On The Myth Of Scriptural Literalism

[Damien the Leper]

How often are we reminded that the voice of the living prophet always trumps those of dead prophets?

Ad nauseum. Makes me want to punch myself in the face for such nonsense.

[strappinglad]

I think that we will have to use a different word than " trumps " .Overrides ?? Wouldn't want to give free advertising .

Can a scientist be a literalist when it come to science ' doctrine ' ? Science claims that the solar system is 4.5 billion years old. It would be difficult if not impossible to convince most scientists that the system in only 1 billion years old or 10 billion years old. There may be a small fudge factor but not much. What is done when observations show that there may be problems with the 4.5 billion date? All kinds of theories come out to try to keep the ' literal ' facts solid.

Edited August 27, 2015 by strappinglad

[Damien the Leper]

I think that we will have to use a different word than " trumps " .Overrides ?? Wouldn't want to give free advertising .

Right! MDDB and its members endorse no presidential candidate.

[Bobbieaware]

I recently posted a short essay on my blog in response to the claim made by numerous New Atheists (most notably Sam Harris) that fundamentalist religionists who read their scriptural texts literally are to be considered the more pious and genuine believers. This claim serves the argument that religion is fundamentally dangerous and harmful, since most scriptures seem to command genocide and racism, etc. The point of my essay is that there's actually no such thing as scriptural literalism. One of the concluding paragraphs:

I'm interested in your thoughts.

After reading the above, I began to wonder about the Book of Mormom as a reliable historical record of real-life events that took place primarily among the Nephite and the Lamanite peoples of ancient America. I'd be very interested to read any passages from the Book of Mormon you believe were not necessarily meant to be taken as literally true. For example, I'm wondering if you believe the following famous excerpt from the Book of Mormon was written by the prophet as something he meant to be open to various interpretations.

6 And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard; and it said unto them:

7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.

9 And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:

10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.

11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning. (3 Nephi 11)

If you believe the above verses are so plainly stated that they can only be taken literally, then, aside from some of the obvious examples one might find (e.g. "how often I would have gathered you as a hen..."), I would be very interested to examine some of the Book of Mormom passages you believe are flexible, ambiguous and malleable enough to not have to be taken literally?

In addition, since you say non-literalists regard all scripture to be "flexible and ambiguous and malleable" by nature, I'm interested to know if you can demonstrate some of the various ways the above verses can be interpreted in order to demonstrate how your theory on the inherent flexibility, ambiguity and malleability of scripture can work? Thanks.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

 

 

I'm interested in your thoughts. 

You are brilliant as always.

[Brian 2.0]

I would be very interested to examine some of the Book of Mormom passages you believe are flexible, ambiguous and malleable enough to not have to be taken literally. In addition, since you say non-literalists regard all scripture to be "flexible and ambiguous and malleable" by nature, I'm interested to know if you can demonstrate some of the various ways in which the above verses might be interpreted in order to demonstrate their inherent flexibility, ambiguity and malleability. Thanks.

Well... a good many now believe that God didn't literally turn the Lamanite skin color dark then then back to light when they became righteous but rather it was a result of breeding with lighter or darker skinned people.

[PeterPear]

I don't consider a question to be a response to my point. Where does your question lead you? To stand up to the Church in a Gospel Doctrine class and announce that Asherah is the mother in heaven we should be worshiping? That the Nephites were limited to MesoAmerica?

Obviously, there's a big difference between standing up in a Gospel Doctrine class (or a Fast and Testimony Meeting) versus publishing these claims on websites or in books. Or is there?

You can also learn the Book of Mormon should not be taken literally; because of some 'discord' in a Mesoamerica theory you should also know the Book of Mormon contains "standard rhetoric."

"Demographics.

There is considerable ambiguity in the statement that the early Nephites “covered” the face of the land. This looks like standard rhetoric." Last paragraph of page 29:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/8/1/S00006-50cb9720813af5Clark.pdf

You see, the Nephites didn't cover the face of the land of Mesoamerica because some "stela" actually doesn't depict Lehi's dream or whatever the above referenced paper is arguing over. Thus the Book of Mormon cannot be taken literally. A theory which is to prove academically the Book of Mormon is true, claims the Book should not be taken literally. It contains "standard rhetoric."

A definition of Rhetoric:

language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

"all we have from the opposition is empty rhetoric"

synonyms: bombast, turgidity, grandiloquence, magniloquence, pomposity, extravagant language, purple prose; More

Edited August 28, 2015 by PeterPear

[Bobbieaware]

Well... a good many now believe that God didn't literally turn the Lamanite skin color dark then then back to light when they became righteous but rather it was a result of breeding with lighter or darker skinned people.

Regardless of the method employed by God to create the dark skin, your argument seems to acknowledge the dark skin is the central element of the punishment of the curse. If so, then we're right back were we started from with dark skin color being regarded as a form of punishment. So regardless of the method employed to make the curse happen, the politically correct remain in a state of outrage (don't throw stones at me, I'm only the messenger). And since the Book of Mormon narrative only states there was a curse of dark skin, without any mention of the actual method employed to make the curse happen, there is no literal element in the scriptural account comcerning a method that needs to be reinterpreted. Meanwhile, the literal elements of the scriptural account regarding the curse of dark skin are plainly and unambiguously stated.

But my main point is that maklelan seems to state (correct me if I'm wrong) ALL SCRIPTURE, by very nature, is flexible, ambiguous and malleable. If this is so, I would like to see examples of this alleged flexibility, ambiguity and malleability demonstrated throughout the scriptures. If maklelan is correct, his thesis should be very easy to demonstrate. But if he's speaking of only a few comtroversial passages of scripture that are flexible, ambiguous and malleable, then he has drastically overstated his case. If there is a general rule, then I would like to see the general rule convincingly demonstrated over a wide swath of scripture, with the Book of Mormon -- for obvious reasons -- being the primary proving ground.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Robert F. Smith]

I recently posted a short essay on my blog in response to the claim made by numerous New Atheists (most notably Sam Harris) that fundamentalist religionists who read their scriptural texts literally are to be considered the more pious and genuine believers. This claim serves the argument that religion is fundamentally dangerous and harmful, since most scriptures seem to command genocide and racism, etc. The point of my essay is that there's actually no such thing as scriptural literalism. One of the concluding paragraphs:

 

 

I'm interested in your thoughts. 

I agree.  James Barr made the emphatic point that evangelical and fundamentalist scholars do not read the Bible literally, even if they understand it as inerrant and infallible.  He pointed out that they are fully aware that much of Holy Writ is figurative and allegorical, poetic and evocative, ritualistic and liturgical.  See his Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism.

[Robert F. Smith]

The LDS Church does not depend upon scriptural literalism but upon being in harmony with the Brethren over the meaning of the scriptures.

 

One way to determine, at least today, how the Brethren interpret the scriptures is to see how they treat passages, especially controversial ones, in lesson manuals.  These manuals go through heavy-duty correlation.  They may be boring, but no teacher or sermonizer in the Church is justified in deviating from the core principles in those manuals.  

 

Thus, in the Church it isn't a question to ask as to whether the Adam and Eve story is literal but the question to ask is how the Brethren would want it taught.

 

I believe I've read extensively secular literature dealing with both the New and Old Testament, and I think that many LDS intellectuals seem compelled to take views consistent with the current consensus in that literature (even though much of it comes from atheists; Dever is my latest example) and often contrary to the manuals (and not acknowledge they conflict with the manuals).  So, paradoxically, they will agree with Dever as to the Bible but disagree with Coe as to the Book of Mormon.

 

When I teach Gospel Doctrine, although I find some of the secular views rather compelling, I believe that a condition to my calling was to teach consistent with the Brethren's views. 

It is one thing to speak of the core principles of the Gospel, but quite another to speak in hallowed tones of the core principles of the current LDS Church manuals.  Manuals come and go, the Gospel remains the same.

 

Also, it is not so much whether some biblical scholar is an atheist or believer of some sort, as that we need to know whether what he tells us about some excavations, artifacts, and inscriptions may throw some light on the interpretation of the Bible -- the ancient context in which it came into existence.  Sometimes it is a matter of correct understanding of Hebrew or Greek grammar.

 

In the case of my friend Bill Dever, it is a matter of his knowledge of the Bible and that ancient context, whereas Mike Coe is not an expert in the Book of Mormon (having made egregious errors for all to see), even though he is clearly expert in Mesoamerican archeology.  No paradox there.

 

I see nothing to be gained through demanding that LDS Church members become stultified Stepford children, and indeed the Brethren wisely make no such demands.

[Bobbieaware]

I agree. James Barr made the emphatic point that evangelical and fundamentalist scholars do not read the Bible literally, even if they understand it as inerrant and infallible. He pointed out that they are fully aware that much of Holy Writ is figurative and allegorical, poetic and evocative, ritualistic and liturgical. See his Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism.

Hi Robert: I'm open to learning something new of which I am currently largely unaware. But except for the parable of the olive tree and the Isaiah chapters -- which are highly symbolic and filled with prophetic dualism -- and the obviously symbolic passages (e.g. the iron rod symbolizing the word of God) I'm trying to think of passages from the Book of Mormon's purported real-life historical narrative that are not meant to be taken as literal historical fact. The way I'm reading maklelan is that he believes the purely historical portions of the Book of Mormon, for example, are so "ambiguous" and "malleable" (I get a kick out of that last one) that the Church can make them mean whatever it needs them to mean in order to serve current policies, needs and circumstances. Maklelan's point seems to be we can disregard the most controversial portions of scripture historical narrative, such as the children of Israeli being commanded of God to utterly destroy the people of Canaan, because the purportedly historical portions of scripture are not meant to be understood as literal statements of historical fact, and this because even the historical portions of scripture are , by very nature, too flexible, ambiguous and malleable to be taken literally (until this thread, I didn't realize the iron rod was actually a long length of flexible pipe).

So I guess I am supposed to believe that even though the Book of Mormon records Nephi as telling his brothers the Lord commanded the children of Isreal to utterly destroy people of Canaan, because the people of Canaan were totally ripened in iniquity, I can disregard the historicity of the Biblical account, even though a prophet of God named Npephi backs it up, because scripture, by very nature, is designed to mean whatever a religious group wants it to mean depending on current needs. And today's current need is to placate the politically correct among us who refuse to believe God commanded his people to utterly destroy the Canaanites.

32 And after they had crossed the river Jordan he did make them mighty unto the driving out of the children of the land, yea, unto the scattering them to destruction.

33 And now, do ye suppose that the children of this land, who were in the land of promise, who were driven out by our fathers, do ye suppose that they were righteous? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.

34 Do ye suppose that our fathers would have been more choice than they if they had been righteous? I say unto you, Nay.

35 Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God. But behold, this people had rejected every word of God, and they were ripe in iniquity; and the fulness of the wrath of God was upon them; and the Lord did curse the land against them, and bless it unto our fathers; yea, he did curse it against them unto their destruction, and he did bless it unto our fathers unto their obtaining power over it. (1Nephi 17)

I hope the intelligentsia of the Church won't think to poorly of folks like me if we continue to choose to believe scripture is more like a rod of iron than a long length of flexible hot air exhaust pipe?

Edited August 28, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HappyJackWagon]

The LDS Church does not depend upon scriptural literalism but upon being in harmony with the Brethren over the meaning of the scriptures.

The church teaches literalism. Elder Holland says it is impossible to have a testimony of the atonement of Christ without also having a literal belief in Adam & Eve and the garden narrative. How is that not a literal requirement of our faith? We are required to accept the historicity of the BoM and also the truth claims of the first vision, angelic visions etc which appear in our cannonized scripture. Are you suggesting that a literal belief in these things is unimportant for LDS members?

 

 

One way to determine, at least today, how the Brethren interpret the scriptures is to see how they treat passages, especially controversial ones, in lesson manuals.  These manuals go through heavy-duty correlation.  They may be boring, but no teacher or sermonizer in the Church is justified in deviating from the core principles in those manuals.  

 

Thus, in the Church it isn't a question to ask as to whether the Adam and Eve story is literal but the question to ask is how the Brethren would want it taught.

Elder Holland wants us to think of the story literally and claim to the authority of prophets and apostles is a continuation of literalist belief because we claim them to share the direct word of God. We don't follow them because they're nice guys but because we think they literally tell us what God wants us to know. Again, how is that not literalistic view?

 

 

I believe I've read extensively secular literature dealing with both the New and Old Testament, and I think that many LDS intellectuals seem compelled to take views consistent with the current consensus in that literature (even though much of it comes from atheists; Dever is my latest example) and often contrary to the manuals (and not acknowledge they conflict with the manuals).  So, paradoxically, they will agree with Dever as to the Bible but disagree with Coe as to the Book of Mormon.

 

When I teach Gospel Doctrine, although I find some of the secular views rather compelling, I believe that a condition to my calling was to teach consistent with the Brethren's views. 

This seems to be based on a literalistic view of the Brethren's comments being the word of God.

I'm trying to understand this perspective but I'm finding it challenging. Comments in Blue.

 

The church absolutely depends on literalistic view of the scriptures which isn't the same thing as saying the church (For Robert Fisher I use church as meaning the official positions as promulgated by leadership) believes all scripture is of equal value in todays world. While we may be hard pressed to find members who believe in the modern application of genocide we can absolutely find members who hang onto the concepts of racism based upon their literalistic interpretations of scripture.

 

Claiming there is no such thing as a literalistic view of scriptures is merely a semantic game, the only evidence for which is found in the recognition that not all scriptures are privileged equally in modern use.

[maklelan]

If you believe the above verses are so plainly stated that they can only be taken literally, then, aside from some of the obvious examples one might find (e.g. "how often I would have gathered you as a hen..."), I would be very interested to examine some of the Book of Mormom passages you believe are flexible, ambiguous and malleable enough to not have to be taken literally?

In addition, since you say non-literalists regard all scripture to be "flexible and ambiguous and malleable" by nature, I'm interested to know if you can demonstrate some of the various ways the above verses can be interpreted in order to demonstrate how your theory on the inherent flexibility, ambiguity and malleability of scripture can work? Thanks.

 

Well, first, whether or not an author meant for something to be taken literally is a different question from how contemporary readers interpret it. I don't know many Mormons that actually take the time to try to understand what would have been going on in the head of the authors or editors of the text of the Book of Mormon. Most don't even know who actually authored given portions of the text. But on your first question above, very few of them have to be taken literally. I would point to Alma 11:27–29 as an example of one very few Mormons take literally:

 

 

27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.

28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

29 And he answered, No.

 

 

 

What the author here meant is rarely ever considered at all. What is the primary concern is how to make this verse fit contemporary LDS theology.

 

On your second question, various nuances of meaning throughout the passage could be understood, but you've grabbed a chunk of narrative, which not only is more simple to understand, but provides very little in the way of theological or moral exposition. X happened, and then Y happened, and then Z happened is the least ambiguous kind of writing in the scriptural texts, and it's also the writing that contributes the least to ideology. This particular passage doesn't have to be malleable, since it doesn't bear on much contemporary ideology at all. The passage above in Alma 11 does need to be malleable.

 

On the other hand, the degree to which the narrative represents a verbatim account of Jesus' words is up for debate. It appears to be quoting various portions of the KJV New Testament, which raises the question of whether or not the author, editor, or translator (Joseph Smith) is putting these words in Jesus' mouth or couching their translation in familiar contemporary vernacular. Why would Jesus quote rather idiomatic texts not available to a single soul present at this gathering, and particularly the KJV version? How we interpret the relationship of the words to Jesus actual words says a lot, and there are going to be a variety of interpretations.

[SmileyMcGee]

I'm trying to understand this perspective but I'm finding it challenging. Comments in Blue.

The church absolutely depends on literalistic view of the scriptures which isn't the same thing as saying the church (For Robert Fisher I use church as meaning the official positions as promulgated by leadership) believes all scripture is of equal value in todays world. While we may be hard pressed to find members who believe in the modern application of genocide we can absolutely find members who hang onto the concepts of racism based upon their literalistic interpretations of scripture.

Claiming there is no such thing as a literalistic view of scriptures is merely a semantic game, the only evidence for which is found in the recognition that not all scriptures are privileged equally in modern use.

Wait...elder holland taught that a testimony of the atonement depends on a literal reading of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden?

[HappyJackWagon]

Wait...elder holland taught that a testimony of the atonement depends on a literal reading of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden?

Yes.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/where-justice-love-and-mercy-meet?lang=eng

 

 

In our increasingly secular society, it is as uncommon as it is unfashionable to speak of Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden or of a “fortunate fall” into mortality. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death—in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter—without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it.

[maklelan]

But my main point is that maklelan seems to state (correct me if I'm wrong) ALL SCRIPTURE, by very nature, is flexible, ambiguous and malleable. If this is so, I would like to see examples of this alleged flexibility, ambiguity and malleability demonstrated throughout the scriptures. If maklelan is correct, his thesis should be very easy to demonstrate. But if he's speaking of only a few comtroversial passages of scripture that are flexible, ambiguous and malleable, then he has drastically overstated his case. If there is a general rule, then I would like to see the general rule convincingly demonstrated over a wide swath of scripture, with the Book of Mormon -- for obvious reasons -- being the primary proving ground.

 

No, not just all scripture, but all texts. The degree of ambiguousness and flexibility is generally rather small, though, and is conditional upon a variety of factors. But I'm happy to give you a few more examples: 

 

1 Ne 1:2 - What does "the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" mean, precisely?

2 Ne 1:8 - Does "land" refer to a small portion of land or to the entire country or continent?

D&C 121:43 - What, precisely, does "reproving betimes with sharpness" mean? Does "sharpness" mean "precision" or "severity"?

JST Matt 3:6 - Who is "not least among the princes of Judea," Bethlehem or the prince to be born in Bethlehem?

Generally: When are "Nephite" and "Lamanite" genetic designations and when are they cultural or ideological designations?

[maklelan]

I agree.  James Barr made the emphatic point that evangelical and fundamentalist scholars do not read the Bible literally, even if they understand it as inerrant and infallible.  He pointed out that they are fully aware that much of Holy Writ is figurative and allegorical, poetic and evocative, ritualistic and liturgical.  See his Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism.

 

Great book. Have you read his Fundamentalism? That's another fascinating book.

[maklelan]

Hi Robert: I'm open to learning something new of which I am currently largely unaware. But except for the parable of the olive tree and the Isaiah chapters -- which are highly symbolic and filled with prophetic dualism -- and the obviously symbolic passages (e.g. the iron rod symbolizing the word of God) I'm trying to think of passages from the Book of Mormon's purported real-life historical narrative that are not meant to be taken as literal historical fact. The way I'm reading maklelan is that he believes the purely historical portions of the Book of Mormon, for example, are so "ambiguous" and "malleable" (I get a kick out of that last one) that the Church can make them mean whatever it needs them to mean in order to serve current policies, needs and circumstances. Maklelan's point seems to be we can disregard the most controversial portions of scripture historical narrative, such as the children of Israeli being commanded of God to utterly destroy the people of Canaan, because the purportedly historical portions of scripture are not meant to be understood as literal statements of historical fact, and this because even the historical portions of scripture are , by very nature, too flexible, ambiguous and malleable to be taken literally (until this thread, I didn't realize the iron rod was actually a long length of flexible pipe).

So I guess I am supposed to believe that even though the Book of Mormon records Nephi as telling his brothers the Lord commanded the children of Isreal to utterly destroy people of Canaan, because the people of Canaan were totally ripened in iniquity, I can disregard the historicity of the Biblical account, even though a prophet of God named Npephi backs it up, because scripture, by very nature, is designed to mean whatever a religious group wants it to mean depending on current needs. And today's current need is to placate the politically correct among us who refuse to believe God commanded his people to utterly destroy the Canaanites.

32 And after they had crossed the river Jordan he did make them mighty unto the driving out of the children of the land, yea, unto the scattering them to destruction.

33 And now, do ye suppose that the children of this land, who were in the land of promise, who were driven out by our fathers, do ye suppose that they were righteous? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.

34 Do ye suppose that our fathers would have been more choice than they if they had been righteous? I say unto you, Nay.

35 Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God. But behold, this people had rejected every word of God, and they were ripe in iniquity; and the fulness of the wrath of God was upon them; and the Lord did curse the land against them, and bless it unto our fathers; yea, he did curse it against them unto their destruction, and he did bless it unto our fathers unto their obtaining power over it. (1Nephi 17)

I hope the intelligentsia of the Church won't think to poorly of folks like me if we continue to choose to believe scripture is more like a rod of iron than a long length of flexible hot air exhaust pipe?

 

You misunderstand me, which, ironically, proves my point about how texts don't carry meaning. This is not an attack on historicity in any sense whatsoever, nor am I aiming specifically at historical narrative. You seem to be sensitive to such rhetoric, though, which seems to me to be why you immediately assumed that was the point of my post. You imposed an ideological lens on your reading of my post based on your experiences in the past and interpreted my intent accordingly. It just happens to have nothing to do with my point. QED.

[maklelan]

Claiming there is no such thing as a literalistic view of scriptures is merely a semantic game, the only evidence for which is found in the recognition that not all scriptures are privileged equally in modern use.

 

No, that's simply not true. I point out in detail and quite clearly precisely how scriptural literalism is a physical impossibility, particularly for ideological readers of texts. 

[Mars]

i appreciated the blog post, maklelan.  i agree that literalists are literal about what they think and that the text carries no such intrinsic property that can be unequivocally discovered or outwardly proved.

 

at least, i think that's what i got out of it.

[Nevo]

I hope the intelligentsia of the Church won't think too poorly of folks like me if we continue to choose to believe scripture is more like a rod of iron than a long length of flexible hot air exhaust pipe.

 

That's a pretty good line!

 

It reminded me of this zinger from Parley P. Pratt's A Voice of Warning:

 

Gen. vi, 17: "And behold I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

 

In the verses which follow the above the Lord commands Noah to enter the Ark, and take with him animals of every kind, etc. And in the 22d verse it is written, "Thus did Noah, according to all that God commanded him, so did he." It was well for Noah that he was not well versed in the spiritualizing systems of modern divinity; for, under their benighted influence, he would never have believed that so marvelous a prophecy would have had a literal meaning and accomplishment. No, he would have been told that the flood meant a spiritual flood, and the Ark a spiritual Ark, and, the moment he thought otherwise, he would have been set down for a fanatic, knave, or fool; but it was so, that he was just simple enough to believe the prophecy literally. 

[thesometimesaint]

To put a literal Bible interpretation onto science makes hash of both.

[Gray]

I recently posted a short essay on my blog in response to the claim made by numerous New Atheists (most notably Sam Harris) that fundamentalist religionists who read their scriptural texts literally are to be considered the more pious and genuine believers. This claim serves the argument that religion is fundamentally dangerous and harmful, since most scriptures seem to command genocide and racism, etc. The point of my essay is that there's actually no such thing as scriptural literalism. One of the concluding paragraphs:

 

 

I'm interested in your thoughts. 

 

Great points. What Harris and those like him miss is that the choice to read any passage literally is just as much an act of interpretation as it is to say a passage means something deeper. Exegesis is not something that secular people invented and liberal believers latched on to later. Paul rejected fundamentalism when he said the letter of the law kills, and the spirit of the law gives life. Early Christian fathers taught against literal interpretation of scripture too. And of course there is the tradition of midrash too. 

 

You're right of course that no one is consistently literalist 100% of the time. But the attempt by fundamentalists is to take the translated text on the page literally (divorced of historical context), at least as far as it does not contradict their ideology. That often fails at getting at the intended meaning of the text, of course. 

Edited August 28, 2015 by Gray

[ERayR]

To put a literal Bible interpretation onto science makes hash of both.

 

To put an allegorical interpretation on all scripture makes the gospel very shaky.

[thesometimesaint]

To put an allegorical interpretation on all scripture makes the gospel very shaky.

 

Never said it was all allegorical. That Jesus is the Christ isn't allegorical at all. While the allegory of the olive tree clearly is.