RE: Literal and Not Literal
August 28, 2019 at 9:05 am
(This post was last modified: August 28, 2019 at 9:08 am by Acrobat.)
(August 28, 2019 at 8:13 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The idea that holy texts mean different things to different people ('Moreover, part of their value is that the prompt they give will be different for every reader, and that this is what the writer wants.') is a pretty compelling argument that these texts are human in origin, and not divine or even divinely inspired, taking 'divine' in the literal, narrow sense.
Using the Christian New Testament as an example - since it seems to be the one with which most members are familiar -, the goal of this work is to instruct people how to behave and believe in order to get to Heaven. Since God wants people to get to Heaven (per the text), it would be in the best interests all parties concerned that the text be interpreted in the same manner. BUT...if the texts are intentionally ambiguous and open to as many interpretations as there are readers, the clear conclusion is that the texts were concocted by human writers who were writing from imperfect knowledge and the typical human emotions (greed, fear, prejudice and greed).
In short, the holy texts aren't 'holy' at all.
Boru
Why is this only applicable to holy texts, and not text in general? I mean we seem to have the same problems with philosophical works, novels, etc.., even the writings of the scientifically minded, like Darwin, or even Sam Harris, in fact such issues plague pretty much ever interpretation of posts between two people who strongly disagree with each other here.
Secondly in regards to the ambiguity of the NT, Jesus gave a huge middle finger to those seeking less ambiguity. He uses parables, riddles, and sayings that his own disciples had trouble understanding.
I’d say that’s because the understanding the meaning that’s trying be conveyed requires something far more fundamental than just reading words on pages, truths that are less understood by hearing, but more so by seeing.
I’d put it this way, there’s nothing wrong with the NT or the Bible being open to multiple interpretations, only in what motivates those interpretations.
And often times that motivation isn’t to discern the truth of meaning.