Ship of Fools: How do you know which parts to take literally?

Thread: How do you know which parts to take literally? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028561

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I take it as read that nobody takes every single verse of the Scriptures literally. For instance, nobody when they pray JUST says the words of the Lord's Prayer. Everybody feels free to pray in other words, even though our Lord specifically said, "when you pray, PRAY LIKE THIS."

In other words, they don't take those words literally.

No, no, don't start. If you pray any other words, you're not taking that scripture LITERALLY. Because it LITERALLY says pray these words, and does not implicitly or explicitly say to pray any other words.

Well, yes, there are other scriptures in the NT and OT both which allow or command us to pray other words, aren't there? That's WHY we don't take that literally, because to take it literally runs afoul of other scriptures. So we use some scriptures to determine that some other passage is not to be taken literally.

So how do you know which words to take literally, and which not to?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'm not sure I take anything completely "literally", mousethief! Perhaps I take some things simply? Often because they strike me as simple. But looking at your example, Jesus did not say "always" pray using these words "all the time". So I infer him to be offering a model. To me that is a simple inference.

Prayer isn't limited by the model, it can build on it. Use short sentences, simple words, be reverent, ask humbly, remember your own faults and limitations, confess, seek forgiveness, ask for protection, praise God.

But I don't think such simple (at least to me) inferences are normally regarded as literal interpretation!

And if you've had a squint at the other recent thread, I'm not a believer that all scripture is necessarily simple either!

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I take it as read that nobody takes every single verse of the Scriptures literally. For instance, nobody when they pray JUST says the words of the Lord's Prayer. Everybody feels free to pray in other words, even though our Lord specifically said, "when you pray, PRAY LIKE THIS."

In other words, they don't take those words literally.

No, no, don't start. If you pray any other words, you're not taking that scripture LITERALLY. Because it LITERALLY says pray these words, and does not implicitly or explicitly say to pray any other words.

Well, yes, there are other scriptures in the NT and OT both which allow or command us to pray other words, aren't there? That's WHY we don't take that literally, because to take it literally runs afoul of other scriptures. So we use some scriptures to determine that some other passage is not to be taken literally.

So how do you know which words to take literally, and which not to?

OK I'll play, for a while.

The word literally means in your parlance without any metaphorical subtext? Without any connotative social baggage and without any personal history.

You are correct, no one reads anything literally.

However, No one means 'literally' in any of those senses do they?

What I personally mean by literally is simply the writer has an intention that is made clear to me by the text produced. And sometimes, the best literal understanding is produced through a metaphorical grasp of text..

For instance, Jesus said: "..owe no man anything except to love them." In what sense owe? And in what sense 'love'?

Some take this to mean not borrow money. Others that the metaphor contained in 'owe' is a literal injunction to give a toss about other people in a way that is practical. Maybe meet a perceived human need you come across. You respond literally to a metaphorical statement. You act, you therefore take our Lord's word literally.

[ 11. December 2010, 07:28: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I would say that my conscience leads me. If the Bible (which I respect enormously) tells me hate a group of people and treat them as abominations unto God - I don't take it literally.

If my Mum (who I respect even more highly) says I must burn next door's house down - I don't take her literally either.

I must be responsible for my own ideas, actions and attitudes - with God's help.

<typo>

[ 11. December 2010, 07:36: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :

Not at all.

Even the bits which might have some relationship to reality are going to be skew-wiff in the dates department.

m

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

I'm starting to suspect that "literalism" may originally have been floated as a straw man, by those who take a more nuanced view of interpretation of the Bible - but can't be bothered to explain it. Or perhaps find it hard to explain in a snappy-sounding sound-bite. But the people who were on the receiving end of the accusation of "literalism" started to self-identify as literalists, and failed to notice that it was originally a straw man. Whoops.

It seems to me that allegorical interpretation of the Bible goes way back, at least as far as St Augustine, if not before. This is particularly true of texts we now call "prophetic" and "apocalyptic". Indeed, the book of Revelation in particular seems to be deliberately written in a way which encourages you to mine it for mythological archetypes. It's very hard to make sense of it any other way. But you can't spot those archetypes if you haven't read at least one or two other books besides Revelation. Some people might say that the rest of the Bible serves that purpose, although I for one have not found the Bible by itself to be sufficient in making sense of Revelation.

Point is, I think that "literalism" is a comparatively late development in the history of Bible interpretation. But I also think that it's arrogant to assume that modern people are better at making sense of it than those who thought there was a point in writing it down in the first place.

The argument that they were inspired by God, yet didn't really understand what they were writing, but that we do understand it, doesn't really cut it with me. Having said that, Freudian and Jungian psychoanalysis seems to presuppose that the analyst is sometimes better able to make sense of a patient's dreams than the patient themselves is - otherwise, what would be the point of psychoanalysis?

So what's the difference between a psychoanalyst understanding a patient's dreams better than the patient, and a modern exegete understanding a Bible text better than the person who originally wrote it?

In my opinion, the difference is that Jungian analysis tends to acknowledge archetypes, whereas literalist exegesis tends to deny them - except to the extent that it's necessary to acknowledge archetypes so as to match the events in the life of Jesus to the Old Testament prophecies he was supposed to have fulfilled. But I think it's questionable whether that kind of exegesis can be described as "literalist".

So ....

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So how do you know which words to take literally, and which not to?

I think the simple answer is, you don't.

However, I also don't think that it's always an either/or.

Just because there might seem to be a sensible "literal" meaning of a particular verse, it doesn't mean that there can't be other meanings. It's not always the case that one interpretation is "right" and that all the others are "wrong".

Having said all that, I for one am sceptical of the benefit of any kind of fixed dogma. And to me, a fixed system of interpretation of the Bible is a form of dogma. Detailed rules of Biblical exegesis are rarely specified in any church's creeds or statement of faith. They might say that the Bible is the ultimate authority, or something like that, but they rarely specify what this actually means in practice.

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

Isn't it a tad bit ironic how the debate seems to have swung towards what "literally" literally means? [Biased]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Isn't it a tad bit ironic how the debate seems to have swung towards what "literally" literally means?

Do you mean literally ironic, or figuratively ironic? [Biased]

Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Isn't it a tad bit ironic how the debate seems to have swung towards what "literally" literally means?

Ironic perhaps, but it's a current trend in Dead Horses to add 5 pages to each thread just trying to figure out what the other poster is saying, much less rebut them.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:

quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Isn't it a tad bit ironic how the debate seems to have swung towards what "literally" literally means?
Ironic perhaps, but it's a current trend in Dead Horses to add 5 pages to each thread just trying to figure out what the other poster is saying, much less rebut them.

That's kind of how discussion about beliefs and opinions works, isn't it? Especially on topics where it's possible or even likely that people are using words differently. Before you can rebut something you have to make sure you're rebutting what they're actually saying and not just your misreading of it. This isn't some new fad. This is how rational discussion proceeds.

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

I'm wondering as to whether it would be more useful to try and find out what "figuratively" literally means, and whether it could actually be divided into a literal and figurative sense.

I'm beginning to feel a need for new defining words.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
... it's a current trend in Dead Horses to add 5 pages to each thread just trying to figure out what the other poster is saying, much less rebut them.

Ummh, did you mean to reveal that your aim of posting here is simply to rebut?

(If the answer is 'yes' then we've found that out on page 1 [Big Grin]

)

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
(If the answer is 'yes' then we've found that out on page 1 )

So does the aim of rebutting not depend upon that which is being rebutted, then?

Has anyone found that the portrayal of the Pharisees in the Gospels is sometimes used to argue the rights and wrongs of literalism?

You see, one of the arguments I've heard against "literalism" (whatever it is) is that the Pharisees were literalists. This seems to assume that "literalism" and "legalism" are one and the same thing, or at least related to each other closely enough so as to make no odds.

However, regardless of whether the Pharisees have been portrayed fairly or not, it seems to me that they are portrayed in the Gospels in much the same way that the sophists are portrayed in the writings of Plato. It's not so much that the Pharisees doggedly stick to one particular interpretation of law that they remain consistent on over a long period of time; it's more that they interpret law in deliberately simplistic ways that miss the point of the law, but suits their own short-term purpose. And worse still, it makes the law look silly.

To put it another way, it seems that the Gospels implicitly accuse the Pharisees of trying to bend the law to make it look as though they are always in the right - much like Aristophanes and Plato accuse the sophists of turning the weaker argument into the stronger.

But I don't think that's the same thing as "literalism". Of course, it's possible that the Gospels accuse the Pharisees of what we might now call "literalism" in addition to what we might call "legal sophistry".

Any thoughts on that? Or have I read something into what the Gospels say about the Pharisees that isn't actually there?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It was the Sadducees who took Torah literally.

The Pharisees, including Jesus, were popular reinterpreters of the Torah.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Another of those odd dichotomies only you see mousethief.

I take those words literally therefore I OFTEN PRAY LIKE THIS. Occasionally, in communion and privately I pray it or privately start to JUST 'like this'.

Then I pray 'like this' but NOT 'this'.

I literally do.

I LITERALLY take the example and I LITERALLY use it as a stepping off point, as a framework.

By the way, have you stopped beating your mother yet ?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Is that a literal minded, unnuanced response to your question nonetheless ?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

One approach I try sometimes is ponder what would happen if I did take Passage N literally?

If your hand sins cut off your hand? Given that we are all sinners, is there anything to be gained by encouraging so many of us to handless? Will that help us know and love God more? Maybe this really refers to not a physical hand but whatever is so dear to you it feels like it's part of who you are but it causes you to sin. If the pursuit of golf keeps you from family so your kids barely know you, maybe you need to cut off the golf habit? Not literal but a potentially useful suggestion, and far less destructive to society than a bunch of handless people.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
One approach I try sometimes is ponder what would happen if I did take Passage N literally?

If your hand sins cut off your hand? Given that we are all sinners, is there anything to be gained by encouraging so many of us to handless?

Surely one giveaway is the lack of any mention of anyone in the NT literally chopping their hand off.

And another consideration: the text says "if your right hand causes you to stumble" ... how exactly does your hand cause you to sin? Does it grab you by the neck and drag you into a brothel or something? You have control of your hands, so your hands are simply unwitting agents of your mind and will. The language is figurative.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0