Literal Biblical Interpretation Question...

[BrownCharlie]

Well, first of all, I'm obviously a relatively new member, and I came because I'm interested in hearing an answer to this question. While I don't believe the Bible to necessarily be literally true from cover to cover, I've always entertained that as a possibility, and have always been able to justify that perspective from a Biblical standpoint.

Anyway, I came across an interesting argument that seems to, at least to an extent, refute the validity of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm really not interested in debating it, but I'm very interested in hearing an answer, since it has me stumped. I'm sure its not the first time its been brought up, but I wasn't able to find a post that addresses it in my (albeit brief) search.

So!

I'll begin with several assumptions that I think most believers will agree with.

A. God is perfect
B. The Bible was created by God
C. The Bible is a description of God's will, and is therefore perfect.
D. Man is imperfect.
E. Therefore, an imperfect man can never perfectly interpret the Bible, no matter how perfect it may be.

For the sake of this scenario, I'm willing to agree that for the most part, man's literal interpretation is correct. However, following this logic, it is undeniable that no literal interpretation of the Bible constructed by a human being can be perfect. (Unless of course someone, by pure dumb luck, just happened to pick the correct one.). If no one interpretation is perfect, then it would force one to admit the possibility of the validity of multiple interpretations of the Bible.

I'll not draw any more conclusions. All I'm interested in knowing is, is that a fair assesment and if anyone here disagree with that line of thought?

 

[Merlin]

It's a possibility of any interpretation being in error.

 

[talitha]

Yes, it's possible - here's one problem - we tend to want a fixed interpretation of every word, thought, and idea - but the Word of God is living, breathing, moving.

 

[gaweatherford]

Well, first of all, I'm obviously a relatively new member, and I came because I'm interested in hearing an answer to this question. While I don't believe the Bible to necessarily be literally true from cover to cover, I've always entertained that as a possibility, and have always been able to justify that perspective from a Biblical standpoint.

Anyway, I came across an interesting argument that seems to, at least to an extent, refute the validity of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm really not interested in debating it, but I'm very interested in hearing an answer, since it has me stumped. I'm sure its not the first time its been brought up, but I wasn't able to find a post that addresses it in my (albeit brief) search.

So!

I'll begin with several assumptions that I think most believers will agree with.

A. God is perfect
B. The Bible was created by God
C. The Bible is a description of God's will, and is therefore perfect.
D. Man is imperfect.
E. Therefore, an imperfect man can never perfectly interpret the Bible, no matter how perfect it may be.

For the sake of this scenario, I'm willing to agree that for the most part, man's literal interpretation is correct. However, following this logic, it is undeniable that no literal interpretation of the Bible constructed by a human being can be perfect. (Unless of course someone, by pure dumb luck, just happened to pick the correct one.). If no one interpretation is perfect, then it would force one to admit the possibility of the validity of multiple interpretations of the Bible.

I'll not draw any more conclusions. All I'm interested in knowing is, is that a fair assesment and if anyone here disagree with that line of thought?

It really depends on which parts of the Bible are being challenged for being valid interpretations. Some of the Bible's settings are parables, analogies, metaphors, poems, etc., but: the meat of the Bible uses proofs to cause no doubts to the correct interpretations and guides us by unfolding authenic parts for an original plan that can be viewed, judged and scrutinized by any means of check and balance. You are right though. I agree. No one is perfect enough to interpret the Bible without error. This was proven at Christ advent into the world as Messiah. Judism "literally" interpreted the scriptures in Jesus day, and based on their expectations for their translations, said Jesus was not the Messiah. The Pharisees and Sadducees of Christ time thought (and wanted) the true Messiah to be a blood thirsty vindicater for the Israelites. When in fact, the Messiah was a vindicater for the whole world (not just all Israelites) and he was the opposite of a war time hero.That event in the life of man taught us to never run away with the ball, never put all your eggs in one basket and never to be stubborn when choosing to interpret literally. Sometimes it takes more space for time to unravel before we can fine tune our understanding and interpretation of the Bible. We learn as we grow. We have to crawl before we walk. Based on what we've learned in the past thus far about God and the Bible, through trial and error and mistake interpretations, we have a much better outlook on how to properly interpret the Bible and what is meant to be taken literally and what is not.

 

[Cleany]

Well, first of all, I'm obviously a relatively new member, and I came because I'm interested in hearing an answer to this question. While I don't believe the Bible to necessarily be literally true from cover to cover, I've always entertained that as a possibility, and have always been able to justify that perspective from a Biblical standpoint.

Anyway, I came across an interesting argument that seems to, at least to an extent, refute the validity of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm really not interested in debating it, but I'm very interested in hearing an answer, since it has me stumped. I'm sure its not the first time its been brought up, but I wasn't able to find a post that addresses it in my (albeit brief) search.

So!

I'll begin with several assumptions that I think most believers will agree with.

A. God is perfect
B. The Bible was created by God
C. The Bible is a description of God's will, and is therefore perfect.
D. Man is imperfect.
E. Therefore, an imperfect man can never perfectly interpret the Bible, no matter how perfect it may be.

For the sake of this scenario, I'm willing to agree that for the most part, man's literal interpretation is correct. However, following this logic, it is undeniable that no literal interpretation of the Bible constructed by a human being can be perfect. (Unless of course someone, by pure dumb luck, just happened to pick the correct one.). If no one interpretation is perfect, then it would force one to admit the possibility of the validity of multiple interpretations of the Bible.

I'll not draw any more conclusions. All I'm interested in knowing is, is that a fair assesment and if anyone here disagree with that line of thought?

the idea that the bible can be read as "literally true" means that god must have prepared it this way.

now look at the world, look at the lives of people, christians included. look at your experiences of life. does it make sense that god would make the bible like this, some sort of easy straight answer, available to everyone, when there is no evidence whatsoever for god working in this way?

isnt it really the most extreme form of wishful thinking to suppose that given the nature of the world and the people in it that god would make a book contrary to that nature?

isnt it more likely that the bible is a book with errors and truths in just like any other historical religious book. yet, it is special because it has the founding history of our religion in it. still a special book because christians use it all the time, and god does speak to us through it (this would be limited by a literal interpretation with one meaning). is it necessary to believe that a book as valuable and special as the bible must be "without error" to be able to be beneficial?

the world, god, and people are all too complicated, and too wonderful to be able to be measured down to some set of logical statements, and simplistic and superstitious beliefs about a holy book.

 

[tapero]

A. God is perfect
B. The Bible was created by God
C. The Bible is a description of God's will, and is therefore perfect.
D. Man is imperfect.
E. Therefore, an imperfect man can never perfectly interpret the Bible, no matter how perfect it may be.

The bible was written by man given by God as inspired through the Holy Spirit. All that is in the bible that is about God's will is good and truth. Man is imperfect. We can't seem to all come to the same conclusions about scripture because we don't yet fully understand as we will when we see in full what we now see in part.

I know I didn't answer them directly, but I did the best I could. Tapero

 

[Im_A]

Well, first of all, I'm obviously a relatively new member, and I came because I'm interested in hearing an answer to this question. While I don't believe the Bible to necessarily be literally true from cover to cover, I've always entertained that as a possibility, and have always been able to justify that perspective from a Biblical standpoint.

Anyway, I came across an interesting argument that seems to, at least to an extent, refute the validity of a literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm really not interested in debating it, but I'm very interested in hearing an answer, since it has me stumped. I'm sure its not the first time its been brought up, but I wasn't able to find a post that addresses it in my (albeit brief) search.

So!

I'll begin with several assumptions that I think most believers will agree with.

A. God is perfect
B. The Bible was created by God
C. The Bible is a description of God's will, and is therefore perfect.
D. Man is imperfect.
E. Therefore, an imperfect man can never perfectly interpret the Bible, no matter how perfect it may be.

For the sake of this scenario, I'm willing to agree that for the most part, man's literal interpretation is correct. However, following this logic, it is undeniable that no literal interpretation of the Bible constructed by a human being can be perfect. (Unless of course someone, by pure dumb luck, just happened to pick the correct one.). If no one interpretation is perfect, then it would force one to admit the possibility of the validity of multiple interpretations of the Bible.

I'll not draw any more conclusions. All I'm interested in knowing is, is that a fair assesment and if anyone here disagree with that line of thought?

all i can say is, you add in the ingredient of a Gentile Christian trying to understand ancient jewish/judeo-Christian thought written from a long time ago, will lead to this issue. i agree with your supposition, but i believe the conclusion will be seen in the afterlife to its fullest. just those of us alive now, only see dimly through a mirror now.

then you add in the ingredient of wanting to prove your (your using very freely btw meaning i'm not directing this at you, but using broadly) view of the world, life, the supernatural, it is easy to come different conclusions. why else would there be still debates over issues that supposed councils figured out centuries ago?

so the possibility of all the interpretations being true, is, i believe right, because the conclusion isn't here yet. for the life of a believer/seeker, i guess we all left up to being at peace with what we believe, and living the life to fullest, instead of constantly focusing on a dim/broken mirror that we can only see dimly through.

God Bless you! <><