that on the weakness and inability of their God, and wrote that into their histories. Doesn't that sound more plausible?

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by bpesta22
What's the problem with using the iron chariot reference???

Seems fairly clear, literally or not, god has a problem with iron?

Most people tend to ignore it, or think of it as some sort of error.

[Taffer]

Quote:

Well, no. If the Bible says: "This is a parable", and then there's a parable, then it is not "circular reasoning" to suppose that it's a parable.

And it says this where?

Quote:

Everyone else who's read the Bible knows which are the parables and which aren't. There is no real doubt as to when Jesus is talking in metaphors and when he isn't.

Oh, well there you go. I'm convinced. First of all, I, among others, have doubts, so you can't really say that no one has any doubts. If you meant to say that no one has any real doubts, then it's just your subjective telling me which is real and which isn't. But of course, if everyone else knows something, then it must be right.

[Dr Adequate]

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffer
And it says this where?

In... the... Bible.

Quote:

Oh, well there you go. I'm convinced. First of all, I, among others, have doubts, so you can't really say that no one has any doubts.

Well no-one has, Christian and atheist alike. When Jesus says stuff like "I am the real vine and you are the branches", no-one pretends that he should be taken literally rather than speaking in metaphor.

The burden of proof is on you. Will you name one story told by Jesus, accepted by scholars as a parable, which you think should be taken literally?

[Taffer]

Quote:

In... the... Bible.

Yes. Where. Chapter? Verse? QUOTE?!

Quote:

Well no-one has, Christian and atheist alike. When Jesus says stuff like "I am the real vine and you are the branches", no-one pretends that he should be taken literally rather than speaking in metaphor.

The burden of proof is on you. Will you name one story told by Jesus, accepted by scholars as a parable, which you think should be taken literally?

Not even fundies? I've met some people who I wouldn't put it past them.

The burden of proof is on my, you say. Of course I can't name any stories. Lets begin with that I'm not going to waste my time doing a google search. I'm simply arguing from a theoretical (if you can call it that), stance. Therefore I need not prove anything. My argument is thus. You have no definative reason to believe some parts are literal and some are metaphorical, other then it "feels right". I say this because you do not know the write, nor are you reading from the first edition, in the original language. There are a hundred diffeferent ways any passage could have changed in its meaning during the translation. And no, I'm not saying all foreign books are like this, only this one. Why? Because the Bible asks us to obey its rules (yeah yeah, rules of God, blah blah, same difference), but you cannot say FOR CURTAIN if you are interpreting those rules correctly. Thus it's all subjective (what YOU think it means).

[triadboy]

Quote:

Originally posted by jan
Those are two different topics, I would say; a certain atheist may be able to let others live in peace and harmony, but if others start a debate (for example, because they are trying to proselyte), he may be unable to recognize that non-literal interpretations of the Bible are possible.

I don't believe the normal xian (non-fundy) has the knowledge to preach to anyone. They've never read the bible. They are fed certain passages every Sunday by that guy...Captain what's-his-name. [That's from The Simpsons ] If they meet an atheist they aren't offended or appalled.

Quote:

...it still leaves the question why P, the culprit, felt it necessary to include all this J stuff.

The stories were too common to omit....or change. This is also why there are references to multiple gods - "...let us go down..." This was from a time when there WERE multiple gods.

[jjramsey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffer
There are a hundred diffeferent ways any passage could have changed in its meaning during the translation. And no, I'm not saying all foreign books are like this, only this one. Why? Because the Bible asks us to obey its rules

Why would a book be translated less accurately than any other book because it asks its readers to obey rules?

[Robin]

Quote:

Originally posted by jan
It seems to me some atheists prefer a literalist interpretation of the Bible and even claim that this is the only possible interpretation.

Go to any church and check if they follow a Bible reading with "This is just the feelings of some mere mortals that are unable to know the details and are making it clear that the details are just guesswork". Or even "This is the work of writers who thought in mythological terms and therefore the concept of a single truth corresponding to a single reality never occurred to them".

Or do they more likely conclude it with "This is the Word of the Lord"? What would the Pope say? What would the Archbishop of Canterbury say? Billy Graham? Jerry Falwell? Would any influential Christian agree with either of the first two, or would they say that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

Obviously by definition no atheist prefers a literalist interpretation of the Bible. If you mean that they often prefer to dispute the claims of those Christians who insist that the Bible is literally true, then yes you are right. Considering that many of these people want to use the laws of an ancient bloodthirsty culture as the basis for our own laws then I do not consider this to be unreasonable.

In this case it is not a matter of what the original Bible writers intended, but what influential Christians today believe. So for example when the Archbishop of Sydney says that we are not entitled to our own opinions on matters that have already been decided in the Bible, and his views are widely influential we are entitled to ask what exactly has been decided in the Bible.

It seems unlikely that religious leaders in ancient times would have regarded their sacred texts as mere guesswork and even if they did I doubt they would have shared this idea with anybody. It seems likely to me that these texts served a totemic purpose rather than being a work of reference. This collection of mysterious writings that most people would not have read. As to why Genesis 1 went with Genesis 2 we would probably have to know their filing system, it might have been a case of "this scroll is about the creation and so is that one, so we will put them together".