Should the Bible be Read Literally?
By Keiti | February 20, 2008
I tend to get frustrated with people who read the Bible literally – mostly because I believe it blinds them to the overall importance of what is contained in the Bible. As stated in my previous TBatM post, it all comes down to not being able to see the forest for the trees.
I’m not saying none of the Bible should be read literally, but I think it takes a discerning eye to determine which passages should be taken in a literal context and which passages should be viewed as allegory. Am I an expert? Absolutely not. But I do want to share with you the reasons I believe the overall impact of the Bible is far more important than a strict literal interpretation.
Having once been fluent in both English and German, I have experienced the translation issues firsthand. Some things simply do not translate well or do not have a literal translation into another language. The best one can do is to find the closest meaning. Initially, the Bible was translated from the original Hebrew Bible into Greek and Latin, then down the line to English.
It’s difficult enough to maintain the original meanings from one language to another, but when a translation is beyond the second generation, it brings about a whole host of issues. Now, modern English language Bibles are translated directly from the original language, which brings us closer to the original meanings, but, again, translation comes down to who is doing the translation and their own thoughts and ideas on how the translations should be, well, translated. This, itself, gives us many options to choose from.
The second issue I have with a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible is the fact that even though it was divinely inspired by God, it was written by man. As we all know, human beings are imperfect and because of that the biblical writings fall prey to the personal viewpoints and human fallibility of each writer, not to mention the social mores under which the books of the Bible were written. I’ve always said that taking into mind the social context under which any literature was written is important, and I do consider the Bible to be a work of literature.
Lastly, there are the issues of inconsistencies, of which there are many throughout the Bible. I’ll be posting a blog about one such inconsistency in a well-known story from the Bible in the near future.
But the question is do any of the above take away from the overall intent and importance of the Bible?
Not in my book. As a matter of fact, I think taking a literal interpretation is what takes away from the overall intent and importance. Sometimes the bigger picture is more important and should take precedence.
Topics: The Bible According to Misfit |
February 20th, 2008 at 5:33 am
Ha, ha, ha. I’ve been waiting for this one.
What you are left with in the creation stories of the Bible is in fact that anything, and everything belongs to Being - words are alive as are objects as we experience them in thought. If you take Bible literally you are in effect paying respect to Being through a god - there’s an attempt to deliver the positive of Being through the story.
I’ve been struggling with the clarity in expressing the underlying issues here as they relate to modern quantum physics and the ’self’ and finally, after years of saying everything but the point at hand, I’m slowly getting a grip on it. Life as we experience it consciously is either a human activity or it is an activity of existence itself. If you believe in the individual existence, as it is delivered through ‘your’ act of consciousness - reason as it is the understanding - then truth remains perceptual and something that can be tested and judged - but this has its problems. Namely that science has already shown that time and space do not exist in physical reality. So in essence, you’re using the scientific method to support your own existence but science has since revealed the method to be inadequate and to even be a fallacy.
Oddly enough, modern quantum physics would support the literal interpretation of the bible - although most physicists wouldn’t formulate it like this, only because they have their own truly bizarre stories of existence. The act of consciousness, as it is the starting point for all theoretical endeavors, is no longer ‘human’. This is why they call them ‘quantum events’ and not experiments. Without ‘human consciousness’ being the first act itself, there is no longer constants in time and space. Reality of past, present and future, like it is for the Princeton Quantum Physicist, Professor York, as it is no longer represented by finite physical reality (as even a possibility) can be altered only by thought. You remember that Carl Sagan movie with Jody Foster? She visits aliens in a completely ethereal experience…
When we think, as it delivers us into existence, now appears to be ‘human’ or of ‘individuality’ but according to the modern theories, this act of thinking belongs only to thought itself - Being. What is expressed is simply the positive nature in Being. To not be is an impossibility. It’s a little bit hard to grasp this because anytime you interject a reference to something spatially or temporally, you are in truth only referring to what you believe to be ‘your’ act of consciousness. Unfortunately, what happens when you do this, you have to negate Being - which is an impossibility. Hence the catalyst for the human condition.
A fundamentalist, and I’ve never known a Muslim to fall into this category (even the suicide bombers do not) is confusing The Act of Being as it is thought only revealing the positive, to be something ‘human’. The moment the positive is formulated into a ‘human’ experience, it takes on the aspect of absolute negation - to be ‘of human’ and not ‘of being’ requires an abstraction or removal from existence - an illusion.
What you are left with in the creation stories of the Bible, is in fact, anything, and everything belongs to Being - words are alive as are objects as we experience them in thought. If you take Bible literally you are in effect paying respect to Being through a god - there’s an attempt to deliver the positive of Being through the story.
The God is what ‘human’ confuses To Be. In effect, by denying the contextual sense of experience, you are annihilating existence for your ’self’. What seems to prosper through this dialogue is material objectivity. In today’s world we know it as ‘consumerism’ and many people are feeling the effects of its disconnectedness (at least I am). American radical fundamentalist Christians seem to not want to acknowledge life first and they wan their God to be Existence (Being) - the Anne Coulters, Bill O’Reillys and so on see the material existence of truth but it’s a truth that pays no respect to life but only to itself - hence the champions of Individualism. It’s easy to understand why Muslims don’t fall into this trap because they acknowledge Christ as a prophet and a prophet is a messenger of Being. Allah would not necessarily be ‘of human’ but rather ‘of existence’ and this is a huge difference. In Catholicism the Church is the body of Christ and as such, the rituals and practices must be observed - and not the illusionary individual. Your Martin Luther was in this sense an abomination of Existence (he was radical) but on the same token his delivery of existence is quite powerful so he’s kind of a two headed monster. Americans have a tendency to think radicalism comes in literal interpretation - but this is false. There’s a confusion between radicalism and fundamentalism. Radical is paying no respect to Existence and fundamentalism is acknowledging existence in every fundamental essence. This is why Hitler’s acts were not of ‘evil’ because his acts can only be ‘of existence’ - or positive. I know you want to believe that you know of absolute right and wrong but there’s no need to justify existence. Existence is the only act. This is not to say that a person shouldn’t find one’s self in beliefs, morals and values, but the difference is in the acceptance or the denial of existence as it is not of the individual - the scientific method is, thank the gods, dead.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I should have known you’d be creeping around in the shadows waiting to pounce…stealth punk/philosopher/quantum physics guy…gotta love it.
You’ll have to excuse my lack of argument tonight - it’s been a bear of a day and I’m off to hibernate…which means getting some writing done and taking my frustration at ridiculous people out on paper.
A girl’s gotta do what a girl’s gotta do.