Saurencaerthai wrote:Again, I said that the thing reads deeper than a Faulkner novel. By that, I mean that things can take on deeper meanings. Say an author writes of hawk killing a pidgeon, for example. At face value, it's one animal taking the life of another. However, by the same token that same image could have numerous implications. Perhaps political, perhaps societal, perhaps moral. Why do you think there are 60 volumes of the talmud plus numerous works dealing with one thing: how to interperate this?
Because those people have too much time on their hands and wanted an easy way to bullshit their way toward earning a doctoral degree. I've never seen a single legitimate reason as to why the Bible should be taken at anything more than face value.
That is metaphor, my friend. One thing representing something greater.
The Bible is in essence, much metaphor based losely around actual events.
Slothful assertion without evidence.
The classic example of this I like to give is that of the Binding of Issac followed by the incedents at Sodom and Gemorah. If you take these at face value, they both have terrible implications. However, at a different level, they actually speak AGAINST fundimentalism and for questioning of the beliefs. Abraham was a religious zealot before the binding, just like man other beliefs. He followed blindly. Not much of a difference from the polytheistic beliefs, only he had one deity. The Akedah, however, served as an awakening against following blindly, which ultimately would have led to the death of his own son by his own hand. Later on, with Sodom and Gemorrah, he pleads and bargains with the deity in an effort to spare the city, questioning, not just saying "you tha god!". The city could be seen as simply part of a means to convey a greater concept.
You're clearly bullshitting or just repeating someone else's bullshit.
Why should the Bible be interpreted at something other than face value? Because its face value interpretation makes it out to be an unspeakably violent and evil piece of literature, which would conflict with the predetermined conclusion of it being "holy" and "the Good Book"? Sorry, not a good enough reason, and it's the only one I've ever seen liberal Biblical interpreters give.
This is what I can refer to as the "bottomless ice berg" of literature. This idea can apply to most literature that's out there, actually. Say you are approaching an ice berg on a ship. You see it's size and are amazed. Now you're in scuba gear and 100 feet under water. You see more of it's size. Now you're in a sub even further down and you see even more of it's greatness. If you go to literature you can take it at face value, but the deeper you go, the more of it you see that you didn't see at the surface.
That's extremely liberal interpretation of literature, nothing more. Do you know how many allegorical meanings can be derived from
The Lord of The Rings? Tons. Did you also know that Tolkein wrote in the forward that the story had
no allegorical meaning whatsoever?
In this case, it only becomes an issue of whether or not it is acceptable if you decide to take it at face value.
Please give a reason as to why we should interpret the Bible beyond face value. Interpretations beyond what is written add complexity to an explanation and are thus undesirable and to be avoided unless there is some overbearing reason for their presence. Just because some people desperately want to make the Bible conform to modern, civilized, secular norms doesn't mean that wild and crazy interpretations of the source text have any kind of validity. I'm sure that, if I really tried, I could pull something good out of
Mein Kampf, as well.
And I am a 'Catholic' from birth, and goes to Church every weekend... and I don't get it at all