Gamera

No, the difference is categorical and more complex.

Literalists argue these texts are making factual statements, subject to confirmation. Further, they argue that these texts have credal or doctrinal significance that can be reduced to "truth statements" (e.g., God has three persons; Jesus was both man and God; people are born in sin and need redemption or physically wind up in Hell).

In contrast, nonliteralists (such as myself) argue that various texts in the Bible are not making factual statements at all, but rather are providing narratives that have symbolic, poetic, or existential meaning. Such meanings (like the meanings of Hamlet) are not subject to confirmation. The Iliad isn't "true or false". It's a narrative with various meanings that arise out of it. And finally, to the extent that these text involve factual claims (i.e., the date of Jesus' birth, or who was Procurator of Judea at what time), the fact that they are right or wrong is irrelevant to the meaning of the story. Some of the facts are historically valid. Some aren't. Big deal. The point is the narrative, not the historical minutiae, which are often incorrect, just like any historical text.

aa5874

But, you are still faced with the problem of identifying the true meaning of the narative, whether it is poetic, symbolic, or existential. If a Liberal Christian has no regard for any statement in the Bible, with respect to its truthfulness , then I find extremely difficult for such a person to determine the true meaning of any narrative in the Bible.

I think you would agree that the meaning of any narrative changes dramatically, if the narrative is considered as factual at one time and irrelevant at another.

Gamera

Well, you asked a different question in the OP. You asked whether nonliteralists thought the bible was "free of errors." Assuming errors only apply to factual statements, the answer is no.

This post involves meaning and "truth" in the interpretation of discourse, which is a more complex issue and applies to all texts, indeed, all epistomology.

So what exactly are you asking -- are you asking whether the nonliteralists think there is a "true" meaning to the texts? My response, speaking for others, would be that most nonliteralists think there are many "true meanings" not just one, that relate to a community of believers in particular social condition confronting these texts at a particular time. In other words, Christianity is historical.

I would go even farther and say that Christianity is in essence a narrative (the gospel), and that its meaning or meanings are less important than the fact that the narrative speaks to a community of believers in a meaningful way about who they are. To Christians, the gospel is meaningful (just as Hamlet is). Once the meaning is reduced to doctrines it is no longer the gospel, but commentary on the gospel, the supplement of copula, as Derrida might say, and hence is exactly NOT the gospel. The gospel raises certain existential issues for Christians which we endeavor to work out in our lifes. And that's what makes us Christians, not a list of obscure doctrines to "beleive in."

In short I think this matter turns on what you mean by truth: apodictic, provable truth, or existential "truths" about what it means to be human.

Of course, I realize this is a minority position even among liberal Christians.

juergen

It sounds pretty interesting. Would you have any link or a recommended book?

juergen

GakuseiDon

No, I think that is the standard position of modern liberal Christianity. Wikipedia gives one of the best definitions that I can find:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=222543

"The style of scriptural hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered an inventory of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within an historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding."

I had a debate with TySixtus regarding liberal Christianity here. The notion that liberal Christians take the view that "not literal therefore allegorical/metaphorical" is a fundamentalist strawman AFAICS, based on the notion that the Bible must be "saved" as a source of truth propositions.