The Bible

[Anomalocaris]

It is either true, or not. If it is false, it remains false whatever the author's intent.

So you are saying that the truth of a statement is independent of the intended meaning of that statement?

Yes.

[Stempy]

So you are saying that the truth of a statement is independent of the intended meaning of that statement?

Yes.

So no matter how I interpret your claims, they are still true? Fine, then I will interpret your belief that the Bible is a "shabby piece of shit" to actually mean the Bible is "an insightful masterpiece". In which case, we are in full agreement.

[Anomalocaris]

So you are saying that the truth of a statement is independent of the intended meaning of that statement?

Yes.

So no matter how I interpret your claims, they are still true? Fine, then I will interpret your belief that the Bible is a "shabby piece of shit" to actually mean the Bible is "an insightful masterpiece". In which case, we are in full agreement.

No, "A piece of shit" means "a piece of shit". It doesn't make any difference what i meant when I said "a piece of shit". If I meant to say "a insightful masterpiece", but what I actually said is "apiece of shit", than what I said still means "a piece of shit", and does not mean "insightful masterpiece" regardless of my intentions. You will be a wish thinking moron of the most idiotic kind to interpret what I actually said to mean anything other than "a piece of shit".

[Stempy]

No, "A piece of shit" means "a piece of shit". It doesn't make any difference what i meant when I said "a piece of shit". If I meant to say "a insightful masterpiece", but what I actually said is "apiece of shit", than what I said still means "a piece of shit", and does not mean "insightful masterpiece" regardless of my intentions. You will be a wish thinking moron of the most idiotic kind to interpret what I actually said to mean anything other than "a piece of shit".

So words have some kind of objective meaning independent of how we use them. Interesting...

Let's take a slightly less silly example then. Say I interpret your statement to mean that you are claiming that the Bible is actually a shabby piece of shit, a steaming lump of physical human waste. After all, "shabby piece of shit" just means what it means whether you intended it as a metaphor or not, right?

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree with Chuck. The literal meaning is always the same. That's why it's literal.

Metaphorical meanings are metaphorical.... but they are, then, actually, genuinely - literally - metaphorical otherwise they're not metaphorical.

[Stempy]

I agree with Chuck. The literal meaning is always the same. That's why it's literal.

Metaphorical meanings are metaphorical.... but they are, then, actually, genuinely - literally - metaphorical otherwise they're not metaphorical.

Take the statement "The Bible is a shabby piece of shit", then, standing alone, apart from any context of authorial intent. What is the objective meaning of this statement?

[Edwardo Piet]

Its literal meaning is objective. And its metaphorical meaning is objectively whatever the metaphor is defined to mean.

So to simplify it I would say that its metaphorical meaning(s) is(are) more subjective, in a practical sense. In the sense we can't really know what metaphor is being used if that metaphor is being conceived of on the spot and so isn't explicitly defined in any dictionary. But its literal meaning absolutely is objective.

[Stempy]

Its literal meaning is objective. And its metaphorical meaning is objectively whatever the metaphor is defined to mean.

So to simplify it I would say that its metaphorical meaning(s) is(are) more subjective, in a practical sense. In the sense we can't really know what metaphor is being used if that metaphor is being conceived of on the spot and so isn't explicitly defined in any dictionary. But its literal meaning absolutely is objective.

So to confirm: the objective meaning of Chuck's statement is the literal one, independent of whether he intended it to be a metaphor? And I should interpret the statement by its objective meaning, just like the way Chuck interprets the 7 days of Genesis?

[downbeatplumb]

Stempy

Please point out in the bible what parts are meant to be taken literally and which ones are metaphorical.

The bible itself appears to be no help in this. With the possible exception of the stories/lies jesus told, you know the ones, the good samaritan etc.
He liked to spin a dit did jesus, you had to take everything he said with a pinch of salt.

[Stempy]

Please point out in the bible what parts are meant to be taken literally and which ones are metaphorical.

To start with, why the need to be quite so dogmatic? Why is it so necessary to have a complete knowledge of these things? Why can't we just look at each passage on a case-by-case basis and come to our conclusions using the available resources? Isn't that the rational, skeptical thing to do?

Second, it is not as simple as dividing the Bible up into "literal" and "metaphorical". There is methaphorical language throught the whole Bible, in just the same way as all writing (from scientific to historical to even the toughest works of analytic philosophy) use simile and metaphor and other literary devices to communicate. But using metaphorical language doesn't mean that it's not talking about something real and concrete. We use the "Big Bang" as a metaphor for the initial expansion of the universe for example.

Finally, there is no such thing as a "literal" genre or a "metaphorical" genre. There are many different genres of literature in the Bible, from myth (which I'm not using in a derogatory sense) to historiography, to Wisdom literature, etc., etc. Language is employed in different ways depending on the genre, and that includes the amount and type of literary techniques like metaphor and hyperbole. And that's not just true of the Bible - it's exactly the same with the different types of writing we are used to in the modern day. We know the difference between poetry and newspaper reports; we also know that poetry can tell us many true things, and newspaper reports can tell us many false things. We can use exactly the same techniques we use to think about modern day writing as for ancient writing, provided we are willing to put ourselves in the shoes of ancient people and see how they would have understood them.

That is what we need to do with Genesis 1, just like any other piece of ancient or modern literature. We need to ask the basic questions: What type of literature is this? Who is the audience? How would they have understood this language? Without those giving us a framework, casual dismissal of Biblical literature because it contains language that we are not used to or statements that we don't understand in our modern paradigms is baseless (and actually a form of cultural discrimination).

Stempy