|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:24 am
This is a key issue for Christians: Do we interpret the Bible (or specific passages in it) literally, as an allegory, or as a text skewed by the culture of the time?
Most Christians are comfortable with taking most of the Bible literally, but there are some passages that cause a lot of debate, such as:
-The Creation Account (inclusion of blatant symbolism allows a possible case for dismissing this passage as clearly intended to be read as allegorical/symbolic)
-The Fall of Man (key theology may rest on this)
-The Flood (exactly how many animals did Noah fit into exactly how much space?)
-Jonah and the Whale (this is hardly a theological issue, but for some, stories like this cast legitimate doubt on all seemingly-literal accounts)
-Paul's Discussion of Gender Roles (Outdated? Should we dismiss the rest of Paul's theology with this, or simply exercise our own judgement?)
-Passages dealing with Homosexuality (possibly dismissed by reinterpretation of the original script)
Looking at these passages now, it seems that we can get around tough passages by interpreting them as allegories in the Old Testament and as culturally skewed in the New Testament. Is it instead rationally possible to interpret all of these passages as literal? If not, what methodology should we use to decide how to interpret a particular passage?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 4:19 am
I'm assuming that we can discuss issues within Christianity, not just the religion in general, in this subforum...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 1:02 pm
Nebulance This is a key issue for Christians: Do we interpret the Bible (or specific passages in it) literally, as an allegory, or as a text skewed by the culture of the time? Most Christians are comfortable with taking most of the Bible literally, but there are some passages that cause a lot of debate, such as: -The Creation Account (inclusion of blatant symbolism allows a possible case for dismissing this passage as clearly intended to be read as allegorical/symbolic) -The Fall of Man (key theology may rest on this) -The Flood (exactly how many animals did Noah fit into exactly how much space?) -Jonah and the Whale (this is hardly a theological issue, but for some, stories like this cast legitimate doubt on all seemingly-literal accounts) -Paul's Discussion of Gender Roles (Outdated? Should we dismiss the rest of Paul's theology with this, or simply exercise our own judgement?) -Passages dealing with Homosexuality (possibly dismissed by reinterpretation of the original script) Looking at these passages now, it seems that we can get around tough passages by interpreting them as allegories in the Old Testament and as culturally skewed in the New Testament. Is it instead rationally possible to interpret all of these passages as literal? If not, what methodology should we use to decide how to interpret a particular passage? I usually say that the verses should not all be taken literally but I suppose it would be better to make the distinction between a literal and literalistic interpretation at least according to how Catholics use the terms. A literal interpretation would be where you look at a verse and interpret it in a way meant to capture it's actual meaning. A literalistic interpretation is where you interpret a verse word for word and do not take into consideration what it might mean in context unless it is extremely obvious that it was meant as an allegory or a metaphor. Overall, interpreting the bible is something that theologians can spend a life time working out. I would love to look into biblical hermeneutics more than I already have just for that added insight. Oh, and yes this topic is in the right section biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:05 pm
I don't think any source of knowledge, spiritual or otherwise is completely perfect. As long as man has a hand in it, it will be flawed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:37 pm
[Personal opinion-beliefs-yadda]
Take the Gospels at face value. Take the rest at less.
Christianity is the teachings of Christ. Not Paul or Moses or Solomon.
I know if I'm trying to say, "Christianity says X" and someone contests me on it, my BibleGateway search is restricted to the Gospels.
[/Personal opinion-beliefs-yadda]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:55 pm
Nebulance This is a key issue for Christians: Do we interpret the Bible (or specific passages in it) literally, as an allegory, or as a text skewed by the culture of the time? Most Christians are comfortable with taking most of the Bible literally, but there are some passages that cause a lot of debate, such as: -The Creation Account (inclusion of blatant symbolism allows a possible case for dismissing this passage as clearly intended to be read as allegorical/symbolic) -The Fall of Man (key theology may rest on this) -The Flood (exactly how many animals did Noah fit into exactly how much space?) -Jonah and the Whale (this is hardly a theological issue, but for some, stories like this cast legitimate doubt on all seemingly-literal accounts) -Paul's Discussion of Gender Roles (Outdated? Should we dismiss the rest of Paul's theology with this, or simply exercise our own judgement?) -Passages dealing with Homosexuality (possibly dismissed by reinterpretation of the original script) Looking at these passages now, it seems that we can get around tough passages by interpreting them as allegories in the Old Testament and as culturally skewed in the New Testament. Is it instead rationally possible to interpret all of these passages as literal? If not, what methodology should we use to decide how to interpret a particular passage? Most of the bible seems to be a guide to healthy living, written 2-3000 years ago, depending on which part we're looking at. These include things like foods to eat- Pork would kill you back then, they didn't know how to cook it and bleed the pig right. Same with shellfish. Actually, most of it was a guide of what they HAD eaten and therefore knew to be safe, so it was more like process of elimination rather than directly saying "shellfish is evil"- that's why it's written "Anything in the water that doesn't have scales or fins" or whatever. This said, we now know how to do these things in ways that won't kill us. So these parts of the bible are irrelevant. The relevance comes in divine law, which is basically the 10 commandments and other such rules. Basically, the point of all of these is the golden rule of "Do unto others".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:07 pm
Thinking about interpretation of the Bible, One verse can mean so many different things to different people. Take for instance
GOD'S new commandment that we should love one another. Now how many ways can that go since love is not express the same way by everyone? In reading and interpreting I find it very helpful to pray for understanding beforehand , Most of the time a bright like comes on (revelation) and sometimes it takes more then one reading. Then I've read a passage and it meant one thing and read it a month later and the meaning change.
One single message can have so many meanings depending on the need for direction/instruction that one is seeking from GOD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:13 pm
divineseraph Nebulance This is a key issue for Christians: Do we interpret the Bible (or specific passages in it) literally, as an allegory, or as a text skewed by the culture of the time? Most Christians are comfortable with taking most of the Bible literally, but there are some passages that cause a lot of debate, such as: -The Creation Account (inclusion of blatant symbolism allows a possible case for dismissing this passage as clearly intended to be read as allegorical/symbolic) -The Fall of Man (key theology may rest on this) -The Flood (exactly how many animals did Noah fit into exactly how much space?) -Jonah and the Whale (this is hardly a theological issue, but for some, stories like this cast legitimate doubt on all seemingly-literal accounts) -Paul's Discussion of Gender Roles (Outdated? Should we dismiss the rest of Paul's theology with this, or simply exercise our own judgement?) -Passages dealing with Homosexuality (possibly dismissed by reinterpretation of the original script) Looking at these passages now, it seems that we can get around tough passages by interpreting them as allegories in the Old Testament and as culturally skewed in the New Testament. Is it instead rationally possible to interpret all of these passages as literal? If not, what methodology should we use to decide how to interpret a particular passage? Most of the bible seems to be a guide to healthy living, written 2-3000 years ago, depending on which part we're looking at. These include things like foods to eat- Pork would kill you back then, they didn't know how to cook it and bleed the pig right. Same with shellfish. Actually, most of it was a guide of what they HAD eaten and therefore knew to be safe, so it was more like process of elimination rather than directly saying "shellfish is evil"- that's why it's written "Anything in the water that doesn't have scales or fins" or whatever. This said, we now know how to do these things in ways that won't kill us. So these parts of the bible are irrelevant.The relevance comes in divine law, which is basically the 10 commandments and other such rules. Basically, the point of all of these is the golden rule of "Do unto others". Kashrut laws have nothing to do with "eating pork would kill you", it still doesn't. I realise this is the "Christianity" forum, but you mustn't make generalisations like that. Please realise that there are people who do live by the "Old Testament".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 pm
divineseraph Nebulance This is a key issue for Christians: Do we interpret the Bible (or specific passages in it) literally, as an allegory, or as a text skewed by the culture of the time? Most Christians are comfortable with taking most of the Bible literally, but there are some passages that cause a lot of debate, such as: -The Creation Account (inclusion of blatant symbolism allows a possible case for dismissing this passage as clearly intended to be read as allegorical/symbolic) -The Fall of Man (key theology may rest on this) -The Flood (exactly how many animals did Noah fit into exactly how much space?) -Jonah and the Whale (this is hardly a theological issue, but for some, stories like this cast legitimate doubt on all seemingly-literal accounts) -Paul's Discussion of Gender Roles (Outdated? Should we dismiss the rest of Paul's theology with this, or simply exercise our own judgement?) -Passages dealing with Homosexuality (possibly dismissed by reinterpretation of the original script) Looking at these passages now, it seems that we can get around tough passages by interpreting them as allegories in the Old Testament and as culturally skewed in the New Testament. Is it instead rationally possible to interpret all of these passages as literal? If not, what methodology should we use to decide how to interpret a particular passage? Most of the bible seems to be a guide to healthy living, written 2-3000 years ago, depending on which part we're looking at. These include things like foods to eat- Pork would kill you back then, they didn't know how to cook it and bleed the pig right. Same with shellfish. Actually, most of it was a guide of what they HAD eaten and therefore knew to be safe, so it was more like process of elimination rather than directly saying "shellfish is evil"- that's why it's written "Anything in the water that doesn't have scales or fins" or whatever. This said, we now know how to do these things in ways that won't kill us. So these parts of the bible are irrelevant. The relevance comes in divine law, which is basically the 10 commandments and other such rules. Basically, the point of all of these is the golden rule of "Do unto others". Well, the reason most Christians view those laws as outdated is because we are now under the New Covenant, and that is the Old Covenant as laid out in the Old Testament. 'Most' is more than a bit of an exaggeration, btw. Also, this doesn't deal with the thorny passages of the Old and New Testaments that I mentioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:37 pm
Nines19 [Personal opinion-beliefs-yadda] Take the Gospels at face value. Take the rest at less. Christianity is the teachings of Christ. Not Paul or Moses or Solomon. I know if I'm trying to say, "Christianity says X" and someone contests me on it, my BibleGateway search is restricted to the Gospels. [/Personal opinion-beliefs-yadda] This seems to be a reasonable approach. However, Jesus himself quotes Scripture from the Old Testament, apparently validating it-- and what of the words of prophets speaking God's will? Are those passages not also directly from God, by this reasoning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:56 pm
Semiremis Nebulance This is a key issue for Christians: Do we interpret the Bible (or specific passages in it) literally, as an allegory, or as a text skewed by the culture of the time? Most Christians are comfortable with taking most of the Bible literally, but there are some passages that cause a lot of debate, such as: -The Creation Account (inclusion of blatant symbolism allows a possible case for dismissing this passage as clearly intended to be read as allegorical/symbolic) -The Fall of Man (key theology may rest on this) -The Flood (exactly how many animals did Noah fit into exactly how much space?) -Jonah and the Whale (this is hardly a theological issue, but for some, stories like this cast legitimate doubt on all seemingly-literal accounts) -Paul's Discussion of Gender Roles (Outdated? Should we dismiss the rest of Paul's theology with this, or simply exercise our own judgement?) -Passages dealing with Homosexuality (possibly dismissed by reinterpretation of the original script) Looking at these passages now, it seems that we can get around tough passages by interpreting them as allegories in the Old Testament and as culturally skewed in the New Testament. Is it instead rationally possible to interpret all of these passages as literal? If not, what methodology should we use to decide how to interpret a particular passage? I usually say that the verses should not all be taken literally but I suppose it would be better to make the distinction between a literal and literalistic interpretation at least according to how Catholics use the terms. A literal interpretation would be where you look at a verse and interpret it in a way meant to capture it's actual meaning. A literalistic interpretation is where you interpret a verse word for word and do not take into consideration what it might mean in context unless it is extremely obvious that it was meant as an allegory or a metaphor. Overall, interpreting the bible is something that theologians can spend a life time working out. I would love to look into biblical hermeneutics more than I already have just for that added insight. Oh, and yes this topic is in the right section biggrin I would hope that most rational Christians would interpret a verse seeking to capture its actual meaning in context. The question is, what context? Just the context of surrounding Scripture, or the 'cultural context' as well? Should the whole Bible be taken in context as a bunch of allegories?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:27 pm
I like Stephen Hoeller's stance on interpreting the Bible and the Nag Hammadi text. It's not history with a moral, but myth with a moral. Most if not all of the stories can be understood on an internal level where people, items, and events, all taken in the proper historical context of course, are symbols describing something that is unique about who we are and teaches something that is fundamental about us at the core.
The heretic ends his rant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:30 pm
rmcdra I like Stephen Hoeller's stance on interpreting the Bible and the Nag Hammadi text. It's not history with a moral, but myth with a moral. Most if not all of the stories can be understood on an internal level where people, items, and events are symbols describing something that is unique about who we are and teaches something that is fundamental about us at the core. The heretic ends his rant. Well, this is what I meant by 'taking the Bible in context as a bunch of allegories'. I'm curious, does this include viewing the life of Jesus as a myth? And do commandments still carry weight... or are you pretty much free to interpret and live however you want?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:57 pm
Nebulance Well, this is what I meant by 'taking the Bible in context as a bunch of allegories'. I'm curious, does this include viewing the life of Jesus as a myth? How does that change the faith? There is a historical Jesus and a mythic Jesus. For me if I was shown the bones of Jesus and there was no doubt that those bones were his. I would still believe in his resurrection and ascension. I would still say that Jesus is the son of God. This is because I on a personal level understand and am still in the process of understanding the new Covenant that the historical Jesus was trying to bring us and his disciples wanted to tell us in their personal understanding of his message. Quote: And do commandments still carry weightt... or are you pretty much free to interpret and live however you want? I'd say the Law of Agape is still a pretty big deal for Christians so yes the commandments do still carry weight. I mean he did say all the Laws and Prophets depend on it. Matt 22:36-40. We are free to live how we want but to be a Christian one live in agape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 6:10 pm
In Medias Res IV divineseraph Nebulance This is a key issue for Christians: Do we interpret the Bible (or specific passages in it) literally, as an allegory, or as a text skewed by the culture of the time? Most Christians are comfortable with taking most of the Bible literally, but there are some passages that cause a lot of debate, such as: -The Creation Account (inclusion of blatant symbolism allows a possible case for dismissing this passage as clearly intended to be read as allegorical/symbolic) -The Fall of Man (key theology may rest on this) -The Flood (exactly how many animals did Noah fit into exactly how much space?) -Jonah and the Whale (this is hardly a theological issue, but for some, stories like this cast legitimate doubt on all seemingly-literal accounts) -Paul's Discussion of Gender Roles (Outdated? Should we dismiss the rest of Paul's theology with this, or simply exercise our own judgement?) -Passages dealing with Homosexuality (possibly dismissed by reinterpretation of the original script) Looking at these passages now, it seems that we can get around tough passages by interpreting them as allegories in the Old Testament and as culturally skewed in the New Testament. Is it instead rationally possible to interpret all of these passages as literal? If not, what methodology should we use to decide how to interpret a particular passage? Most of the bible seems to be a guide to healthy living, written 2-3000 years ago, depending on which part we're looking at. These include things like foods to eat- Pork would kill you back then, they didn't know how to cook it and bleed the pig right. Same with shellfish. Actually, most of it was a guide of what they HAD eaten and therefore knew to be safe, so it was more like process of elimination rather than directly saying "shellfish is evil"- that's why it's written "Anything in the water that doesn't have scales or fins" or whatever. This said, we now know how to do these things in ways that won't kill us. So these parts of the bible are irrelevant.The relevance comes in divine law, which is basically the 10 commandments and other such rules. Basically, the point of all of these is the golden rule of "Do unto others". Kashrut laws have nothing to do with "eating pork would kill you", it still doesn't. I realise this is the "Christianity" forum, but you mustn't make generalisations like that. Please realise that there are people who do live by the "Old Testament". Yes, but WHY were those rules written? Thinking logically, why would God care if we eat pigs rather than cows? It's simply irrelevant to the big picture. It doesn't really hurt to limit your diet, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
