The Economics of Biblical Literalism - or...

[Snow]

Why are you so hard-lined with your view that everything 'has to be' interpreted? You say "its okay or desirable to interpret them in a way that best aligns the tools God has blessed us with - reason and intelligence." And I say, it is okay to not interpret everything in the bible until you come to that level of understanding. It can be left uninterpreted. This whole discussion goes back and forth because you keep leaving out one option, that of leaving the scripture in question uninterpreted. Sometimes you have to tell yourself, I just don't understand the significance of that scripture right now but I will pray about it, ponder it and then maybe it will come to me, but maybe it won't and I am okay with that. Every item in the Bible does not have to be designated black or white .... (boy, I sound like I'm talking to my husband) And by the way, God has told you how to interpret 'such events or myths' but it may not be time for you to receive such instruction.

Oh boy. You, when you read the book of Job, interpret it as literal history - that is I assume you assume it is literal and that, your view, is an interpretation. For me, it is obvious, beyond obvious that it is simply allegorical and not meant as historical - for heaven sake God doesn't make deals with Satan and kill people to prove a point to the devil.

You are claiming that YOUR views are not an interpretation but that my views are interpretations. At least I'll admit that everyone interprets.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Oh boy. You, when you read the book of Job, interpret it as literal history - that is I assume you assume it is literal and that, your view, is an interpretation. For me, it is obvious, beyond obvious that it is simply allegorical and not meant as historical - for heaven sake God doesn't make deals with Satan and kill people to prove a point to the devil.

You are claiming that YOUR views are not an interpretation but that my views are interpretations. At least I'll admit that everyone interprets.

Here you go with your 'all or nothing' talk again. You cut out the words I say and take them out of context ... I used the word "everything." I said you don't have to interpret everything, you can leave some things as "I don't know right now." My point is that you don't have to make a determination about everything you read immediately. It is possible to leave particular stories that you are struggling with, uninterpreted. The goal is to have God's interpretation and if one holds on to their own interpretation of things too quickly without humility they may miss the real meaning or worse think it is God's 'interpretation' or intent when it is not.

... and I never said anything about your views. You are attempting to assume my views. I was talking about your approach to obtaining your views, that it had to be literal or allegorical only. I am pointing out you are leaving out a third option, unknown.

Why would you look at the Bible as a history book anyway? Of course its not meant (now please don't take this word out of context either) as historical.

[rameumptom]

Snow, you are welcome to interpret the scriptures as you choose to do. Be a minimalist if you wish.

However, if you wish to engage in discussion, then you need to actually distinguish between your opinion and fact. It is your opinion that talking donkeys do not happen in the Bible. It is your opinion that Job is entirely fictional.

However, when one looks at ancient Middle Eastern belief, the idea that there were divine sons of God/El, who contended for primacy, is not so far fetched. That's exactly what we see in Moses 4 and Abraham 3. That God sent Moses and Joshua to conquer the land, wiping out entire cities, is not so far fetched, when we consider that God brought on the flood (global or regional) to destroy the wicked. Or do you believe that the flood skipped over the families with small children?

I agree that there were pre-Adamites. However, I also believe that Adam is the first born of those born with a special covenant of God in this creation period. Just as Mulekites became Nephites by joining the covenant, so too do all become sons of Adam by joining the covenant. It does not have to be an all-or-nothing issue, as you often try to make it. The gospel is not simply black and white, but it has many gray areas. For this reason, God has established heaven with several levels.

[Saturnfulcrum]

My goodness this is a fun thread!

Just because the talking donkey keeps coming back, I always thought the donkey talked because both the donkey and the rider were translated, and they being translated, could very well understand each other. There WAS a heavenly messenger in front of them right? Or am I mixing stories up?

And here's a list of things i consider miracles today even though I understand how most of them work and came about:

1. the printing press

2. the compilation and translation of the bible into different languages (sadly things were taken out and all the books weren't included, so who knows what other books are out there!)

3. the restoration

4. Electricity and the ability to harness it to give light.

5. antibiotics

6. the radio

7. technology to recreate and discover historical events, civilizations, etc.

8. Music

9. birth

10. the ability to think

11. development and study of psychology, anatomy, etc.

12. science (yes, science is a miracle)

13. gravity (has any of you even considered how awesome gravity really is!?)

14. planes

15. space shuttles

I mean, isn't it amazing how much we know!? How much new information are we gathering each day? Science really is amazing because it doesn't stay stationary! Science, like faith, really does grow. I mean, a few years ago, people thought that newborns couldn't comprehend anything around them, and yet studies show now that newborns actually respond to faces, people, sounds, etc! History is always changing too! New discoveries are debunking theories about civilizations, recreating events, and building up nations that we had no idea existed!

Honestly, science and history are like faith. Faith is ever growing, and so is our history and scientific research. All miracles of God can be explained through science, we just don't have the technology, or the brain capacity to comprehend it yet. :)

[Maxel]

I'm not interested in reading what's transpired since my last post, but I did want to make a few things clear.

Feel free to not discuss or read or respond to my posts if they cause you to be contentious. As for me I certainly harbor no ill will for you or your ideas and believe that they - your ideas - should be given free reign and subject to open and vigorous discussion - if you so chose. It would never dawn on me to suggest that you should be silenced or that you remain silent.

I hope you don't think I was requesting that you should be silenced. I was pointing out that this subject often becomes contentious (I have participated in such threads in the past, but the contention is definitely not confined to me), and that nothing is ever decided on. Perhaps others learn from the journey, but the lack of a discernable destination can muddy the waters of understanding.

For myself, I am firmly committed to testing all my beliefs to, to the very highest degree possible against facts, and science, and history and reason - the very tools with which God has endowed us. Why just tonight I learned several things that I did not believe before or consider before or at least with as much import. As it so happens I learned them personally from what/who I think is the Church’s foremost theological philosopher; and, as it turns out, he taught me some gospel truths through the application of logic and reason which provide the fertile ground in which the young shoots of faith spring forth - that is, I was persuaded by a superior argument. I reject no idea or vector because it contradicts my faith - what I have chosen to believe. I’d easily buy a literalistic interpretation of a Bible story if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Wonderful! I'm glad you're learning new things from others. That is always a cause to celebrate, the growth of faith.

My problem with threads like this is that faith is usually the first thing to go out the window. Because of the nature of the historical evidence, the truth is largely (if not entirely) arrived at through interpretation, which is dictated by our standing before God, our faith, and our worldly understanding of the issue (note that worldly understanding is a minority part of the formula). Without faith, the truth can stare us in the face without us gaining anything from it.

But to that end, you haven’t even offered an attempt at explaining, not even the literalist perspective, but a relative advantage that is gained from viewing it that way. And, by the way, this is not rehashing old material as you claimed.

I wasn't interested in arguing the point. I have, however, argued that a literalistic understanding of scripture (I was talking about Nephi slaying Laban in the Book of Mormon) is beneficial if it is the true interpretation of what happened (i.e., nothing is to be gained from believing Joshua was acting under divine commandment when he razed Jericho unless Joshua was, in fact, acting under divine commandment). The scriptures are one of the greatest tools for a mortal to come to understand God- interpreting them falsely harms our understanding of God (and therefore our eternal progression).

And finally, I’ve never met anyone who thinks that the Bible should be taken “wholly allegorical” and certainly don’t divide anyone into that camp.

Be that as it may, your OP can be easily mis-interpreted by another person as an argument for interpreting the Bible "wholly allegorically".

In point of fact, once one begins to say "event A in the Bible is false because [enter reason here]" without divine authority, one treads into the dark mists of doubt and uncertainty. From there, the only way back to certainty is by following the iron rod of faith in what is true (which is why it's important to interpret the scriptures correctly- which for the Bible is a mixture of allegory and literlism). There's a reason the Book of Mormon was restored- history and time have clouded man's understanding of the Bible, and modern ethical mores and misconceptions of God's nature have not helped the situation.

[Snow]

Here you go with your 'all or nothing' talk again. You cut out the words I say and take them out of context ... I used the word "everything." I said you don't have to interpret everything, you can leave some things as "I don't know right now."

Sorry - I'm not trying to take you out of context. You made a post. I responded.

My point is that you don't have to make a determination about everything you read immediately. It is possible to leave particular stories that you are struggling with, uninterpreted.

I'm not struggling. I do not have to fight with the idea that God kills innocent children because he is unhappy with Pharaoh - not a struggle.

The goal is to have God's interpretation and if one holds on to their own interpretation of things too quickly without humility they may miss the real meaning or worse think it is God's 'interpretation' or intent when it is not.

It seems that your point is either that God is planning on offering a public opinion or that I am form opinions without study, prayer and meditation. Either way, I'd like to see you provide some support for your contention.

Why would you look at the Bible as a history book anyway? Of course its not meant (now please don't take this word out of context either) as historical.

You seemed to have missed a central point of my view. It's NOT a history book and those that act like it is, create more problems than they solve.

[Snow]

Snow, you are welcome to interpret the scriptures as you choose to do. Be a minimalist if you wish.

However, if you wish to engage in discussion, then you need to actually distinguish between your opinion and fact. It is your opinion that talking donkeys do not happen in the Bible. It is your opinion that Job is entirely fictional.

ram, except when explicit facts are cited, it's all opinion; my opinion, your opinion, Rae Dawn Chong's opinion. Why am I under any more obligation than you?

However, when one looks at ancient Middle Eastern belief, the idea that there were divine sons of God/El, who contended for primacy, is not so far fetched. That's exactly what we see in Moses 4 and Abraham 3. That God sent Moses and Joshua to conquer the land, wiping out entire cities, is not so far fetched, when we consider that God brought on the flood (global or regional) to destroy the wicked. Or do you believe that the flood skipped over the families with small children?

I don't get your point but I don't think that there was a global flood and ark as described bible.

I agree that there were pre-Adamites. However, I also believe that Adam is the first born of those born with a special covenant of God in this creation period. Just as Mulekites became Nephites by joining the covenant, so too do all become sons of Adam by joining the covenant. It does not have to be an all-or-nothing issue, as you often try to make it. The gospel is not simply black and white, but it has many gray areas. For this reason, God has established heaven with several levels.

Then you agree with me - the creation story may be true but it is true allegorically.

[Dravin]

ram, except when explicit facts are cited, it's all opinion; my opinion, your opinion, Rae Dawn Chong's opinion. Why am I under any more obligation than you?

Because you've mastered the art of the strong thesis statement?

[Snow]

This the first time I've been accused of being a strong thesis stater.

[Dravin]

Well... the source of the accusation should probably be taken into consideration.

[bytor2112]

I believe the flood occurred and that donkeys talked. Call me simple.....but I believe.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I'm not struggling. I do not have to fight with the idea that God kills innocent children because he is unhappy with Pharaoh - not a struggle.

It seems that your point is either that God is planning on offering a public opinion or that I am form opinions without study, prayer and meditation. Either way, I'd like to see you provide some support for your contention.

You seemed to have missed a central point of my view. It's NOT a history book and those that act like it is, create more problems than they solve.

I was referring to the struggle of deciding whether any verse or story in the scriptures was literal versus allegorical. Even though I used the word "you" I didn't mean you as in you 'Snow.' I apologize, I misspoke there. I meant to say, "if one struggles with knowing whether a story is literal or allegorical it is possible to leave it, uninterpreted. That is great that you have it all figured out. It seemed to me that you started out talking about a struggle between literalism versus allegorical interpretations. But maybe struggle isn't the right word. I know I struggle sometimes in understanding the scriptures ... but ok, maybe there is no struggle, .... what are we talking about then?

As for the second part I am not sure what you are saying there, sorry. At least there I was using the word "one. " I need to use that more often. Humility is required to understand the scriptures, I think there are many sources for that, like 2 Nephi 9:42. Even study, prayer and meditation are not enough sometimes if one doesn't "call themselves fools before God" meaning admitting that one struggles in understanding and does not have all the answers.

And the last sentence there, I agree ... I was responding to you telling me that I took the book of Job as a history book. And again, that wasn't meant to be 'you' Snow, that was supposed to be 'Why would anyone take it as a history book?' ... its my lack of experience with formal discussion about these things in this way, I'm used to face to face casual discussions but I realize in some places here I need to be more formal and use the word 'one' more.

[rameumptom]

Snow,

I think the point several are taking here is your adamant insistence that your methodology is the correct one. Your statements reflect the need to compare the scripture with science, and anything that disagrees with science should probably be labeled as allegory.

This is a very inconsistent argument, because you make your own exceptions: the atonement and resurrection, for instance. Several scholars have used your methodology, such as William G Dever and Bart Ehrman, and it has led them to agnosticism.

What most LDS scholars I know try to do is to believe in the scriptural story, with science as an aid to help us understand things. Yes, sometimes this leads to believing some biblical stories may be inaccurate or allegorical, but it is still based in faith and inspiration first, with science and reason coming second. Why? Because science and reason are often wrong, as well.

If we follow science and reason first, then the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as revelator should be the first things we disbelieve. Science and reason disbelieve in talking donkeys, the slaying of children and Laban for God's purposes, elephants/horses in America, and resurrection.

For those LDS scholars who take the faith approach first, they seek to find that the word "horse" may have been used for the tapir or another animal. Those scholars who place science first use it as a method to disprove the Book of Mormon, saying it is silly to compare horses with tapir. Another view taken by some LDS who place science first is to say the Book of Mormon is an allegory, and not historical whatsoever. Either way, it diminishes both faith and the Restoration. And I believe that is what many read into your statements see. At least, that's what they suggest to me.

I believe because of my personal spiritual experiences, not because of science. Science neither buttresses nor destroys my faith. It simply is a tool to help me attempt to understand the ancient ways and beliefs. Do I think some of the Bible is allegorical? Probably. But I'm not so caught up in science as to pretend it contains the answers. It doesn't. It disbelieves in God, angels, prophets, miracles, and the scriptures. Science cannot explain the healings I've experienced. Science cannot explain the inspiration and revelation I've experienced. Should I consider my own experiences as allegory, or just illusory chemical processes occurring within my body and brain? Surely that would negate all experience, religious or otherwise.

So, I believe first and try to view things in the scriptures as real events first, unless my personal study, pondering, and yes, science, suggest something may be allegory. But just because I believe it to be allegory does not mean I should demean all others around me, simply because my experience and understanding is different than theirs. Share your opinion, but stop talking down to the little people. Perhaps they know more than you and science!

[Seminarysnoozer]

It seems that your point is either that God is planning on offering a public opinion or that I am form opinions without study, prayer and meditation. Either way, I'd like to see you provide some support for your contention.

Maybe this is the offering from God you are referring to? “When the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things,” our latter-day revelations tell us—“Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof.” (D&C 101:32–33.)

[prisonchaplain]

I believe the flood occurred and that donkeys talked. Call me simple.....but I believe.

I believe there is a popular Christian song out now entitled, "The Beauty of Simplicity." :)

[Snow]

It's tough to know why you are so badly mangling my position. Granted it makes it easier to rebut if you so throughly change by position to suit your rebuttal but it hardly seems like fair play...

Snow,

I think the point several are taking here is your adamant insistence that your methodology is the correct one. Your statements reflect the need to compare the scripture with science, and anything that disagrees with science should probably be labeled as allegory.

1. The point I made was not that my methodology was the only correct one - rather that my methodology has more utility whereas the contrary methodology has less, or sometimes none.

2. I hardly made the point that anything that disagrees with science probably should be labeled as allegory. I think that I have only asserted that conundrum in 3 or 4 cases and I have specified a number of other cases where I don't think that such a comparison is a useful tool. Besides which, science was only one of the many things that I said should be considered.

This is a very inconsistent argument, because you make your own exceptions: the atonement and resurrection, for instance. Several scholars have used your methodology, such as William G Dever and Bart Ehrman, and it has led them to agnosticism.

They are hardly exceptions to my "methodology" as you put it. They are part and parcel to my methodology. I specifically said that a scientific approach isn't particularly helpful on high utility events or concepts that are central to the theology.

I don't know about Dever but I'd counter that what led Ehrman to agnosticism was the very problematic literalism that he used to operate under. His eyes were finally opened about just how negative-utility such an approach was... and science was just one of the problems he encountered. An even bigger problem was the internal contradiction in scripture.

What most LDS scholars I know try to do is to believe in the scriptural story, with science as an aid to help us understand things. Yes, sometimes this leads to believing some biblical stories may be inaccurate or allegorical, but it is still based in faith and inspiration first, with science and reason coming second. Why? Because science and reason are often wrong, as well.

You may be on to something here - can you name two or three events that were originally attributed to a natural scientific occurrence that were later proved to be supernaturally miraculous?

If we follow science and reason first, then the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith as revelator should be the first things we disbelieve. Science and reason disbelieve in talking donkeys, the slaying of children and Laban for God's purposes, elephants/horses in America, and resurrection.

And yet I follow science and reason and I don't disbelieve Joseph Smith or the BoM.... cuz you are misstating my position. Scientific consideration is not the end all be all. It is merely one of the tools that God gave us to help us understand reality.

But I'm not so caught up in science as to pretend it contains the answers. It doesn't. It disbelieves in God, angels, prophets, miracles, and the scriptures.

Science doesn't believe or disbelieve anything. Science implies a methodology that seeks after truth based on the evidence - a methodology that doesn't put much weight on claims that cannot be demonstrated.

Science cannot explain the healings I've experienced. Science cannot explain the inspiration and revelation I've experienced. Should I consider my own experiences as allegory, or just illusory chemical processes occurring within my body and brain? Surely that would negate all experience, religious or otherwise.

You are awfully hung up on science - way more than me it seems, there are people with religious experiences that contradict yours - that is, people claim religious experiences for all sorts of things that you, or we in the Church, think are bogus.

So, I believe first and try to view things in the scriptures as real events first, unless my personal study, pondering, and yes, science, suggest something may be allegory. But just because I believe it to be allegory does not mean I should demean all others around me, simply because my experience and understanding is different than theirs. Share your opinion, but stop talking down to the little people.

Yarg. I can't demean anyone - at least any adults. I can simply state my opinion. If others choose to be demeaned by me having an opinion they don't like - that's on them.

Perhaps they know more than you and science!

... or perhaps not.

But to the point of this thread... can you think of any way that I would be better off if I believe that God killed a bunch of innocent children in Israel because he was mad at Pharaoh?

Edited October 24, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

I believe there is a popular Christian song out now entitled, "The Beauty of Simplicity." :)

A belief in a flood as described in the bible is hardly simple. You have to believe all sort of complex, far out things. You then need to think that God magically erased the evidence in order to confuse the issue.

A much, much, much simpler approach is to think that the anonymous author who described events for which he was not a witness, got the story wrong.

[prisonchaplain]

A belief in a flood as described in the bible is hardly simple. You have to believe all sort of complex, far out things. You then need to think that God magically erased the evidence in order to confuse the issue.

A much, much, much simpler approach is to think that the anonymous author who described events for which he was not a witness, got the story wrong.

Oh I don't know. We literalists seem to be doing okay. It seems that we fester in your movement almost as much as we do in mine.

[Snow]

Oh I don't know. We literalists seem to be doing okay. It seems that we fester in your movement almost as much as we do in mine.

Didn't say that you were doing just fine or even better... just that your approach is not the simple one as you said, rather it is the more complex and convoluted one.

[cleanvisit]

Wow, I just read through most of this conversation and I must say, it is a bit complex. I know that God is the author of all things but I also know, as the Bible states, God is not the author of confusion. Christ was a master teacher because he taught simply. People understood.

A lot of what I have been reading (and not to pick on Snow) has been highly abstract and convoluted. I see your point of view (Snow) however, even slight variations from the faith lead to apostasy in the long run. I know, it may seem harsh, but as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we believe in modern, living Prophets. As such, we must believe what they say is true. We accept them as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Although it may be simpler, less controversial, and more popular to believe the way you do (you have a convincing argument) your central point is inherently incorrect.

[Snow]

A lot of what I have been reading (and not to pick on Snow) has been highly abstract and convoluted. I see your point of view (Snow) however, even slight variations from the faith lead to apostasy in the long run.

... I'm inclined to ask you to provide any evidence that I am in or heading towards apostasy but of course, we both know that you can't. If anything I am heading towards heresy - at least according to some here. but heresy has no penalty in the Church.

I know, it may seem harsh, but as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, we believe in modern, living Prophets. As such, we must believe what they say is true. We accept them as prophets, seers, and revelators.

I'd like to see you demonstrate that the Prophet requires me to believe that God literally colluded with Satan to kill Job's family.

Do you think I'll have to wait long for that?

Although it may be simpler, less controversial, and more popular to believe the way you do (you have a convincing argument) your central point is inherently incorrect.

Inherently? I assume that you'll be demonstrating that instead of merely asserting it... won't you?

[prisonchaplain]

Didn't say that you were doing just fine or even better... just that your approach is not the simple one as you said, rather it is the more complex and convoluted one.

Okay...so your Prius is more efficient than my Buick.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I guess I have some informal guidelines:

Absurdity: If something smacks of absurdity, then it might be absurd - especially if there is no utility to be gained from interpreting the story literally. A talking donkey that actually talked doesn't have any compelling reason to believe in it. Christ walking on the water may seem absurd on the face of it but there are various ways of thinking about it that convey important legitimate concepts.

Contradicted by Reality: If something is contradicted by the facts, history, archeology, science, etc, that's a problem. Take the flood. On one side you have massive amounts or data and logic and science subjected to peer review and the highest levels of scholarly and academic standard and on the other hand you have an anonymous author writing 3000 years ago.

Attribution of evil to God: If scripture attributes evil to God - I don't buy it. I'll favor God over anonymous authors every time.

Failed prophecy: If something is predicted, and it doesn't happen, the prophecy was wrong.

Internal contractions: If one scripture is contradicted by another, at least one of them cannot be literally true.

Now - my question of you is: How do you decide which scriptures are literally true vs those that are not?

I suppose the thing that is hard to take in about your "methodology" and maybe others have the same feeling is that I see no room for the process of faith in your methodology. Please tell me how faith fits into this system of yours. If you have accounted for every angle and reason in your method then you leave no room for faith. I would say that you have outlined a good way to ponder the scriptures, to begin one's study of the scriptures but I don't think you have to arrive at any conclusions until you have also added faith to the process. Faith makes it so you do not have to conclude your thoughts for the meantime. With faith, one doesn't require "show me 2 or 3 examples of this." You do not have to show by science or internal contradictions or any other method of philosophical reasoning that something is true or not, literally true or not, or allegorically true or not if you leave room for faith. You are trying so hard to say there is a conclusion, it is true or it is not, that it leaves no room for faith. If one drives so hard to arrive at some conclusion as to make the conclusion the purpose of study of the scriptures then faith is pushed out of the picture. So, how does faith fit into your methodology. That's the part that I am not understanding.

[rameumptom]

Okay...so your Prius is more efficient than my Buick.

But is his Prius more scientifically true than your allegorical Buick? And does it have a nicer ride?

[rameumptom]

Snow,

My point is that your writing tends towards all-or-nothing. At least, that's how most read it. Perhaps you need a course in communication?

While your methodology is not necessarily bad, my point is that it has led many away from the gospel. Dever and Ehrman are now agnostics (actually, Dever calls himself an atheist), because of taking the scientific method to the extreme. Ehrman began as a Bible literalist, but now he sees it all as allegorical. You claim to know some method to delineate between talking donkeys and resurrecting Lords, so as to maintain the faith. I'd really like to know what it is, as science does not prove nor disprove either one (they aren't really testable in all ways). However, science theory does show both to be statistically highly unlikely.

My point is that most LDS, including the LDS scholars I have known for years, tend to seek the Spirit first, and science second. Your statements in this discussion do not suggest that, rather suggest science method comes first.

You are welcome to explain how that occurs, OR you are welcome to clarify your previous statements. As it is, I don't think I've misinterpreted your statements, else many others on the topic have as well. Once again, it may be you need a course in communication?