Literal Translation of the Bible, (Where Applicable)?.?.?

[cvanwey]

I think you're confusing two questions:
* Was a section of the Bible intended to be literal
* Is it historically true.

There are books that are obviously poetry, so the answer is pretty clear. Jonah is pretty obviously a satire. But most of the books that look like history were presumably meant literally, i.e. not as symbolism, etc.

But you can have stories that aren't symbolic that still aren't historically accurate, or even meant to be. Most novels are intended as literal accounts, in the sense that they're narratives which aren't symbolic or otherwise non-literal, but they also didn't actually happen. Greek myths fall into this category. So do tribal legends.

How do you decide? Normally you know enough about history to tell what's a legend and what's history. Of course at times mistakes have been made (e.g. Troy). But generally it's clear that certain accounts are legends or perhaps myths.

In the case of the OT, we know from science that the creation stories are legends, and from archaeology that things before about Judges aren't straight history. That's not to say that there was no Abraham or Moses. But archaeologists (except those who are committed because of their religion to say that the Biblical accounts are true) are pretty confident in this.

The Gospels were written too near the time of the events to be legends. On the other hand, a comparison of the Gospels also makes it pretty clear that Jesus' words aren't verbatim recordings, though they may still record the substance of what he said. We also know from other historical records of the time that people tended to be pretty credulous about miracles, so there's reason for some skepticism about those. Note that I'm not saying that Jesus did no miracles, just that writers of the period tended to see miracles where we wouldn't.

These kinds of judgements are made routinely by historians, based on archaeology, internal literary evidence, other accounts from the same and nearby periods, etc. There's no reason other than special pleading not to use the same approach with the Bible.

I get what you are saying. I'm placing Christians here on a very high pedestal.... Meaning, 'you know what I mean'. I'm fully aware of parables and the like. I'm speaking more of the hot button topics - (young vs old earth, the flood claim, the Exodus, etc., as expressed from the Bible),

In regards to your assertion that the resurrection is real, I would love to hear why you feel this claim is credible? So if you would not mind, feel free to mosey over to the topic I created today coincidentally, entitled "What If..."

Thank you!

 

[hedrick]

Well, my message was to all viewers, and not just you But to respond... As I stated in my OP, I've spoken to 'hermeneutic experts', whom use the very same lines of scripture to argue opposing positions of a topic. Also, people are reading such claims as literal. So I really do not see how hermeneutics helps here....

I would love to hear what many of the other viewers, whom have yet to chime in provide a response?

Hermeneutics is precisely about the question you asked. So by definition it has to help, if you're to have any answer at all. But people disagree about hermeneutics. The biggest disagreement is between people who are committed to inerrancy for theological reasons, and those who use normal historical and literary methods.

 

[cvanwey]

I understand that you've had the opportunity to speak to hermeneutics experts (only two of them???), but quite frankly, that's not really telling me much. What did these guys say?

I actually spoke to many, from many differing churches. Most were 'young-earthers', and stated all text is very literal (who were also hermeneutic teachers). In fact, this was one of the first times I learned of this term/subject matter, a few years back. It was from this 'young-earthe' pastor, whom taught hermeneutics. Some were on the other side, (but far less). I even asked to have a meeting with two at the same time, interviewing and questioning two from the same church with opposing (young/old) translations. And wouldn't you know it, I would always receive some lame responses from such congregation. My favorite was, and I'm paraphrasing now..... 'He is my Christian brother, and I will not deliberately invite discourse into God's house.'

Moreover, there are different schools of Biblical Hermeneutics and we can't just act surprised that one biblical scholar may say one thing, and then a second one gives some other interpretation.

Yes, but only one can be right. So even assuming the Bible is God inspired, which one is right, and which one is wrong, especially when they are diametrically opposed in their positions?

That's enough of a response, as the rest might become overlap

 

[hedrick]

I get what you are saying. I'm placing Christians here on a very high pedestal.... Meaning, 'you know what I mean'. I'm fully aware of parables and the like. I'm speaking more of the hot button topics - (young vs old earth, the flood claim, the Exodus, etc., as expressed from the Bible),

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. There are Christians on both sides of those issues, largely depending upon whether they start out with inerrancy as a controlling principle. If so, considerations such as science, archaeology, and literature don't matter.

In regards to your assertion that the resurrection is real, I would love to hear why you feel this claim is credible? So if you would not mind, feel free to mosey over to the topic I created today coincidentally, entitled "What If..."

The best analysis I've seen of that is from N T Wright. Dealing with miracles is difficult, since we know that ancient authors tended to see them where it's unlikely that they happened. Wright argues in some detail, given knowledge of the time period, that in fact this particular miracle is not of the kind that ancient Jewish authors would have put in unless it actually happened. There's also Paul's description. He seems to have talked to a number of witnesses. It's still possible to say "but that's just credulous first century people," and many people do say that. But it's hard to explain the existence of the Christian Church without something like the resurrection. So I'm going say this particular miracle is pretty likely.

The main alternative is that lots of people experienced a resurrected Jesus without the tomb actually being empty. That would still be a resurrection, but not quite as Christians have understood it. If you don't accept even that, you're left what what I'd call conspiracy theory. (You know what I mean, right? Jesus never existed; the crucifixion was a fake, etc.)

 

[cvanwey]

Hermeneutics is precisely about the question you asked. So by definition it has to help, if you're to have any answer at all. But people disagree about hermeneutics. The biggest disagreement is between people who are committed to inerrancy for theological reasons, and those who use normal historical and literary methods.

Then let's compare the standards of hermeneutics to that of other claimed objective standards, like science or math for instance? Though I may be providing a deliberate slight false analogy, I think you get (my) position...? If God wished to convey 'truth' to the masses, it would seem logical to clarify using a universal standard, verses seemingly appearing to be the author of confusion.

 

[hedrick]

Then let's compare the standards of hermeneutics to that of other claimed objective standards, like science or math for instance? Though I may be providing a deliberate slight false analogy, I think you get (my) position...? If God wished to convey 'truth' to the masses, it would seem logical to clarify using a universal standard, verses seemingly appearing to be the author of confusion.

You can't use the scientific method for everything. History deals with individual events. Historians thus use different approaches. They still use evidence, but differently.

But is there a universal standard that applies throughout different time periods and culture? Furthermore, the nature of the Bible suggests that it's not God writing directly, but rather than he revealed himself through history, working with Israel and then sending Jesus. If he was welling to tell us what to believe directly, why bother to do this. Why isn't the Bible what conservatives want it to be, a list of laws and theological beliefs? Why act in history, and leave it to us to understand what he's up to, with guidance from the prophets and Jesus, of course. Why did Jesus teach mostly in parables and not a theological textbook?

All of this suggests that God is OK with ambiguity. Perhaps he's mostly trying to get us to have a particular kind of life and a particular kind of faith, and stories are the best way to do that.

 

[cvanwey]

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. There are Christians on both sides of those issues, largely depending upon whether they start out with inerrancy as a controlling principle. If so, considerations such as science, archaeology, and literature don't matter.

My point is fairly simple. The Bible makes a claim. If it is deemed a parable, that's one thing. But in the case for something like the claimed 'flood', I doubt this is the case. So if the flood did not actually happen, then where do we go from there honestly? The event is false, leading to questioning the other claims, which also lack evidence.

The best analysis I've seen of that is from N T Wright. Dealing with miracles is difficult, since we know that ancient authors tended to see them where it's unlikely that they happened. Wright argues in some detail, given knowledge of the time period, that in fact this particular miracle is not of the kind that ancient Jewish authors would have put in unless it actually happened. There's also Paul's description. He seems to have talked to a number of witnesses. It's still possible to say "but that's just credulous first century people," and many people do say that. But it's hard to explain the existence of the Christian Church without something like the resurrection. So I'm going say this particular miracle is pretty likely.

The main alternative is that lots of people experienced a resurrected Jesus without the tomb actually being empty. That would still be a resurrection, but not quite as Christians have understood it. If you don't accept even that, you're left what what I'd call conspiracy theory. (You know what I mean, right? Jesus never existed; the crucifixion was a fake, etc.)

You seem to be using the Lord, Lunatic, Liar argument. The problem is, there is one important (L) word unused... Legend. Then compare such a word with Alexander the Great or Hercules.

In regards to 'the existence of the Christian Church'. I answered this question already in my other post. Emperor Constantine allowed Christian worship, because he was a follower. This is one of the reasons why the believe flourished, instead of fading off into the sunset like many others in it's time.

In regards to these 'witnesses', are they documented, deposed, and corroborated? Or, are they instead second hand mentionings, from later non-eyewitnesses?

 

[cvanwey]

You can't use the scientific method for everything. History deals with individual events. Historians thus use different approaches. They still use evidence, but differently.

But is there a universal standard that applies throughout different time periods and culture? Furthermore, the nature of the Bible suggests that it's not God writing directly, but rather than he revealed himself through history, working with Israel and then sending Jesus. If he was welling to tell us what to believe directly, why bother to do this. Why isn't the Bible what conservatives want it to be, a list of laws and theological beliefs? Why act in history, and leave it to us to understand what he's up to, with guidance from the prophets and Jesus, of course. Why did Jesus teach mostly in parables and not a theological textbook?

All of this suggests that God is OK with ambiguity. Perhaps he's mostly trying to get us to have a particular kind of life and a particular kind of faith, and stories are the best way to do that.

One would seemingly have to assume this reality. Because to instead confront some of my very basic questions becomes somewhat uncomfortable.

Furthermore, like I stated in my response, I'm aware that science cannot be used for everything. I hope you instead read my point....

That the message is very ambiguous. But I feel it is now only so, because we have no choice to make it that way to explain the science which deliberately refutes such prior thought claims of fact from the Bible.

 

[hedrick]

My point is fairly simple. The Bible makes a claim. If it is deemed a parable, that's one thing. But in the case for something like the claimed 'flood', I doubt this is the case. So if the flood did not actually happen, then where do we go from there honestly? The event is false, leading to questioning the other claims, which also lack evidence.

The Bible is made up of many books, written over hundreds of years. The early OT, which if accurate happened thousands of years before it was written, is simply not the same thing historically as the NT, or even the parts of the OT written when records of the kings were still around.

By your criteria we would know nothing of ancient history, since all the writers that mention implausible miracles, or cite legends, would be completely ignored

 

[cvanwey]

The Bible is made up of many books, written over hundreds of years. The early OT, which if accurate happened thousands of years before it was written, is simply not the same thing historically as the NT, or even the parts of the OT written when records of the kings were still around.

By your criteria we would know nothing of ancient history, since all the writers that mention implausible miracles would be completely ignored

Yes, but did the flood happen EVER, or not?

 

[hedrick]

Yes, but did the flood happen EVER, or not?

I'm sure lots of floods happened. Not a global flood, no.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm sure lots of floods happened. Not a global flood, no.

So Genesis is wrong. There we go, that wasn't hard

 

[hedrick]

You seem to be using the Lord, Lunatic, Liar argument. The problem is, there is one important (L) word unused... Legend. Then compare such a word with Alexander the Great or Hercules.

Lewis' argument did in fact omit the possibility that Jesus never made those claims. He was aware of that. But Wright's argument is precisely whether it's plausible that the resurrection could have been a legend. He argues that it's not.

If you don't accept that, you're perfectly free to believe that the empty tomb was a later addition, and that originally there were simply resurrection experiences like Paul's. I think it's historically unlikely that Christianity could have happened without at least that. But Wright's argument that the resurrection isn't something that would have plausibly grown up as a legend seems at least reasonable.

 

[hedrick]

In regards to 'the existence of the Christian Church'. I answered this question already in my other post. Emperor Constantine allowed Christian worship, because he was a follower. This is one of the reasons why the believe flourished, instead of fading off into the sunset like many others in it's time.

Constantine is a few hundred years too late to be relevant. If you're interested in the accuracy of the resurrection accounts, you're asking about the 1st Cent. My point was that Christianity wouldn't even have gotten started without the resurrection. The skeptical view would be that the resurrection experiences were subjective.

At a certain point historians can't help you. In the end you'll have to decide whether religious experience is based on something real or not.

 

[cvanwey]

Lewis' argument did in fact omit the possibility that Jesus never made those claims. He was aware of that. But Wright's argument is precisely whether it's plausible that the resurrection could have been a legend. He argues that it's not.

If you don't accept that, you're perfectly free to believe that the empty tomb was a later addition, and that originally there were simply resurrection experiences like Paul's. I think it's historically unlikely that Christianity could have happened without at least that. But Wright's argument that the resurrection isn't something that would have plausibly grown up as a legend seems at least reasonable.

I do disagree, and let me tell you just a few reasons why...

Legend and embellishments....

- Read Mark 16:8
- Read the disclaimer footnote (from biblegateway.com), demonstrating how the verses after 16:8 are later additions
- Read Mark 16:9-20

****************

Admiring your rulers, 'I'd like to be like Mike'

And like I stated prior, Christianity flourished after Emperor Constantine allowed it. The Roman emperor was pretty influential, even on it's decline.

*******************

CLaims of the supernatural was pretty mundane during this time period specically

In regards to Sal, he had a revelation in the desert, by himself. This is nothing unusual for this day and age.

*****************

Eyewitness definition please?

Aside from Sal claiming to be a first hand eyewitness, what other ones do we actually have, and how do they actually stack up as actual eyewitnesses, verses hearsay?

******************

etc..................

 

[cvanwey]

Constantine is a few hundred years too late to be relevant. If you're interested in the accuracy of the resurrection accounts, you're asking about the 1st Cent. My point was that Christianity wouldn't even have gotten started without the resurrection. The skeptical view would be that the resurrection experiences were subjective.

At a certain point historians can't help you. In the end you'll have to decide whether religious experience is based on something real or not.

Constantine is relevant. Many argue how Christianity exploded. It only exploded after Constantine, in the 4th century. Prior to that, it was underground and obscure, using Jesus fish symbols as code signs for the few whom believed.

 

[hedrick]

Constantine is relevant. Many argue how Christianity exploded. It only exploded after Constantine, in the 4th century. Prior to that, it was underground and obscure, using Jesus fish symbols as code signs for the few whom believed.

Probably not. This article has a better estimate. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/7214/1/7214a.pdf (I'm citing it for the maps. The text isn't anything special.) I’ve seen similar estimates elsewhere. Except for a couple of comparatively brief periods, persecution was localized and sporatic. The fish code signs are a great story for Sunday School, but misrepresents what was actually going on by the time of Constantine.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I actually spoke to many, from many differing churches. Most were 'young-earthers', and stated all text is very literal (who were also hermeneutic teachers). In fact, this was one of the first times I learned of this term/subject matter, a few years back. It was from this 'young-earthe' pastor, whom taught hermeneutics. Some were on the other side, (but far less). I even asked to have a meeting with two at the same time, interviewing and questioning two from the same church with opposing (young/old) translations. And wouldn't you know it, I would always receive some lame responses from such congregation. My favorite was, and I'm paraphrasing now..... 'He is my Christian brother, and I will not deliberately invite discourse into God's house.'



Yes, but only one can be right. So even assuming the Bible is God inspired, which one is right, and which one is wrong, especially when they are diametrically opposed in their positions?

That's enough of a response, as the rest might become overlap

Well, since I've got about several books on the historical development and usage of the various types of biblical hermeneutics that have been applied by various major biblical interpreters through the centuries, as well as about a dozen or two books on the various types of biblical hermeneutics practiced today, along with the more expansive philosophical levels of hermeneutics, and so on and so forth, I'm going to say that your assertion that "only one can be right" is almost a kind of Converse Fallacy of Accident, I think. I say this because simply saying that you've talked to two experts doesn't really mean that you've done enough to understand just how different the interpretations are between these two "experts" you've spoken to, or as to how similar they might be in some respects.

In fact, it seems to be that hermeneutics in and of itself does not involve so much as a 'perfectly correct way to interpret,' since from a human viewpoint, which is always limited to some extent, can't be perfectly informed in all things so as to make a consistently perfect interpretation. Rather, the best we can do is each each individually give the act of interpretation our best shot and to continue to do so in increasing measures as we work through the Hermeneutical Circle. To some extent, our interpretations can all be at least somewhat imperfect and/or incorrect and in need of more information; we can all be on a continuum where we are each wrong in some way and right in some way. The interesting thing for me in this is that this expectation is what also seems to accord with my understanding of Biblical Epistemology.

So, we each can be at least a little right when reading some portions of the Bible, and we can each, I'm sure, be wrong and in need of further learning. This becomes especially evident as one becomes familiar with not only the comparative approaches, but the ways in which any interpreter, whether they be professional or otherwise, compares with another interpreter who may even be (supposedly) working from within the same approach. All we can really do, I think, is try to account for the actual interpretive methods any interpreter claims to us to have made AND the extent to which that same interpreter works by way of inter-disciplinary measures and brings in more data, more information from outside the Bible so as to better understand, hopefully, the meaning and structures by which the biblical messages are being conveyed.

 

[cvanwey]

Probably not. This article has a better estimate. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/7214/1/7214a.pdf I’ve seen similar estimates elsewhere.

I think we can agree to disagree here. I've looked into it quite extensively. However, the number of followers, a day later, or 1K years later, bears no relevancy to whether it is true or not So quite frankly, you are barking up the wrong tree with this argument; towards me anyways. But I figured I would at least touch on it, as it seems to be a common argument among true believers, (you included). However, I cannot fathom why...

One could argue the swift rise of Mormonism, and/or the golden tablets as witnessed; as this was very recent and 'fast', from a historical picture. But again, even if so, has absolutely no relevancy to claims of it's apparent stated truth.

One might point to the claimed eyewitness attestations. And from my guestimation, using even the loosest of definitions to such claims, Christianity has Sal, and that's basically where it starts and ends. The rest is hearsay. And remember what I stated about mundane revelations, legendary growing tales (from Mark 16:8 to John), and many others unaddressed

 

[cvanwey]

Well, since I've got about several books on the historical development and usage of the various types of biblical hermeneutics that have been applied by various major biblical interpreters through the centuries, as well as about a dozen or two books on the various types of biblical hermeneutics practiced today, along with the more expansive philosophical levels of hermeneutics, and so on and so forth, I'm going to say that your assertion that "only one can be right" is almost a kind of Converse Fallacy of Accident, I think. I say this because simply saying that you've talked to two experts doesn't really mean that you've done enough to understand just how different the interpretations are between these two "experts" you've spoken to, or as to how similar they might be in some respects.

In fact, it seems to be that hermeneutics in and of itself does not involve so much as a 'perfectly correct way to interpret,' since from a human viewpoint, which is always limited to some extent, can't be perfectly informed in all things so as to make a consistently perfect interpretation. Rather, the best we can do is each each individually give the act of interpretation our best shot and to continue to do so in increasing measures as we work through the Hermeneutical Circle. To some extent, our interpretations can all be at least somewhat imperfect and/or incorrect and in need of more information; we can all be on a continuum where we are each wrong in some way and right in some way. The interesting thing for me in this is that this expectation is what also seems to accord with my understanding of Biblical Epistemology.

So, we each can be at least a little right when reading some portions of the Bible, and we can each, I'm sure, be wrong and in need of further learning. This becomes especially evident as one becomes familiar with not only the comparative approaches, but the ways in which any interpreter, whether they be professional or otherwise, compares with another interpreter who may even be (supposedly) working from within the same approach. All we can really do, I think, is try to account for the actual interpretive methods any interpreter claims to us to have made AND the extent to which that same interpreter works by way of inter-disciplinary measures and brings in more data, more information from outside the Bible so as to better understand, hopefully, the meaning and structures by which the biblical messages are being conveyed.

With all due respect, and I do mean this with the up most of respect I can muster; this entire response completely avoids my extremely basic observation. You appear to be turning something very simple, and making it into something it should never be. And it makes me wonder... Why?

To reiterate, the Bible claims of a flood event or the age of the earth. Yes, there is a true dichotomy presented. Did it happen (yes/no)? Is the earth young/old? Pretty simple. Nothing to miss. I again, understand your extensive study upon the wonderful world of hermeneutics. Yes, I'm sure you could run circles around me, with the number of books and authors studied upon this very topic.

This, however, changes absolutely nothing to the fact that we, again, must face this true dichotomy. And only one of them can be right - did it happen (yes or no)?

Furthermore, I informed you I spoke to many. More accurately, a good 20 or more. Most were young-earthers. A small handful were the opposite. But quite frankly, this does not matter. We are talking about a flood. We are talking about the earth's age. Nothing to analyze really.