Who decides – literal vs. non-literal in the Bible

[Zzyzx]

.
Who decides – literal vs. non-literal in the Bible

From a current thread:

Of course perhaps you are turning to the utterly absurd - and attempting to present the words as if they were meant to be literal.

Okay, I agree.

Let’s not take the words of the Bible literally – including those that describe supernatural entities and events.

I doubt that many Christians would agree – but would insist that SOME words of the Bible should be taken literally and some NOT taken literally. And, THEY get to decide which is which.

Does membership in the Christian Club grant people great powers of discernment? Literary and linguistic ability? Wisdom? Of course not. So why pretend to have special understanding of which words of the Bible are literal and which are not?



Questions for debate:

1) Identify the parts of the Bible that are literally true and those that are not literally true.

2) Is there any method of making the ‘literal / non-literal’ determination regarding Bible words that anyone can apply that is not a matter of opinion?

[Difflugia]

And even if it was a mythical fable why cast the demons into pigs? What would be the point of that story?

A plausible explanation I've read is that the demon pigs are an insulting reference to Roman centurions. "I am Legion"

Dennis R. MacDonald (the author of the book linked above) further opines that the story of the demoniac may be intended to remind the reader of Polyphemus (the cyclops) in Homer's Odyssey.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

In their pre-scientific mindset, the Ancients may have intended some things to have been taken literally, but now fail the test of reality.

The flood story being the prime example. The Ancients probably believed it literally. We now know it couldn't have happened, for various physical and biological reasons.

But we moderns can still derive benefit from the story, as a myth of regeneration from the remnant. That principle can be applied to various aspects of real life. Regaining a fortune from what's left from a bankruptcy and a good idea, etc. To cite another myth, the Phoenix rising from the ashes. Things can work on different levels, like the Fractured Fairy Tales, from Rocky and Bullwinkle. . When the literal fails, oftentimes the mythic element still works.

Methodology? Mine is to reject those things in the Bible which contradict Reason, or not to take those things literally. The above mentioned Flood, and also walking on water would be examples of those.

To accept the things that accord with Reason, the moral and ethical teachings such as the Golden Rule, etc.

But some things transcend Reason. The basic belief in God, for example. So far, neither proven or disproven by science and Reason. So the acceptance or rejection of those depend in the inclination of the person in question, and it is doubtful that any amount of reasoned debate will persuade, one way or the other. Regarding things transcendent anyway. Hopefully, (if the debaters in question are being honest) they can be persuaded either way, on the things that can be shown to be true or untrue. (Do people walk on unfrozen water? Have they ever?)

Also my method is to focus on the timeless and essential aspects of the Bible, and not to worry to much about the peripheral. An example of the peripheral would be Paul's admonition for women to stay in their place and not speak in Church. By contrast, an example of the essential would be this...Jesus described both Golden rule and the two great Commandments of love as the "Law and the Prophets". Love of God and neighbor. The essence of the Law, and of the Bible as a whole. Everything else in the Good Book should be interpreted in light of those fundamental principles. The keeping and the beating of slaves would fail that test, and should be rejected.

The basic teaching of God's mercy for the contrite would be another example. The complex and unlikely theology of blood-redemption, by contrast, is superfluous at best, barbaric at worst and really does not stand up to reasoned scrutiny. God sacrificing Himself to Himself in order to give Himself permission to forgive, makes no sense at all. He could just simply forgive right off the bat, those sincerely seeking forgiveness. And I believe He does, and there are many Bible passages that support this position. (The parables, especially the Prodigal Son, the Beattitudes, the Lord's Prayer, Hosea 6.6, Micah 6.6-8, Psalm 51.16-17, Isaiah 66.2b-4a, etc.)

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

CONTEXT

- is does the writer speaker introduce the words as a parable, illustration?
- does the passage contain the structural patterns of poetry?
- is information presented within a historical context (date, literal location, ect)
- are the characters presented as real (parentage)

CONTENT

- does the passage make sense if taken literally ie does it harmonize with proven science, historical fact,
- does it harmonize with the rest of scripture if take literally/figuratively

That’s a promising list of criteria to work with, so thanks for offering it. Just for interest, where did you find it?

Some of my thoughts and opinions:

First considering context, especially the first two criteria, I would suggest that one could run into difficulties when taking into account different translations.

Published translations are peer reviewed works produced by language experts in the field, there is therefore for the most part very little variation in content when you compare the different bible translations. In any case the serious bible student will usually check the original language (one doesn't have to be an expert to know how to use a concordance). There's inevitably something that is "lost in translation" but it doesn't take too much digging to find out what it is.

You're right poetry is a little harder to identify if we are not reading the material in the original language (words might not rhyme when translated or it might be hard to detect alliteration) but all poetry employs certain literary devices that are identifiable (metaphor, idiom, simile, hyperbole, personification...) . Hebrew poetry for example uses a lot of paraelleism, where thoughts are coupled for contrast or emphasis. In any case, again translators often do our work for us and present poetry centered on the page with line breaks to indicate the intended rhythm. The Psalms for example are thus presented to indicate to the reader they are reading songs.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

I support the view that we do not have a reliable (agreed upon) method of determining literal from figurative.

"Agreed upon" and "reliable" are not synonyms. Consensus is perhaps required in government and engineering but not art, and certainly not literature. Anyone that has taken a class in literature learns the basic methodology to analyse what they are reading, consistent methodology is all that is required for a reader to reasonably view a conclusion as "reliable", consensus is not.

Anything, short of a telephone directory, that is expressed through language can be read figuratively or literally. One makes the decision in a split second every time we encounter words. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I'm happy to belong to a religion where explanations about how a particular conclusion has been arrived at, is systematically provided when it comes to understanding the bible, this has helped me to develop my reasoning skills, but in the end, if someone is looking for a consensus to tell them about what to think about each sentence they read, they should probably stay away from literature and most certainly stay far far away from the bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

Methodology? Mine is to reject those things in the Bible which contradict Reason, ...

But some things transcend Reason.

So what is the difference between "contradict" reason and "transend" reason?

[Diagoras]

Published translations are peer reviewed works produced by language experts in the field, there is therefore for the most part very little variation in content when you compare the different bible translations.

You also said, in the following post:

Consensus is perhaps required in government and engineering but not art, and certainly not literature.

It strikes me that peer-review is a form of consensus. Wikipedia seems to agree with me:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Consensus is achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication of reproducible results by others, scholarly debate, and peer review.

That’s a minor quibble though (and perhaps scientific consensus works differently anyway). I don’t really have an objection to your points about recognising poetry and/or translation differences. Thanks for enlightening me a little about Hebrew poetry as well - I did stress that I’m by no means an expert on literature.

Instead, I’d like to understand a bit more about what you posted later:

Anything, short of a telephone directory, that is expressed through language can be read figuratively or literally.

One would hope that scientific papers wouldn’t be read figuratively!

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I'm happy to belong to a religion where explanations about how a particular conclusion has been arrived at, is systematically provided when it comes to understanding the bible

<bolding mine>

Could you elaborate on this? Particularly, who is doing the providing? Is there anything equivalent to an official ‘annotated’ bible which states, “this passage is to be taken figuratively�? If you have a simple example of a time when you felt you needed a better explanation for something you read, could you talk us through how you found that explanation?

[JehovahsWitness]

Published translations are peer reviewed works produced by language experts in the field, there is therefore for the most part very little variation in content when you compare the different bible translations.

You also said, in the following post:

Consensus is perhaps required in government and engineering but not art, and certainly not literature.

It strikes me that peer-review is a form of consensus. Wikipedia seems to agree with me:

Yes but a translator doesn't tell us how to understand the words, simply puts them into another language. Translators may be able to identify if a given text is poetry/song or not and indicate this in the choice of layout and punctuation, but we still have choices to make because by far the vast amount of the bible is not poetry or song but may still be judged as allegorical or symbolic, there the reader is "on his own".


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I'm happy to belong to a religion where explanations about how a particular conclusion has been arrived at, is systematically provided when it comes to understanding the bible

<bolding mine>

Could you elaborate on this? Particularly, who is doing the providing? Is there anything equivalent to an official ‘annotated’ bible which states, “this passage is to be taken figuratively�? If you have a simple example of a time when you felt you needed a better explanation for something you read, could you talk us through how you found that explanation?

Particularly, who is doing the providing?

• Jehovah's Witness have a governing body that oversee amongst other things, the production of bible's, bible commentaries, and teaching material for all Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide.

Is there anything equivalent to an official ‘annotated’ bible which states, “this passage is to be taken figuratively�?

• No, we don't see that as necessary. As I said, every single word and sentence in the bible is open to interpretation as to whether it is figurative or literal. Most readers dont need to be told Jesus disciples were human not farm animals, and that when Jesus called his followers "sheep"* he was speaking metaphorically. Readers have the personal reponsibility to exercise his own critical thinking skills when they read. That said, if a Jehovah's Witness (or anyone else) wishes to see the current official JW understanding of a particular scripture, he has but to look up a commentary on it provided by our governing body. Explanations will be provided in the context of a discussion on the meaning of a passage or expression. If there is a reasonable, doubt whether something should be taken literally that will be said there.

The governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses has put all their literature online. Bible explanations can easily be found using the search box (top right hand corner) of the OFFICIAL JW website https://www.jw.org ...Or at the sister site (Watchtower library)

* Here is the reading list that came up when I did a search for "sheep"
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=sheep&p=par&r=occ


If you have a simple example of a time when you felt you needed a better explanation for something you read, could you talk us through how you found that explanation?

• We are currently studying the letters of Peter in our congrgational bible study classes. I came across the verse where Peter writes that the ancient Prophets ministered to the Christians Peter was writing to and I wondered in what sense. I knew it wasnt literally since those ancients had been dead many centuries prior to the first century but I still wondered what Peter meant that the Prophets ministered to first century Christians. So I looked it (the passage) up in our publications. And found the following.
  

  ....the Hebrew prophets came to understand that the Messianic prophecies were not primarily recorded for their profit but for the benefit of those who would actually be living at the time of Messiah’s appearance. (1 Peter 1:12) Regarding the revelations that he received, the prophet Daniel admitted: “I heard, but I could not understand.� (Daniel 12:8) However, persons who accepted the “good news� that was proclaimed in the first century C.E. were the ones who profited fully from the inspired words about Messiah’s first coming. It was to them that the prophets were actually ministering.​—Matthew 13:16, 17
  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101979002#h=13

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 28 by JehovahsWitness]

That’s a really informative answer, thank you.

I’ve learned something today.