Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Even us "literalists" disagree about this, but I'll hazard an
    explanation.
    
    When I call myself a literalist I'm saying that I take the Bible at
    face value. I don't read into the text hidden or mystical meanings. For
    the most part (and here's where the disagreements begin - defining "the
    most part") I don't treat passages as being symbolic.
    
    Perhaps the classic example is that concerning Adam and Eve. The Bible
    discusses them as being literal people that walked the earth. I take it
    at that and don't see "Adam and Eve" as a metaphor to represent all of
    humanity.
    
    I'm particularly adamant in the book of Revelation. Most folks think
    it's full of symbology and therefore difficult to understand. My
    principle of interpretation, however, is to assume it's literal unless
    we're told it's symbolic (e.g. John oftentimes says "I saw a great
    sign" or when describing a vision he says "it looked like" or "as it
    were").
    
    	BD�

If someone were to ask me if I believed in the "literal interpretation of
Scripture", I would probably say "no".

Because, in my view, the questioner probably means something different
about "literal interpretation" than I do.

I believe the Bible means what it says, interpreted as you would
interpret any other document where you were trying to figure out what
was being said.

This means that the reader can expect the full range of literary styles,
tools and devices to be used.  Those which are not meant to be interpreted
"literally" should not be.  Those which are meant to be interpreted
"literally" should be.

The reason I believe this is because God breathed the Scriptures because
*He wanted to communicate to us*!!  And He communicated in words, phrases,
letters and books in the way that we can actually understand what He said.
Or else, we have a very foolish God.  Or so it seems to me.

True, part of this communication is *intentionally* symbolic and hard to
figure out.  Note that this is intentional.  There are reasons God had
for not revealing everything to us clearly (Daniel and Revelations come to
mind).  In a course I took on the Parables of Jesus, one of the most
difficult passages to contend with is Matthew 13.  In this chapter, Jesus'
disciples ask why he teaches in parables.  His response was to quote from
Isaiah's commission in Isaiah 6:

  Though seeing, they do not see;
  though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

In other words, in this case part of the intention was that there would
intentionally *not* be communication to some of the people - in this case
to those who were spiritually dead.

This is difficult because this is *not* what we expect from God.  We
expect that God wants always to communicate everything to everyone.  But
I think it is fair to say that God *does* wish to communicate clearly to
his people (i.e. those who accept Jesus as dying for their sins).

This should be enough to start off the subject.

Collis

    Hi Collis .2,
    
    Regarding the reason Jesus' spoke in parables:
    
    > In other words, in this case part of the intention was that there
    > would intentionally *not* be communications to some of the people - in
    > this case to those who were spiritually dead.
    
    > This is difficult because this is *not* what we expect from God.  We
    > expect that God wants always to communicate everything to everyone. 
    > But I think it is fair to say that God *does* wish to communicate
    > clearly to his people (i.e. those who accept Jesus as dying for their
    > sins).
    
    God's people are all people, imho.  There is no "intentionality" to
    communicate with some and not others.  The issue, I believe, rests in the
    fact that the *fullness* of God lies far far far beyond any and all
    words we will ever have available to describe God or the experience of
    God.  One of the reasons Jesus uses parables is to create a deeper 
    understanding of God in the heart of the listener, then... and today,
    that goes far beyond the surface meaning of the words themselves.
    
    Some people will receive this deeper understanding.  Some will not. 
    But it is *not* intentional on God's part to permit only some to
    understand and not others.  Absolutely not.  All humanity is God's
    people, equally deserving of receiving God's word in the spirit in
    which it is offered to all - the spirit of AGAPE. 
    
    Karen

    Did I miss something or are the same people who believe in the
    inerrancy of the Bible also saying that they do not always take it
    literally? Does this mean that IT can't be wrong but that OUR
    UNDERSTANDING of it CAN ?  Are these the same people who have been
    telling me that the translations from various languages and cultural
    precepts to English and the American cultural axioms is accurate in
    every way - which is virtually impossible ?  Sounds to me like we have
    a communications problem here. Or somebody's logic boards weren't
    seated properly. Help me out: WHICH Bible is inerrent and WHICH texts
    need to be interpreted and WHO gets to decide which need to be
    interpreted and what the interpretation is ?  Yes, I know "You need
    help.", I've heard it before and I'll hear it again.

Dave,

Please define "literal", give me a Scripture passage, give me the "literal"
interpretation, and I'll tell you if I accept the "literal" interpretation
of the Bible.

The most common view of inerrancy (which I believe) is that God breathed
by the Holy Spirit all Scripture without error through men.  (No women
authors that we're aware of. :-) )  The original writings are without
error.  This means that the historical facts are true, the spiritual
teaching is true, essentially everything is true.  However, the "truth"
is in a sense limited (in my opinion) by the usual style of writing.  For
example, the circumference of a wheel is not exactly 3 times the diameter
(which the Bible refers to).  It is *approximately* 3 times the diameter.
The same is true for other numbers given in the Bible.  Sometimes they
are rounded off.

The question I was raising is what is "literal"?  Did I answer your
questions?

Collis

P.S.  Of course "our" understanding of the Bible can be wrong.  There is no
one (I believe) who understands all of the Bible correctly, other than
God.

P.P.S.  I don't know who told you that translations are always correct,
but it certainly wasn't me.  I'll guarantee you that all translations are
incorrect - the only question is one of degree.  The translations we have
today in English from the best manuscripts available are fully correct in
the sense that basic Christian doctrine can be exegeted from the text.

P.P.P.S.  The only infallible interpretations are those in the Bible.  All
other interpretations are subject to some extent to fallibility.  Fortunately,
we can be sure of some things despite this because of the clarity of
some issues.

    	Sorry, I'm not about to try quoting scripture to anyone or to
    attempt to define a literal interpretation of it. A literal
    interpretation is, however, exactly what it says. If you believe in the
    inerrancy of the Bible and if you believe that it is "literally true"
    (a standard litmus test is the old "God created it all in 7 days" bit),
    and if the Bible says that Pi=3, then Pi=3 and anyone who says
    otherwise is a heretic. If you were raised in the same tradition Mike
    V. was raised in then you must either prove that Pi=3 or discard the
    entire work as being a big lie. Well, I don't believe that Pi=3 or that
    the Bible is a collection of lies - or that God wouldn't have known
    that Pi>3. If Pi=3 is in the Bible then that particular portion of the
    Bible was not dictated by the unerring breath of God, or whatever, and
    kept whole and accurate through the writting of it. Making concessions
    for the fact that Talmudic Scholars do not make the best mathematicians
    is a cop-out. If God meant "about" then it would say "about" or the
    theory falls apart.
    	Then we get to who does the interpreting. Why should I accept
    anything you have to say about what the Bible says and means? You are
    known to take supporting quotes out of context and to accept the word
    of anyone put before you as an authority. Might you not accidentally
    warp the meaning of a phrase by forgetting the supporting context?
    Might one of your authority figures have been the Rev. Jim Jones or the
    Rev. John Brown or the Rev. Channing or the Rev. Jimmy Swaggart
    or the Rev. ... ?  Some of these Revs. are monsters, some are
    misguided, some are liberals, some are sinners, yet if they spoke from
    your pulpit you would accept their various words - according to your
    own admittion. And did you send in your $5 when a gigantic Jesus told
    that televangelist to raise $3 million or meet his maker? Sorry, I'm
    sure you didn't. I'm also sure, please let me be right, that you
    overstated your willingness to be led like a sheep by any authority
    figure. Still, you seem too eager by far to accept "authority" with
    regard to how to interpret scripture. Perhaps you will find me too
    eager by far to challenge "authority" and think for myself. Ain't
    diversity great?

    
        Forgive me if I seem a bit naive about this, but isn't
    "Literal Interpretation" an oxymoron of sorts ?
    
    
                                                       Mike

re Note 24.6 by DELNI::MEYER:

        Dave,

        Could we cool down the rhetoric, such as your last few
        sentences?

        Thanks,
        Bob

re Note 24.8 by SA1794::SEABURYM:

>         Forgive me if I seem a bit naive about this, but isn't
>     "Literal Interpretation" an oxymoron of sorts ?
  
        It's an oxymoron only if you hold the view that "literal"
        means "no interpretation".  That, however, is a mistaken
        view.

        I work on the technology for natural language processing. 
        Extracting the "literal meaning" of something is a lot of
        work!  Understanding the literal meaning is surely an act of
        interpretation.

        Bob

Re:  24.6  Dave

I love you, Dave.

  >If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and if you believe that it 
  >is "literally true" (a standard litmus test is the old "God created it all 
  >in 7 days" bit), and if the Bible says that Pi=3, then Pi=3 and anyone who 
  >says otherwise is a heretic. 

Then I (and the vast majority of inerrantists that I know) do *not*
believe in the literal intepretation of the Bible.  This is because a
"literal" translation (as defined by you above) is actually an
incorrect translation (in my opinion).  I think you agree with me on
that point.

By the way, the word translated "days" in Genesis also means "epochs"
so that one need not necessarily believe in a 162 hour creation even
if they interpreted the text "literally" (by your definition above).

  >Why should I accept anything you have to say about what the Bible says 
  >and means? You are known to take supporting quotes out of context and 
  >to accept the word of anyone put before you as an authority. 

Are you talking about me?  Collis Jackson?

That's o.k.  I'm really not easily angered.  But I don't understand
why you have reached your conclusion that I "take supporting quotes out
of context" (since in a year of noting I have *never* been accused of
this - either rightly or wrongly - i.e. before now).  If this is your
perception of me, I'll do what I can to change it.  I'll certainly state
here for the record that it is *never* my intention to take a supporting
quote out of context.  That woulnd't serve my purpose at all, because
I'm devoted to learning and knowning the TRUTH.

If you think that I accept "the word of anyone put before you [me] as an 
authority", I guess that communication did not take place a few notes
back.  What I said was that I would not engage in a discussion in a
context which I did not feel was appropriate.  I never said anything
(that I'm aware of) that could be construed as saying that I accept what
an "authority" says simply because he/she is an "authority".  Glad that
we've cleared up this misunderstanding.

  >Perhaps you will find me too eager by far to challenge "authority" and 
  >think for myself.

Well, I've been an independent thinker all my life.  I *applaud*
independent thinking, since it is, in my opinion, an admirable trait.

I get the feeling that you don't really know who I am.  Perhaps you've
put me into a box labelled "fundamentalist" (which it turns out I'm
not) or some other similar (in your mind) box.  Personally, the box I 
think I fit into best (if you really like boxes) is "truth seeker".  

Collis 

    Bob,(Mr.Moderator)
    	I was a little worried about some of the content in 24.6 but the
    last few lines were not my concern. I re-read them and still do not see
    anything hostile or offensive in them. They are a cool evaluation of
    the relative positions of two people on a subject and I never suggested
    either was wrong, only that they were different.
    
    Collis,
    	everybody who quotes a source takes quotes out of context. Too many
    people who use quotes from the Bible also use them in a way that the
    context does not support. I did not suggest that you were guilty of
    this fault, in fact I stated otherwise. 
    	I am not trying to make anyone angry, even those with whom I very
    much do not agree. Even those who write notes that suggest that I am an
    idolitor (Hi, Gil. Yes, you did). I do like to reflect people's words
    back at them from an unexpected angle, cast in an unsuspected light. It
    helps them re-order their thoughts and it helps me make my points. If I
    make you angry without getting you to think then we're going in the
    wrong direction.
    	As I told Karen in a personal message, I can only respect people
    who gather together to discuss philosophy and theology. That is what we
    are gathered together here to do and all those who came to hear as well
    as to speak are worth getting to know. If I push the wrong button, tell
    me what, why and "off". When I start noting with a frown rather than a
    smile then I'll stop noting.
    	OK?
    
    	We will now return you to your regular program "Literal
    Interpretation of the Bible", started by (somebody (else))

    The book of Job is generally accepted as a work of poetry, but
    poetry that tells a story and makes a point.
    
    In other words, it is doubtful that Job was an actual person.
    Yet, there is something of Job and his counselors in each of us.
    We all yearn for understanding in times of difficulty.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Dave,

I'm glad to hear that you were not accusing me of taking quotes of out
context.  It was not clear to me from what you wrote whether you were
or were not.

Re:  Taking quotes out of context

Well, yes, quoting something (and not quoting the entire context) is,
literally, taking quotes out of context.  However, that is not what the
phrase "taking a quote out of context" means 99% of the time.  What it
means is that a quote was taken used *inappropriately* to say something
that it did not say within the original context.

Re:  General indictment of those who quote the Bible

I find that indicting people in general and no one in particular for
an action usually does not accomplish a whole lot - at least that is
positive.  It generally leads to emotional discussions that are more
likely to be filled with labels and less likely to deal with the issues
at hand.  I'm sure that you can relate incidents from the past where you
feel that quotes were taken "out of context".  Perhaps they were.  But
if we are to reach an understanding and grow in *this* conference at
*this* time, we need to put aside (at least temporarily) our past experiences
and *talk* (or write, as the case may be) with one another in as open
an environment that we can manage.  Then the purposes of this conference
will be fulfilled.

Collis

re Note 24.14 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Re:  General indictment of those who quote the Bible
> 
> I find that indicting people in general and no one in particular for
> an action usually does not accomplish a whole lot - at least that is
> positive.  It generally leads to emotional discussions that are more
> likely to be filled with labels and less likely to deal with the issues
> at hand.  

        I heartily agree.

        Bob

    	I'm not sure if my comment "too many people ..." falls into this
    category but will accept the admonishment because "indicting people in
    general ... leads to emotional discussions ..." that are
    non-productive. I have no problem with emotional discussions, as long
    as they are mutually productive.
    	Point for contemplation: can you truely quote WITH context unless
    you include a cross-cultural reference ?  I find it helpful, in
    understanding what was being said, to know the relative cultural biases
    of the creating culture and the translating culture - as well as my
    own. Add the culture of the authority in question when such is
    involved. (Am I in a Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, or UU Church?)

I have no desire to quote out of context.  Likewise, I'm not going to
go to great pains to attempt to include fine points of context which may
not be necessary.

I will quote a phrase where it means generally the same thing whether
the surrounding context is there or not.  This is a standard for quoting
(since you can't get it to mean exactly the same thing without the
full context).

If the point of the quote is what stretches the boundaries, then the
context needs to be very carefully considered and discussed - and we can
do that.  Ordinarily, I think this is done when I quote like this.

But enough about quoting.

It appears from your comments that very few people are Bible "literalists"
since very few people believe the Bible says what you see it saying when
read from a literalist perspective.  How do you think the Bible should
be interpreted.  (Who knows, maybe we can be in violent agreement?)

Collis

In Note 59.48 by Marshall RAVEN1::Watkins, a reference is made to rules within
the Bible itself concerning correct interpretation:

>     When understanding the Bible we are given rules
>     by the Bible on how to study to come to the correct concept.  Those
>     rules are given, yes, in Isaiah.  Line upon line, precept upon precept,
>     here a little and there a little.  

        Isaiah 28:7-13 (Sorry Marshall, not from the KJV, but the NAB):

        "But these also stagger from wine
        and stumble from strong drink:
        Priest and prophet stagger from strong drink,
        overpowered by wine;
        Led astray by strong drink,
        staggering in their visions,
        tottering when giving judgment.
        Yes, all the tables 
        are covered with filthy vomit,
        with no place left clean.
        'To whom would he impart knowledge?
        To whom would he convey the message?
        To those just weaned from milk,
        those taken from the breast?
        For he says,
        "Command on command, command on command,
        rule on rule, rule on rule,
        here a little, there a little!"'
        Yes, with stammering lips and in a strange language
        he will speak to his people to whom he said:
        This is the resting place, give rest to the weary;
        here is repose--but they would not listen.
        So for them the word of the Lord shall be:
        'Command on command, command on command,
        rule on rule, rule on rule,
        here a little, there a little!'
        So that when they walk, they stumble backward,
        broken, ensnared, and captured."

    LUKE 9:27
    
    [Jesus speaking] "I assure you that there are some here who will not
    die until they have seen the Kingdom of God."