The Absurdity of Non-Literalism

[GenesisNemesis]

A common claim among liberal Christians is that the Bible is intended to be interpreted as mostly metaphorical, and that Genesis is an "allegory". A major problem I've noticed with that interpretation is that it makes absolutely no sense in a non-literal context to have genealogies. Why would they go through the trouble of creating detailed genealogies, even mentioning the specific age at which certain people died? Clearly the only reason that makes would be if they actually believed those people existed, and if they believed those people existed, that implies they believed Adam and Eve existed- therefore Genesis cannot be an "allegory". In a non-literal context, we're to assume that those names don't mean anything at all, and the ancients just put them there for no discernible reason, other than to give the illusion that Genesis is to be interpreted literally. The other problem is that Genesis lays the foundation for original sin. If Adam and Eve never existed and God never punished them, then there's no reason whatsoever for a Savior of humanity to come around thousands of years later. If the entire thing didn't happen, there is no original sin and god didn't create the Universe/Earth in the way the Bible says he did, which makes it a very misleading document. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand, but non-literalists seem to have trouble with this. It seems very disingenuous at best.

 

[excreationist]

It's this type of reasoning that made me go straight from a young-earth creationist to an atheist.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A common claim among liberal Christians is that the Bible is intended to be interpreted as mostly metaphorical,

But metaphors compare similar things. If a 'day' is a metaphor for 400 million years, or whatever, that's fine. But it still has plants on the land way before the sun was created. The story is still drastically different from what science holds as our past.

 

[Underseer]

A common claim among liberal Christians is that the Bible is intended to be interpreted as mostly metaphorical, and that Genesis is an "allegory". A major problem I've noticed with that interpretation is that it makes absolutely no sense in a non-literal context to have genealogies. Why would they go through the trouble of creating detailed genealogies, even mentioning the specific age at which certain people died? Clearly the only reason that makes would be if they actually believed those people existed, and if they believed those people existed, that implies they believed Adam and Eve existed- therefore Genesis cannot be an "allegory". In a non-literal context, we're to assume that those names don't mean anything at all, and the ancients just put them there for no discernible reason, other than to give the illusion that Genesis is to be interpreted literally. The other problem is that Genesis lays the foundation for original sin. If Adam and Eve never existed and God never punished them, then there's no reason whatsoever for a Savior of humanity to come around thousands of years later. If the entire thing didn't happen, there is no original sin and god didn't create the Universe/Earth in the way the Bible says he did, which makes it a very misleading document. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand, but non-literalists seem to have trouble with this. It seems very disingenuous at best.

Most non-literalists I know openly acknowledge the murky origins of the Bible. They know it's a confused mess with many authors and editors, many of whom had cynical political motives to make the changes they made. If you ask me, the literalists are more incoherent because they have to deny a lot of biblical scholarship on top of having to believe in literal talking donkeys, or the thing about having animals look at stripes while mating.

 

[Sarpedon]

My response to this is always to take some bizarre tale from the bible, like when David cuts Saul's coat while the latter is shitting, and ask what what its metaphorical meaning is.

 

[Underseer]

My response to this is always to take some bizarre tale from the bible, like when David cuts Saul's coat while the latter is shitting, and ask what what its metaphorical meaning is.

And they can always excuse it by saying that some fuckhead who didn't know what they were talking about edited that part.

 

[funinspace]

A common claim among liberal Christians is that the Bible is intended to be interpreted as mostly metaphorical, and that Genesis is an "allegory". A major problem I've noticed with that interpretation is that it makes absolutely no sense in a non-literal context to have genealogies. Why would they go through the trouble of creating detailed genealogies, even mentioning the specific age at which certain people died? Clearly the only reason that makes would be if they actually believed those people existed, and if they believed those people existed, that implies they believed Adam and Eve existed- therefore Genesis cannot be an "allegory". In a non-literal context, we're to assume that those names don't mean anything at all, and the ancients just put them there for no discernible reason, other than to give the illusion that Genesis is to be interpreted literally. The other problem is that Genesis lays the foundation for original sin. If Adam and Eve never existed and God never punished them, then there's no reason whatsoever for a Savior of humanity to come around thousands of years later. If the entire thing didn't happen, there is no original sin and god didn't create the Universe/Earth in the way the Bible says he did, which makes it a very misleading document. I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand, but non-literalists seem to have trouble with this. It seems very disingenuous at best.

The problem is that the Bible clearly also has allegory and parables, never mind poetry. How does one take the Psalms and Proverbs literally? Not too many thinking Christians take Job as literal history. There is in essence no such thing as literalists, as no one really takes it all literally. How many Christian families went to the Saudi families of the 9-11 suicide killers, and offered them help/comfort? They are all at the same cafeteria, they just pick up differing plates.

The number of sects that make YEC part of their doctrine is actually extremely small. The YECers make up maybe 1-3% of Christianity. Most evangelicals/fundamentalists/conservative Christians only buy part of the “literal” YEC story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Adhering_church_bodies

Adhering church bodies

Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church
Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
Seventh-day Adventist Church

How is the literalist who goes “lalalalala I can’t hear you” when presented with the reality that there was no Deluge or vacuously states that the earth/universe is 6,000 years old, any less disingenuous? Even the self-proclaimed literalists/fundagelicals, often will state that the original writing was God-Breathed, but then hedge their bets by admitting that the transmission thru time let humans introduce flaws; sometimes they will add that the stuff about salvation is still 100% perfect. Yeah, they have lots of tools to chip away at the square peg…

 

[Wiploc]

A common claim among liberal Christians is that the Bible is intended to be interpreted as mostly metaphorical, and that Genesis is an "allegory". A major problem I've noticed with that interpretation is that it makes absolutely no sense in a non-literal context to have genealogies.

Have you noticed the problem that it makes no sense if you try to interpret it literally?

Why would they go through the trouble of creating detailed genealogies, even mentioning the specific age at which certain people died?

Asimov thought they were cutting down the ages of the patriarchs of a prior religion. Instead of having someone live five hundred thousand years, they had him live only 900 years so as to seem more plausible.

Clearly the only reason that makes would be if they actually believed those people existed,

Or they thought it made a good story.

and if they believed those people existed, that implies they believed Adam and Eve existed- therefore Genesis cannot be an "allegory".

Have you noticed that it also can't be literally true?

In a non-literal context, we're to assume that those names don't mean anything at all,

You don't know that. I don't assume that. Why would you assume that? I think you're attacking a straw man. Or maybe you're trying for a false dichotomy: "You have to either believe my plagued-by-difficulties interpretation or you have to assume the bible is total nonsense. There are no other options."

and the ancients just put them there for no discernible reason, other than to give the illusion that Genesis is to be interpreted literally.

Asimov had meaningful non-literal interpretations.

The other problem is that Genesis lays the foundation for original sin. If Adam and Eve never existed and God never punished them, then there's no reason whatsoever for a Savior of humanity to come around thousands of years later.

There's no reason for that anyway. You can't have one nonsensical story require that another self-contradictory story be literally true.

If the entire thing didn't happen, there is no original sin and god didn't create the Universe/Earth in the way the Bible says he did, which makes it a very misleading document.

The fact that it contradicts known history, contains wild implausibilities, and contradicts itself in many places isn't enough for you? The attempt to salvage some meaning by allegorical interpretation is what suddenly makes you think it's misleading?

I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand, but non-literalists seem to have trouble with this.

Your argument doesn't hold together. The two creation stories contradict each other. They cannot both be true. Therefore, Genesis cannot be interpreted literally by anyone who thinks it is true. Atheists can interpret it literally, because we don't think it's true.

It seems very disingenuous at best.

So anyone who disagrees with you does so in bad faith? I don't see how that claim can be made in good faith, so, right back at you.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If you are aware of my.posting history you would know I'm not a Christian. Obviously I agree literalism makes no sense either. They both make no 'sense'. I was talking about it from a linguistic perpective.

Asimov had meaningful non-literal interpretations.

I just found a copy of his Guide to the Bible online, so I'll look into that. Thanks for the suggestion. As it stands though I'm still not convinced.

 

[bilby]

Allegory and metaphor are just types of fiction. If the Bible is fiction, then anything goes - the genealogies of the Bible are not evidence that the authors believed the people depicted really existed, any more than the fact that Luke and Leia were Anakin's children is evidence that George Lucas thinks they are real people who actually existed. Mind you, he doesn't think Han shot first, so who knows what he thinks is real.

 

[excreationist]

Allegory and metaphor are just types of fiction. If the Bible is fiction, then anything goes - the genealogies of the Bible are not evidence that the authors believed the people depicted really existed, any more than the fact that Luke and Leia were Anakin's children is evidence that George Lucas thinks they are real people who actually existed. Mind you, he doesn't think Han shot first, so who knows what he thinks is real.

The details about Luke and Leia are brief and are part of an interesting story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 5
It might be reasonable to say how old every character in a story lived and what they age they gave birth.... but why are the people in between given so much detail? Allegory and metaphor involves details having a meaning or purpose. What purpose exactly do all those exact numbers serve? Most of them are random. Though there is a bit of a pattern. Before the flood the lifespans get up to 900+ but after the flood they decrease until they get to about 100 or so.
What if there was a fable that included 40+ random looking numbers... I thought it would be unusual... do you know of any examples? Maybe religious myths have that amount of detail but I think the purpose is to try and make it seem historical rather than it being allegory or metaphor. BTW I think there is good evidence that Genesis 1 is poetic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Hypothesis

 

[bilby]

Allegory and metaphor are just types of fiction. If the Bible is fiction, then anything goes - the genealogies of the Bible are not evidence that the authors believed the people depicted really existed, any more than the fact that Luke and Leia were Anakin's children is evidence that George Lucas thinks they are real people who actually existed. Mind you, he doesn't think Han shot first, so who knows what he thinks is real.

The details about Luke and Leia are brief and are part of an interesting story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 5
It might be reasonable to say how old every character in a story lived and what they age they gave birth.... but why are the people in between given so much detail? Allegory and metaphor involves details having a meaning or purpose. What purpose exactly do all those exact numbers serve? Most of them are random. Though there is a bit of a pattern. Before the flood the lifespans get up to 900+ but after the flood they decrease until they get to about 100 or so.
What if there was a fable that included 40+ random looking numbers... I thought it would be unusual... do you know of any examples? Maybe religious myths have that amount of detail but I think the purpose is to try and make it seem historical rather than it being allegory or metaphor. BTW I think there is good evidence that Genesis 1 is poetic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Hypothesis

As I said, with fiction, anything goes. In the Song of Ice and Fire books, George R R Martin provides appendices with detailed genealogies of the major houses of Westeros. That doesn't make the Lannisters and the Starks real families; Nor does it imply that GRRM believes that they are real. Fiction authors often generate highly detailed back-stories, genealogies, languages, maps, you name it; These things perhaps help to make the stories feel more realistic, and that objective may well have been the reason for the mind-numbingly dull genealogies in the bible. It's fiction; any analysis beyond that requires knowledge of the life and times of the authors, of the things that they held to be important, and of the things they hoped their stories would accomplish. Little enough of that information survives to make almost any interpretation valid, (other than interpreting the books as purely factual - which can be ruled out by the fact that it is both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with observed reality).

If a wide range of mutually exclusive interpretations of a work of fiction are valid, then in the absence of an author or authors to declare their real intent, there is no right answer, and no new data can be gleaned from the study of the text alone. The inclusion of the genealogies is consistent with the idea that early readers of the books considered the people described therein to be real historical persons; and it is also consistent with the idea that they did not. So they tell us exactly nothing. The only way we could know what early readers of the bible thought about the reality or otherwise of Adam and Eve as persons would be to ask them. But they are all dead (and that's another thing they share in common with GRRM's characters ).

 

[jonJ]

Long and elaborate genealogies are quite important in pre-literate tribal societies. With no dating system, the only way they have to make sense of the succession of events in history is through the passage of generations -- "the volcano blew up in great-great-great-great-grandfather Popo's time". And since power relations in these societies are often hereditary, knowing who your ancestors are also means knowing where you stand. Forget that your great-great-grandma was a tribal elder, and you might find yourself relegated to the group that gets the leftovers at dinner.

But of course that doesn't explain why God should have regarded them as a vital element in his book of behavioural rules.

 

[excreationist]

....As I said, with fiction, anything goes. In the Song of Ice and Fire books, George R R Martin provides appendices with detailed genealogies of the major houses of Westeros.

Does it also have 40+ mostly random looking numbers within those genealogies?

...Fiction authors often generate highly detailed back-stories, genealogies, languages, maps, you name it; These things perhaps help to make the stories feel more realistic, and that objective may well have been the reason for the mind-numbingly dull genealogies in the bible.

So do you think ages including 900+ year life spans, etc, makes the story "feel more realistic"?

.....It's fiction; any analysis beyond that requires knowledge of the life and times of the authors, of the things that they held to be important, and of the things they hoped their stories would accomplish...

Speculation is enough - you don't have to prove what those ages are supposed to mean...

Little enough of that information survives to make almost any interpretation valid, (other than interpreting the books as purely factual - which can be ruled out by the fact that it is both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with observed reality).

What is internally inconsistent about it? e.g. they made sure Noah's ancestors were all dead by the date of the flood.... that is quite a feat. Also they made sure the ages gradually decreased after the flood so that it fits with our own experiences about how long people live these days. There is a verse about God restricting our lifespans to 120 or something.

....The inclusion of the genealogies is consistent with the idea that early readers of the books considered the people described therein to be real historical persons;..

I thought you were saying the purpose of it *just* was to involve metaphors or allegory... if so why would the early readers think it was literal?

....The only way we could know what early readers of the bible thought about the reality or otherwise of Adam and Eve as persons would be to ask them. But they are all dead (and that's another thing they share in common with GRRM's characters ).

What about the writers of it then? Did they intend the readers to take it literally? You were asserting that this part of Genesis was originally about metaphors or allegories.

 

[excreationist]

Long and elaborate genealogies are quite important in pre-literate tribal societies. With no dating system, the only way they have to make sense of the succession of events in history is through the passage of generations....

Using the genealogies some Christians worked out when Adam was supposedly created. The Jews have a similar date for their age of the earth. Assuming the numbers aren't factual, what is their purpose.... using real numbers would have helped them date things. The traditional date of the earth's creation for the Jews and dating Adam sounds like many think the ages are literal. If they aren't literal what exactly is their purpose.... I disagree with bilby when he said that extra details can make a story "feel more realistic".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Long and elaborate genealogies are quite important in pre-literate tribal societies. With no dating system, the only way they have to make sense of the succession of events in history is through the passage of generations....

Using the genealogies some Christians worked out when Adam was supposedly created. The Jews have a similar date for their age of the earth. Assuming the numbers aren't factual, what is their purpose.... using real numbers would have helped them date things. The traditional date of the earth's creation for the Jews and dating Adam sounds like many think the ages are literal. If they aren't literal what exactly is their purpose.... I disagree with bilby when he said that extra details can make a story "feel more realistic".

Their purpose is to present facts. They were presenting a family tree back to Adam in order to preserve history because they thought it was literal.

It's the same reason that people used to warn against sailing out too far away from land. They were honestly worried that you'd fall off the side of the world. Just because you feel that you're presenting facts doesn't mean that what you're saying is related to anything factual.

 

[excreationist]

....Their purpose is to present facts. They were presenting a family tree back to Adam in order to preserve history because they thought it was literal.

It's the same reason that people used to warn against sailing out too far away from land. They were honestly worried that you'd fall off the side of the world. Just because you feel that you're presenting facts doesn't mean that what you're saying is related to anything factual.

If the audience thought the ages were literal ("facts") and they weren't, then surely God would know that the audience was being deceived.... This is different to God just agreeing with their existing beliefs about the shape of the earth, etc - the numbers involved would be conflicting with their existing beliefs.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

....Their purpose is to present facts. They were presenting a family tree back to Adam in order to preserve history because they thought it was literal.

It's the same reason that people used to warn against sailing out too far away from land. They were honestly worried that you'd fall off the side of the world. Just because you feel that you're presenting facts doesn't mean that what you're saying is related to anything factual.

If the audience thought the ages were literal ("facts") and they weren't, then surely God would know that the audience was being deceived.... This is different to God just agreeing with their existing beliefs about the shape of the earth, etc - the numbers involved would be conflicting with their existing beliefs.

The randomization of that response makes it fairly impossible to respond to.

You spend some points asserting that you're an atheist and then spend another post saying that the Bible can't be wrong about something because God wouldn't go along with the deception.

WTF?

 

[dockeen]

It is interesting to watch regular old church going, but educated fundamentalists deal with Genesis and Adams and Eve. They realize that there are huge problems with both the science of YEC, and the actual story of Adams and Eve (makes god look like some sick combination of stupid and childish), so they want to write it off as a "just so campfire story to explain the world". But, then, if there is no A&E, there is no original sin, and requirement for Jesus' mission.

Stuck between two undesirable outcomes, they hop back and forth, based on incoveniece.

 

[funinspace]

Long and elaborate genealogies are quite important in pre-literate tribal societies. With no dating system, the only way they have to make sense of the succession of events in history is through the passage of generations....

Using the genealogies some Christians worked out when Adam was supposedly created. The Jews have a similar date for their age of the earth. Assuming the numbers aren't factual, what is their purpose.... using real numbers would have helped them date things. The traditional date of the earth's creation for the Jews and dating Adam sounds like many think the ages are literal. If they aren't literal what exactly is their purpose.... I disagree with bilby when he said that extra details can make a story "feel more realistic".

Their purpose is to present facts. They were presenting a family tree back to Adam in order to preserve history because they thought it was literal.

Yet, in Ge 4:16-17, Cain had found a wife, and got her pregnant; after being expelled for killing Abel. So at his point of being expelled, in a literal interpretation of Genesis, there was Adam, Eve, and Cain. Where did this new wife come from? Goat herders back in the day, must have been real stupid not to realize there existed more than this simple story....