[OPEN]Plain/literal reading? or reading into?

[Pats]

I have been exchanges many different posts with people of many different belief systems including, but not limited to, atheists, Jews, TEs, creationists, etc. on how Genesis is interpreted. I realize it’s kind of a loose OP for the OT forum, since that’s mainly what we discuss.

But I am particularly interested in nailing down some specific issues with how Genesis was interpreted historically. I think the historical interpretation is important and has great value. I mean, what POV might we best view the scriptures through if not those whom it was originally authored it and to whom it first addressed?

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24708107&postcount=17

This poster has suggested that a literal reading of Genesis is not an “interpretation.” Rather, those of us reading anything other than what the plain language says are the only ones adding interpretation. I’d like to hear a fuller discussion on this.

My opening line of thought on this is that you cannot read scripture without interpretation.
If you are reading a modernized, English version of the Torah, you are already starting with an interpretation. Learning the history of the document is vital to understand what proverbial “lens” the author and original audience were viewing it from. Additionally, we add our modern knowledge of things we’ve learned since it was written and interpretations are formed. I don’t see how it is possible to read any holy book whether it be the Torah, Koran, or any number of other holy documents without interpreting them, or any piece of real literature for that matter.

I mean, even Dr Suess has more than one interpretation for some of his fiction which is based entirely on fictitious circumstances yet is chalked full of historical political references and morals children can apply to their lives today. Applying a literal interpretation based on a plain reading of Yertle the Turtle is absurd. (Suessian… new sub-cult… hmm…) But, I digress…

 

[artybloke]

My opening line of thought on this is that you cannot read scripture without interpretation.

I think this has a further corollary:

because we can none of us entirely step out of our own paradigm of thought and into another paradigm of thought (from the 21st Century to the 1st Century, for instance), all readings are necessarily provisional and incomplete.

I know, I know... but what about the Holy Spirit? some say. But how do you tell the difference between the Holy Spirit and your own internal thought processes or the strong influence of the church you go to or the world you're brought up in?

"You just can" is not an answer. "It agrees with what my pastor/priest says" is not an answer.

Uncertainty is built into our humanity. We can have a certain amount of conviction that our interpretation is the best; but we cannot have absolute cast-iron proof.

"Accept the possibility that you may be wrong" as the Quaker book Questions and Counsel puts it.

 

[Pats]

I think this has a further corollary:

because we can none of us entirely step out of our own paradigm of thought and into another paradigm of thought (from the 21st Century to the 1st Century, for instance), all readings are necessarily provisional and incomplete.

I know, I know... but what about the Holy Spirit? some say. But how do you tell the difference between the Holy Spirit and your own internal thought processes or the strong influence of the church you go to or the world you're brought up in?

"You just can" is not an answer. "It agrees with what my pastor/priest says" is not an answer.

Uncertainty is built into our humanity. We can have a certain amount of conviction that our interpretation is the best; but we cannot have absolute cast-iron proof.

"Accept the possibility that you may be wrong" as the Quaker book Questions and Counsel puts it.

I couldn't agree more I think this goes for interpreting the Bible from Origins Theology to theism vs atheism.

 

[shernren]

because we can none of us entirely step out of our own paradigm of thought and into another paradigm of thought (from the 21st Century to the 1st Century, for instance), all readings are necessarily provisional and incomplete.

While I agree, I would have to add that this does not mean that they are inadequate. I believe the Bible was written such that even our provisional and incomplete readings are sufficient to communicate the necessities of the gospel and the character of God.

 

[stumpjumper]

But I am particularly interested in nailing down some specific issues with how Genesis was interpreted historically. I think the historical interpretation is important and has great value. I mean, what POV might we best view the scriptures through if not those whom it was originally authored it and to whom it first addressed?

I bought this book just the other day at a used bookstore: Philo's Complete Works

One of his best works was titled On Allegory

 

[artybloke]

While I agree, I would have to add that this does not mean that they are inadequate. I believe the Bible was written such that even our provisional and incomplete readings are sufficient to communicate the necessities of the gospel and the character of God.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[Pats]

So, how would you answer some claiming that TEs just add information gained from science to "twist" the scriptures into something they don't say? some one claiming a literal translation is the only "real" reading?

 

[shernren]

Wilfully forcing a contradiction between modern science and scripture (atheism) is as much an interpretive choice as trying to find middle ground between modern science and scripture.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=23982470&postcount=55

It's telling that the same article which tries to refute a beloved creationist idea can be used to defend the Bible against atheist attack. Who's siding who, now?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So, how would you answer some claiming that TEs just add information gained from science to "twist" the scriptures into something they don't say? some one claiming a literal translation is the only "real" reading?

It is a long, slow process, dealing with someone like that. Once one picks up a “my way or the highway” attitude like that no argument, no matter how logical, well reasoned, scientifically backed or scriptural, is going to have an immediate result.

That is why I try to “Believe” as few things as possible. I have opinions and thoughts on many issues, but few “Beliefs”. An opinion or thought is more open to correction and change, a “Belief” is not.

 

[Pats]

It is a long, slow process, dealing with someone like that. Once one picks up a “my way or the highway” attitude like that no argument, no matter how logical, well reasoned, scientifically backed or scriptural, is going to have an immediate result.

Well, it's not really a matter of convincing some one else, so much as having a logical answer.

That is why I try to “Believe” as few things as possible. I have opinions and thoughts on many issues, but few “Beliefs”. An opinion or thought is more open to correction and change, a “Belief” is not.

Willtor has a great blog page about that. I agree that it is best for Christians to express what we "agree with" rather than to go around claiming to "believe in" this or that.

 

[OObi]

There is never anykind of instruction in the Bible as to how we are supposed to read it. Meaning, it nevers tells us "this is metaphorical, and this is literal."

So, let us use a process of elimination. Of course we are going to start with the premise that the Bible is true, and not contradicting.

At first it can go either of 3 ways. The first being that you take everything literally. The next being you take everything metaphorically. The last being you take a mixture of the two. Does everyone agree that those are the only options? I don't see anymore.

The first can't be right because we encounter verse that talk about the corners of the earth and the earth being on pillars. If we read these verses literally, then they would be lying, so we wouldn't know where else in the Bible they had lied. So it all falls apart.

The next, if you take everything metaphorically, then again you fall into a trap. You do because you wouldn't know for a fact what it was metaphorically speaking about. For example, the verses pertaining to Yeshua's death and ressurection would not be concrete evidence of His death and ressurection. Everyone everywhere would be saying "NO! YOU'VE INTERPRETED IT WRONG!! LISTEN TO ME!!" So again, we all fall apart.

The last one it seems is the only option. But wait, we can even hack and slash this option down into options. This option leaves open two options. The first being you read everything metaphorically untill you come to something that can be read as literal. The next is you read everything literally untill you come to a contradiction in logic, then you know it is metaphorical.

For the first one, that can't work. And here's why. Again, we would have the same problem of people saying "That isn't literal, it is metaphorical". And everyone would say that, and we'd never know for sure because it is so easy to get something wrong if it was that way. The only other way from this is to have some sort of group that says they know what and how to interpert scripture. For example, the Catholic church, the Watchtower, and all those people like that. They claim to have this "insight". Know, that could be the case, but how would we know they are telling the truth? We would have to examine their pasts and see if they have always had the truth, or if they are constantly changing, so on and so forth. Since no organization like that exists, where everything they have said has been constant, there is no one with "insight" into the scriptures.

The next option is very valid. It is valid because you don't have to worry about interpretations, or opinions or anything like that. All you have to worry about is logic, and those rules apply and are the same for everyone. For example, when the Bible talks about Abrahams's Bosom, we know that men didn't literally go into the breasts of Abraham when they died!! So we know that this is being metaphorical.


So, knowing this, is it a logical contradiction in Genesis? Does it defy logic to say that the earth and everything was created in 6 days? I'm not asking if it defies science, I'm asking about logic. Is it beyond comprehension? NO! It is very plain and straightforward and completely reasonable. So, we know that when the Bible speaks in Genesis it is being literal and not metaphorical. There is no other way to interpret the scripture. Whether or not you study to try and contradict that, or aid it, is up to you.

Shalom, OObi

 

[Pats]

Hi OObi.

I pretty much followed along with you up until here:

So, knowing this, is it a logical contradiction in Genesis? Does it defy logic to say that the earth and everything was created in 6 days? I'm not asking if it defies science, I'm asking about logic. Is it beyond comprehension? NO! It is very plain and straightforward and completely reasonable. So, we know that when the Bible speaks in Genesis it is being literal and not metaphorical. There is no other way to interpret the scripture. Whether or not you study to try and contradict that, or aid it, is up to you.

It does contradict the evidence. So, what then? by your logic?

 

[Mallon]

I'm with Pats. First you say...

The first can't be right because we encounter verse that talk about the corners of the earth and the earth being on pillars. If we read these verses literally, then they would be lying, so we wouldn't know where else in the Bible they had lied. So it all falls apart.

Then you say...

So, knowing this, is it a logical contradiction in Genesis? Does it defy logic to say that the earth and everything was created in 6 days? I'm not asking if it defies science, I'm asking about logic. Is it beyond comprehension? NO! It is very plain and straightforward and completely reasonable. So, we know that when the Bible speaks in Genesis it is being literal and not metaphorical. There is no other way to interpret the scripture.

Just as science has determined the earth to be round, so too has it determined the earth to be old and not literally formed in six days. What then? Do we accept that science that contradicts the Bible's description of the shape of the earth, but reject that science that contradicts the Bible's description of the age of the earth? Or is the creation story meant to be another allegory by which God tells us our place in life?

 

[Pats]

Just as science has determined the earth to be round, so too has it determined the earth to be old and not literally formed in six days. What then? Do we accept that science that contradicts the Bible's description of the shape of the earth, but reject that science that contradicts the Bible's description of the age of the earth? Or is the creation story meant to be another allegory by which God tells us our place in life?

I asked about the interpretation of the Torah's depiction of creation in the Kosher Jew Thread. They were very helpful, and it would seem the majority of them aren't YECs. They take the Torah to be teaching "who" God is, and not "how" or "why" He did things.

 

[OObi]

It does contradict the evidence. So, what then? by your logic?

With the those other verses, it is a clear fact that they can't be literal because of what we know. There is a difference here between those verses and Genesis. Those verses say A and science says not A so we need to rethink what those verses are implying, whether it really is A or not.

Genesis says A and science says... fill in the blank. We don't have concrete evidence for anything.

The point I'm trying to make here is that since the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days, shouldn't we all be trying to find evidence to show how that is true? I'm not talking about living in ignorance and not facing facts. What I'm saying is that the Bible is making a claim, and I see many Christians not trying to defend it, but in most cases work against it!

I say that Christians should all be trying to wrok towards establishing creation. If the evidence turns out that creation as described in Genesis isn't the answer, then we can reconfigure our doctrine. What does it mean if it does happen? It means we were wrong, big deal, like it hasn't happend before. It doesn't mean that the Bible was wrong, it means that man's falliable opinion was wrong.

What I'm saying is that since the Bible makes this claim, and all evidence and talk around this claim is shaky, why aren't we fighting to protect the Bible?

Shalom, OObi

 

[Mallon]

With the those other verses, it is a clear fact that they can't be literal because of what we know. There is a difference here between those verses and Genesis. Those verses say A and science says not A so we need to rethink what those verses are implying, whether it really is A or not. Genesis says A and science says... fill in the blank. We don't have concrete evidence for anything.

Couldn't agree less. Science is saying "NOT A" loud and clear! It's the evolution-denyers who claim otherwise because they are holding to disproven science in an attempt to bolster their faith.

The point I'm trying to make here is that since the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days, shouldn't we all be trying to find evidence to show how that is true?

No, because: (1) that's not how the scientific method works (we don't start with a conclusion and then accept only that evidence that supports it), and (2) this was already done hundreds of years ago and was shown to be faulty time and again.

I say that Christians should all be trying to wrok towards establishing creation.

I say that Christians should all be trying to work towards establishing truth. If the creation story isn't literally true, which is what science seems to be saying loud and clear, then why do we cling to old myth so desperately? We gave up long ago clinging to the idea of a flat earth.

 

[Assyrian]

I think Jesus taught his disciples how to recognise metaphors and parables simply through familiarity. He would launch into an account of some event, a man being mugged on the road to Jericho, or make outrageous claims, I am a gate, or 'you have to eat me'. Sometimes he explained that they were parable, other times he expected his disciple to keep up.

We should also learn to recognise parables, metaphor and allegories in scripture, not by a set of rules, but by familiarity. This is scarier. Rules make life easier and we can be confident in them - even when they are wrong.

I think we can also look at how the rest of scripture interprets a passage. For example in Gen 3, there is no suggestion that the temptation comes from anything other than a snake. From the start of the chapter where it is introduced, to its curse, and the promise of a redeemer who would crush the snake's head, there isn't even a hint that it is anything other than a very wise animal.

Yet we see in Ezek 28, the image of a jewel encrusted guardian cherub in Eden, in Jesus claim that Satan was the father of lies, and Revelation's revelation of Satan as the ancient serpent, that story of the snake in Genesis 3 was all about a fallen angel.

If we look at the gospels, Jesus fulfilled the promise of a Messiah in Gen 3, but he never actually stepped on a snakes head, his heel was never bitten by a poisonous reptile, though this is what the literal text of Genesis 3 said would happen, without any suggestion in the narrative that it was figurative. Whether there was an actual Adam and Eve is another question, but the account of them being tempted by a snake is pure parable or allegory.

 

[USincognito]

The plain reading is that the language of Genesis 1 is poetic. Even the "evening and morning" parts cited by literalists make it all the more clear to me that it's meant to be a peotic teaching narrative, not a historical text.

 

[Pats]

The plain reading is that the language of Genesis 1 is poetic. Even the "evening and morning" parts cited by literalists make it all the more clear to me that it's meant to be a peotic teaching narrative, not a historical text.

Here's a link that explains that Genesis ch. 1 is a written as a poem as indicated by the language of the passage.

 

[jereth]

The plain reading is that the language of Genesis 1 is poetic. Even the "evening and morning" parts cited by literalists make it all the more clear to me that it's meant to be a peotic teaching narrative, not a historical text.

Similarly, the plain reading of Genesis 2-3 demonstrates that Genesis 2-3 are symbolic, metaphorical chapters.

NB. "plain reading" does not equal "kindergarten reading", as YECists so frequently insist. The Scriptures were written for adults, not kindergarten kids.