Problems with Biblical Literalism

Much of what you say in your post is correct. Translation and interpretation have created problems even within the christian community. Catholics and Protestants have been arguing over interpretation for about five hundred years. Protestants have been arguing amongst themselves for close to that same time period.

But the problem is not the Book.

Some christians believe (as you say) in a literal interpretation. Many of those have broken-off and started their own churches with their own interpretation.

Then there are christians who use other forms (senses) of interpretation. These senses would include : spiritual, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. While these other senses are based on the literal sense, a strict literal interpretation is not required. Some christians believe that God created the world in six 24 hour days, other christians believe it may have been done in 6 million years. I think the point that all christians would agree on is that God created the world. How long did it take God? I don't know; I wasn't there.

Here again, the problem isn't the Book.

As to the authors of Scripture, I think all christians would agree that each book in the Bible has 2 authors. One author is human. The Other Author is the Holy Spirit who guided the human author. Therefore, with the Holy Spirit guiding each human author the Bible is looked at as infallible and inerrant.

I'm aware that you don't believe these things, Jack. I'm just offering this as information, as I believe it to be.

I appreciate the feedback Ed. I'm glad to hear that you do understand some of the complications with biblical literalism and how it has caused so much factionalism in the faith. The same could be said for any faith with a holy text though. Just look at how many sects there are with Judaism and Islam. And those truly devoted to their particular interpretation are where the real problems and conflicts lie.

As a non-believer, I take a much more objective view of the bible in the same way one would have a view of another historical story like the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Illiad. Both were based on some real life characters and events, but the stories written about them were embellished through folklore through the telling and re-telling of the story by men (mostly men) who all put their own spin on the issue.

Where I would disagree is the idea that each book only has one author because even theologians agree that many different books were compiled and probably had multiple authors. And bear in mind many aren't eye-witness accounts. The 4 gospels weren't written down until decades after Jesus's death. So even if the holy spirit was guiding the authors, it's worth noting that men are still fallible and when put into the context of culture, society, and time period there will be interpretations that conflict and sometimes contradict one another. So the idea of inerrant text is still a personal view of faith.

Thanks again for your input.

Hi Jack. I've been reading your discussions w/ Valiant, Ed and C of S for a while now. I've been enjoying it and learning a lot. I don't chime in cuz what you write is what I think, and you're better at it than I...but lurking feels creepy after awhile, so I thought I'd comment here. Anyway...I hope you keep writing cuz you make it especially interesting!

Thanks Lin, I really appreciate your support. I try to do my best to get my point across. People don't always listen to me, but I don't want to stop as long as I have something to day. Again, thank you and don't be afraid to chime in more often.

It's interesting reading your interactions over there. One thing I've surmised is that you (and I) are able to say 'this is what I believe, but hey..I could be wrong'. It's really no sweat off our backs to say that. No big deal. So we want and expect people of faith to do the same. (Some do, by the way, and I think that's great.)

For those who won't, I think it's because...they CAN'T. If they did, they'd virtually be admitting that they don't have faith. At least not the kind of faith required of them from the Bible. Having that unquestioned, absolute faith is imperative to the faith itself. If they admitted they could be wrong, than they're going against what the Bible tells them their faith should be. Know what I mean? That's my take anyway.

The Bible's Author was the Holy Spirit Operating through men that obeyed God.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE WORD


http://home.att.net/~jackthompson/page76.htm

Cindy, you made one glaring error in your comment. You said the bible's author (singular) was inspired by the divine. But even staunch believers admit that the bible did not have one author. The Old Testament was written down centuries before the New Testament and it was compiled in three different languages including Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. So if there was one author, why write it in three different languages centuries apart? And some are written down in different forms. Many parts of the Old Scripture are written as poetry so how could that be literal when poetry by its own design isn't literal? All non-supernatural evidence points to the bible being a compiled edited texts with multiple authors from different time periods. Whether or not they were inspired by god is another matter that cannot be proven so it is assumed on faith. But as stated in a previous post in my blog, believing in something doesn't make it true. It's just a belief.

Thanks again for the support Lin. It's important for anybody, believer or non-believer, to maintain perspective. We don't know everything about anything and honest people admit when they don't know. It's the arrogant believers who staunchly affirm that they know the truth when they only have belief. And belief is not truth no matter how much faith is put in it.

Hi Lin

As an old baseball coach I adopted an old saying : put the hot-dog down, wipe the mustard off your chin, get your glove, and get in the game.

Don't be afraid to post at Valiant's site. When I started posting there it was arguing all-the-time (we come from different sides of christianity). But we were able to find many things we agreed on. There are still some things we disagree on, and, given time, we'll probably discuss those things.

People on both sides feel strongly about what they think and believe. At times, things do get "heated". So, Lin, ...... and get in the game, BUT just don't play games LOL. Take care.

.

Cindy, I'm not sure what you were trying to say with just putting a period in your response, but it's not getting your point across.

Thanks Ed, appreciate the encouragement. Oh, I'll chime in if I'm inspired. 'Course I could always just say, "yeah, what HE said", after Jack comments...that would be easier. ;)