[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

The chief difference being that Darwin and Harris aren't trying to lead people to salvation.  The stakes of a scientific theory (Darwin) and anti-theist polemics (Harris) are monumentally different than those of eternal salvation.  If God wants 'all men to be saved' and if the NT is indeed God-inspired, what is the point of intentionally making the Bible ambiguous and difficult to understand?

By way of analogy, suppose I own a treasure (gold, diamonds, stuffed dates, whatever) that I want you to have.  Even more, it is intrinsic to my very nature that I want you to have it - it is impossible for me to not want you to have it.  The catch is, you have to find it yourself.  To facilitate this, I give you a set of detailed instructions about the hiding place of this treasure.  The instructions are 1) ambiguous, 2) self-contradictory, 3) couched in riddles, the answers to which no one can possible agree on, and 4) can be interpreted as metaphorical, literal or allegorical with equal facility.  I go through all of these machinations to get you to the treasure, when I could have just as easily  made the instructions clear and unambiguous ('Go to such-and-such latitude and longitude, look under the rock that says, 'The Treasure Is Here').

Does it seem like I actually want you to find this treasure, or does it seem more like I'm just screwing with you?

Boru