Literal vs. figurative biblical interpretation: Does it matter?

Hey Rick, nice article. And yeah, it's me.

I'm in a comparative world literature class at the moment -- "Hero Tales of the Mediterranean", to be precise -- and we've actually cracked the Old Testament a number of times. To be honest, I'm a bit bored with it. It's got the same ol' sweep of violence and sex, but without the enlightening sensibilities you get from folks like Livy and Plutarch (I'm reading those guys in another class).

I'm a settled atheist now, kinda past the days when I felt like getting a kick in on the odd stuff that some people accept as truth. However, I read the response above by Bogart and felt compelled to say something.

So, to answer your question, no, it doesn't matter. Arguing about interpretation is giving far too much weight to a text that hasn't earned any inherent right to a presumption of truth, figurative or literal. It's a concatenation of story-telling hits from the Bronze and Iron Ages, flattened crudely into some form of narrative.

Bogart's reply above was pretty interesting. I think he rightly illustrates that, within the paradigm (I wish we could retire that word) of believers, these apparent contradictions can be rationalized. They don't necessarily compel either a literal or figurative reading; that decision will have already been made in response to some other criteria: denomination, education level, etc.

Hmm. Waxing prolix. My point: why bother getting down in the mud and arguing interpretation? Bogart is right: smart people have spent years constructing clever rationalizations for their beliefs, even if it came to questionable hair-splittings. Informed believers generally win that argument. So why do it?

Personally, I read it like I read Gilgamesh: with some interest in what it can tell us about life in those distant days, and without any presumption of truth. Why should the Biblical texts be treated any differently?

Rick U, interpreting the Bible as a work of literature leads to the conclusion that the concept of God itself is merely a special kind of metaphor called personification. Because God itself is a mere metaphor, I have no problem interpreting the Bible figuratively, even as a atheist. Of course, I don't pretend that any literary work, much less the Bible in particular, has all the answers to the complex questions that arise in life.

In Joshua 10:12 Joshua made the sun stand still so the Israelites would have time to finish slaughtering their enemies. To someone living 3,000 years ago it would look as if the sun and moon traveled across the sky in turn, therefore, having the sun stand still would, to them, cause the day to be prolonged. Hopefully we know better than this now. But, the point is wouldn't an all-knowing God know that that would not work? If the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God it should not contain inaccuracies such as this. Even three thousand years ago God would have known better.

There seems to be a number of smug comments being passed back and forth on these matters that, owing to their display of ignorance, are examples of nothing more then pettiness. There is a long tradition of discussion about kosher, homosexuality and various other human acts that those who seriously follow the laws of the Bible consider as abominations. People with a far greater whit and intellect then any of our minds display conducted these discussions many times in the past. So, before we choose to disregard these ideas and sit comfortably tied to our paradigm I suggest looking a little deeper into past discussions about these subjects.

As regards kosher... Only Jews must follow the laws of kosher. As a matter of Biblical fact all the 613 acts described in Leviticus were given to the Children of Israel and the keeping of these laws are all that these Hebrews were "Chosen" for. There is no reason given for these laws other then god having told the Children of Israel that these laws must be followed. It has nothing to do with diseases passed by these animals nor do people need scientific reasons for their acts. The theory that pork and shell fish are forbidden because of health concerns are theories put forth by modern folk who are stuck in their paradigm and haven’t thought outside their own smug sense of rightness since obtaining their grammar school certificate.

On the other hand, the laws that forbid homosexual behavior were given, according to the Bible, to Noah. They were given to him with another six laws that included the law against murder, incest, eating a live animal (in other words, taking the leg of an animal and eating it while it lived) and the establishment of courts to judge those accused of these laws. These laws are meant to be kept by all mankind. So, to recount, the Mosaic laws are for the Children of Israel (Jews) while the Noahtic laws are for the Children of Adam (All humans). This explains why most Americans are free of hypocrisy when they eat yummy crabs but refuse to fuck ass.

So, feel free to read through the head-ach the Bible gives you before sharing an opinion about what it says.

As for interpretation, lets take for instance Kosher. Judges in a Jewish court must come to decisions regarding utensils. If a utensil is used with meat can it then be used with milk? The precedent set by the judges is that porous material must go through a certain cleaning process after it has been used on meat before it can be used on milk products and vice versa. But, non-porous materials can go from meat to milk so long as visual residue has been washed away. So, interpretation of the Bible is required because it leaves room for such inventions as Tupperware and Styrofoam without actually alluding to either.

The Biblical laws that require interpretation are those that tend to involve the relationship between people. Since history shows us that man develops a variety of responses to people within a dynamic and modulating cultural pool these human interactions require human interpretation that suite the times. Also, most people are stupid and can't even follow a basic law such as; don't cross on a red light. So, you hope to set very smart people into leadership roles and due to their example, their discussions and their judgment the people might live a more ordered existence. This hope often fails.

I believe that any problem that man approaches with an open mind and a reasoned approach can be solved in time. A reasoned approach to life and everything is what makes us strong as a species not the literal or figurative reading of a 2000 year old book.

I suppose even you require faith. This paragraph is nothing if not a declaration of faith and I can site examples where open minds and reasoned approaches have yet to solve many of our problems. I'm not saying you are wrong per say but how is this faith based on the ideas of one many thousands of years old book from Greece (Aristotle's works) so much more meaningful then faith on ideas based on a more then three thousand year old collection of books from Israel? No matter how much you would like to pick and choose the flavors your culture comes in there is no denying that all your ideas, all your beliefs and all your trivial reasoning are reruns of episodes in our culture that have occurred dozens of not hundreds of times. Read the works of the faithful and faithless in the past and you will discover a wealth of ideas that discuss these issues at much greater depth then the simple incantations recited from the Internet or the History Channel.

If anyone requires some suggested reading on the subject I will respond.

Many Miles, Many Shoes
BoNo

But some, like Jerry Falwell, insist that "The bible is inerrant...the word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." As the post suggests, this is patently absurd. Others, such as R.J. Rushdoony, have said that if any part of the Bible is not taken to be absolute truth, then none of it is; and there is no need for salvation. (And Rushdoony's cult does have a liking for Levitican law, as seen in articles advocating stoning disobedient children and other foolishness.)
People like these would say of course it matters, because otherwise their entire worldview would be shattered. They must suffer, without realizing it, a never-ending denial of what their senses and inborn reasoning would show to be true.
(And by the way, the best crab cakes I used to get in Baltimore were made from crabmeat shipped in from the Gulf.)

... I can just imagine Moses, awakening from one of 'those' wierd dreams that every man has had at least a few times. His eyes snap open; he is alone and it is dark. His heart is pounding and little Mr. Moses is calling for attention. Maybe the patriarch finishes the job, maybe not. Finally he shakes his head and asks "What the sheol was that all about?!

Next day he dictates to his amenuensis; "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind..."

OK I'm going straight to sheol...

This reminds me why I never even got into reading the Bible: 10 seconds with the King James makes my head hurt (it's like trying to read a text book in a foreign language). I know that the pig was forbidden because it could carry some pretty deadly diseases, and cooking over an open fire I guess the ancient Jews couldn't cook their food to a hot enough temperature. Shellfish I think were similar in that they could carry diseases (that and the poor Jews weren't blessed with crab, shrimp and lobster). I think camels went into the same category as horses as "too valuable to eat".

I think that people are more up in arms about the homosexuality things in the bible because they are using them to justify their own feelings that they would never sleep with someone of their own sex as something other than purely instinctual.