Not just among Christians, but among any major religion that uses a sacred text as a basis for its beliefs. What is the reason for taking these texts literally? What is the basis for taking, for example, certain stories in the Old Testament literally, rather than metaphorically? Or put another way, why not take them metaphorically? Certainly some of the stories (much of what’s found in Genesis comes to mind) seem to strain reason. Yet Fundamentalists insist that these things happened exactly as they are described. What is the argument for taking this approach to religious texts?
The best argument I can think of is that it at least avoids the corrupting influence of all these “experts.” For example, recently a bunch of"experts" got together and came to the conclusion that these personal pronouns in the Bible were sexist and to eliminate them on that basis. I can see why some Fundamentalists would rather be literalist and avoid these things.
The literalist may miss the point on their path and those believing the “experts” may do likewise on theirs. If so, who is better off?
I believe partially that it came to being because, as I have mentioned before, the original language of the text is interpretive, not literal. Then after the “translations” it was presumed that being in an exacting language left no room for interpretation.
There are some misconceptions though. They found the location of Moses’ people in the desert, it bears the marks spoken of in the old Testament. They found the story that describes the battle of David and Goliath. They found the baptism chamber of John the Baptist. They found the tomb of Moses’ pharoah, (Xerxes I believe, and Ramses), and that the plagues of Egypt did occur. They found the cuneiform tablets that tell the tale of the flood, although it predates the story of Noah by relatively 800 years. So science has added to the literalism movement with many of these archeological finds.
I started asking this question a looooong time ago. I’ve never come to a satisfactory conclusion because there are so many possible answers that it almost defies any supportable answer. There does seem to be a common thread that runs through the issue: the tendency to need a closed, known, beginning to end existence. Literalists live in a system that tells them where they came from, where they are, and where they are going, even after death. Their reading and understanding is approached the same way any of us read and understand an operator’s manual. Their refusal to see metaphorically isn’t because they can’t, but because to do so could force them into an open ended ambiguous existence where they would have to write their own manual. The threat of taking responsibility for their own lives as opposed to just following instructions almost guarantees that they will choose literalism.
From their POV, to leave the comfort of their instruction manual is chaos. I suppose we could attempt to psychoanalyze all the possibles, but I have taken the position that some have the courage to see, and some don’t.
Your answer, though, sounds as if taking things literally is a bad thing. Nick has given one reason why it might not be. Which is worse?, he says. Those taking a non-literal (but wrong) approach, or one taking a literal approach? Well, wrong is wrong I suppose so maybe it’s a wash. (Unless literal is not wrong).
Mastriani has given an interesting justification too, namely historical records or archeological discoveries which may, for all we know, lead us to believe that these things happened.
I knew a woman once, a very good friend of mine at one time, who was a strict Catholic. Her position was one of deferring to authority. People have come before us down through the ages who have more knowledge than us, and people in authority in her church have spent lifetimes studying these issues. Who are we to argue? She felt God led her to these people. She was, simply, very devout. Her belief was beautiful in its way and I respected her greatly for it.
From my perspective, absolutely not Jerry. Although her type of certainty, and deferring to those she feels are more of a knowledgeable authority, is going to be seen by some as “lack of accountability”, can also be regarded as a direct path.
In short, her choice, so who is to say it’s wrong, unless you are she.
Is anyone here going to argue for what seems obvious to me: That a text should be read as the writer intended? What’s all this literalism and metaphoricalism about, if it’s not about understanding the text? In the case of the Bible, it’s always been clear to me that some parts were intended as metaphor, some parts intended to be taken literal, with most of the text being pretty obvious which was intended. There are a few difficult spots, where some take it literally and some don’t, and in these cases, it should be a matter of scholarship, trying to find out what the author meant, not which reading is ‘best for us’ or ‘best for mankind’ or gives us some special feeling.
If you aren’t interested in what the author meant, why are you reading?
We don’t know with certainty the authors. We do not know with certainty the context, cultural or otherwise, that the author spoke from.
Your post was very clear, that’s why I bolded it: To you, you see the Bible in a very distinct fashion. Not everyone will see it the way you do, and likely, they will adamantly disagree.
Certainly, but these are issues of history and science and archaeology and such, and of course none of these are going to give us perfect results. What I mean to say is that it's not properly[i] up to us[/i] how to interpret something like
Mark 1:21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
It's our duty to find out what the author meant, if we really want the truth of things, and if we really revere the text. That may be very difficult in some cases, and even if we grant for the sake of argument that it's completely impossible in certain instances, it's still the best option we have. If two people disagree on whether a certain part of a certain text should be understood literally or metaphorically, the only valid way to support their take on it is to argue that the author intended it to be read the way they suggest.
Generally I agree we should look at these ancient writers how the author intended. That requires the ability to completely see from their pov.
Where I disagree is in interpretation.
For example;
let’s say the writer did intend to take things literally. Could you literally believe that the earth has four corners?*
Do you believe that bats are birds?**
that woman shouldn’t wear pants?***
That Jonah was swallowed by a whale?****
the point is, part of the reason it’s hard to look at it through their eyes, is because our world (socially and mentally) has changed drastically from the time these writings were recorded.
I think it’s more important to use it as a basic instruction manual… There is some spiritual truth within it, but … unless you truly believe the claims made within, literally I don’t understand it’s full usefulness.
Like for instance, the two books of law (deut and lev) aren’t the least bit useful to even christians (well the ones who believe the new covenant fully supplants the old).
So it can provide an interesting insight to see from the writers eyes, but much of what they believed to be “literal” is really of no value to us, because of science. The earth is round, so the “four corners” comment pretty much has to be read “allegorically”, we know people can’t live in a whale’s belly, we know that bats aren’t birds.
Am I nitpicking? Perhaps… hopefully it serves a point.
Buy I think that you’ve hit precisely the issue: Do we simply accept authority (literalist POV), or do we question what we read and make decisions for ourselves as to what is ‘true’ and what isn’t true? Consider the number of KJV only people out there who cannot accept any other translation. Why? Because there can only be one operator’s manual. To allow room for more than one is chaos. This is accepting authority without thinking, and while one can argue that it is just as efficacious as any other POV, it assumes infallability both of the text and those ‘leaders’ who are more than willing to explain what it '“really means”. You and I have been down this road before, so I know you know…
Jerry,
No, your friend isn’t necessarily wrong, but she is vulnerable to those who claim infallible authority. I could easily be wrong, but I haven’t seen the first infallable human yet. I’m sure there must be one, I’m just standing in the wrong place.
We’re all of us vulnerable to something. Whether it’s authorities who are wrong, or our own senses and intuitions which may be misguided by any number of things. Seems like something of a crapshoot, doesn’t it?
Of course, that's part of the question. If the author literally meant to refer to the 'four corners of the earth', and the earth has no corners, then the author was wrong. That doesn't mean we 'read it allegorically' because we have some desperate need to pull meaning out of a mistake. What it means is, the person was refering to the four corners of the earth for a[i] reason[/i]. For example, in Ezekiel we see that he is using the 'four corners' reference to describe that the things he is describing will apply [i]everywhere[/i]. I don't say that because we need to understand it cryptically, I don't say that because 'the times, they are a-changing', I say that because looking at the passage, it's pretty obvious to me that the author meant that. It would be if I said "From here to Timbuktu, people are doing the Mashed-Potato,". Now, it's a literal fact that I believe there is really a place called Timbuktu, and you can discern that from who I am, and the culture that I wrote within, and so on. But it's equally obvious that what I mean is "People everywhere are doing the Mashed-Potato". Is that taking the text literally or not? You're taking it the way it was intended, but the author used an obvious non-literal figure of speech in his writing.
And as long as you keep bringing it up, what's so bad about calling bats birds? Scientists haven't 'discovered' that bats aren't birds, they have [i]classified[/i] them that way. Taxonomy is subjective above the level of species, anyways.
Tentative: The example of the KJV is a particularly glaring error on the part of some fundamentalists. Since the KJV is no where near the original version (comes after it by 1400 years or so, right?) to stick to it as though it could never be corrected or clarified is a mistake. If the goal is to follow what the author’s meant, blind allegience to one particular translation is an error. All I’m putting forward is that there is such a thing as what these texts really mean- it’s not something to put in quotes as though we don’t really believe it. A text really means what the author intended for it to mean. Our ability to discover that would largely vary from text to text, I should think. If we read a part of the text metaphorically, it should be because the author intended for it to be taken as a metaphor. Like I implied to scythe, I’m still not sure whether or not that view should be called ‘literalism’ or not, because I do believe the Bible has metaphor in it, but that those metaphors are intentional and specific.
EDIT: For example, suppose a part of a Holy Text said
“He was as big as a mountain, and when he yelled, the room shook.”
If we think the original author was meaning merely to say that the man was really big (for a man), and not that he was literally thousands of feet tall, and we interpret the passage that way, is that still interpreting the text literally, or no?
