We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[AV1611VET]

See #231. It would also need the text to be interpreted as being intended to be taken literally (which it gives every indication of not being).

I disagree.

The point here is that interpreting ANYTHING, be it the Bible or Humpty Dumpty, literally resolves a lot of ambiguity from others who would interpret them allegorically.

Let's use Humpty Dumpty as an example.

Joe: Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Jeff: Ya, but "wall" is "chair" in Swahili.
Jane: "Sat" is "danced" in Farci.
Jack: "On" is "in" in Chinese.

You get the idea.

 

[Astrid]

Haven't read it, but I've looked over a couple of commentaries... and I'm unimpressed.

Darwin isn't the prophet of evolution if his every idea was mistaken and every word was a deliberate lie then it wouldn't remove the evidence for evolution.

Can you present actual logical problems with the theory of evolution, not word choice problems and out of context quotes from a book that have been superseded by new evidence and new ideas for more than a century?

Of course not

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I disagree.

The point here is that interpreting ANYTHING, be it the Bible or Humpty Dumpty, literally resolves a lot of ambiguity from others who would interpret them allegorically.

Let's use Humpty Dumpty as an example.

Joe: Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Jeff: Ya, but "wall" is "chair" in Swahili.
Jane: "Sat" is "danced" in Farci.
Jack: "On" is "in" in Chinese.

You get the idea.

Exactly - it resolves ambiguity only for the individual interpreting. For the bible, the various languages and translations are a major part of the interpretation problem, whether taken literally or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly - it resolves ambiguity only for the individual interpreting. For the bible, the various languages and translations are a major part of the interpretation problem, whether taken literally or not.

Again, I'm going to have to disagree.

And I think this can be tested:

1. Put ten people with ten different backgrounds in ten rooms.
2. Have them read and interpret Genesis 1: first literally, then over literally, then allegorically.
3. Compare the interpretations.

I submit the overliteralists would be closest in agreement, followed by the literalists, followed by the allegoricalists.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I disagree.

The point here is that interpreting ANYTHING, be it the Bible or Humpty Dumpty, literally resolves a lot of ambiguity from others who would interpret them allegorically.

Let's use Humpty Dumpty as an example.

Joe: Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Jeff: Ya, but "wall" is "chair" in Swahili.
Jane: "Sat" is "danced" in Farci.
Jack: "On" is "in" in Chinese.

You get the idea.

Agreed -- interpreting everything literally is often the simplest solution to any conundrum.

But is the simplest solution always the correct one?

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed -- interpreting everything literally is often the simplest solution to any conundrum.

Wouldn't interpreting something over-literally be even simpler?

Like Estrid does, when she brings up Jesus not being a door?

But is the simplest solution always the correct one?

If over-literal is wrong, and allegorical is wrong, that leaves literal as the correct one.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If over-literal is wrong, and allegorical is wrong, that leaves literal as the correct one.

This is how you drive people away from Christianity, AV. Good work.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is how you drive people away from Christianity, AV. Good work.

You want me to increase my friend base by starting to tell everyone that Genesis 1 is allegorical?

Not gonna happen.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You want me to increase my friend base by starting to tell everyone that Genesis 1 is allegorical?

Nope -- just want to to show an interest in truth once in a while.

 

[ottawak]

You want me to increase my friend base by starting to tell everyone that Genesis 1 is allegorical?

Not gonna happen.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

No, all you have to do is acknowledge that figurative interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself and have been held by many reputable theologians throughout Christian history as being equally supportive of essential Chritian doctrine as literal interpretations. No one expects you to abandon a literal interpretation yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope -- just want to to show an interest in truth once in a while.

And how would you recognize it, if I did?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, all you have to do is acknowledge that figurative interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself and have been held by many reputable theologians throughout Christian history as being equally supportive of essential Chritian doctrine as literal interpretations. No one expects you to abandon a literal interpretation yourself.

I acknowledge that figurative interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself and have been held by many reputable theologians throughout Christian history as being equally supportive of essential Christian doctrine as literal interpretations are.

 

[ottawak]

I acknowledge that figurative interpretations of Genesis are as old as the book itself and have been held by many reputable theologians throughout Christian history as being equally supportive of essential Christian doctrine as literal interpretations are.

See how easy that was? Personally, I would be disappointed with you if you gave up biblical literalism at this point.

 

[AV1611VET]

See how easy that was? Personally, I would be disappointed with you if you gave up biblical literalism at this point.

Don't be so quick to approve of what I said.

Maybe you should go back and read what I wrote a little more slowly.

Let me ask you this:

Serious question: Will these "reputable theologians throughout Christian history" answer to God for their beliefs?

 

[TLK Valentine]

And how would you recognize it, if I did?

Most likely from the stark contrast from your usual spiel.

 

[ottawak]

Don't be so quick to approve of what I said.

Maybe you should go back and read what I wrote a little more slowly.

We take what we can get.

Let me ask you this:

Serious question: Will these "reputable theologians throughout Christian history" answer to God for their beliefs?

Of course--as we all will.

 

[AV1611VET]

We take what we can get.

Sounds desperate.

 

[ottawak]

Sounds desperate.

My only real objection to biblical literalism is the "You're not a real Christian unless you agree with my interpretation of Genesis" rants it leads some of our creationist colleagues to indulge in. For my part, I wouldn't like to have to answer to God for a belief like that.

 

[Psalm 27]

we're primates,

No we are not. Stop spreading false information.

 

[ottawak]

No we are not. Stop spreading false information.

We certainly resemble other primates.