J-D

I'm sorry, but that's rubbish.

I think your perspective has probably been distorted through too much exposure to special pleading by biblicists.

If you take a step back and think about it, you should be able to see that metaphors, metonyms, and other figures of speech are a pervasive feature of language, and that figurative language is neither nonsensical nor totally arbitrary.

I'll give you two illustrative examples to get you going. One is from the Bible and one isn't.

The second chapter of Song of Songs begins 'I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys'.

One of Aesop's fables warns us against 'killing the goose that lays the golden eggs'.

Nobody seriously thinks either of those expressions should be taken literally, but that doesn't mean either that they're nonsensical or that their meaning is totally arbitrary.

Dr Evil

No, my perspective has not been distorted by exposure to bliblical special pleading. Rather, it was formed through the analysis of myth over several years.

The point you are missing is that metaphors, metonyms, and other non-literal language devices, must be interpreted. On their own they have only their literal meaning. On its own The Goose That Laid The Golden Egg means just that - a large water bird laying an egg of gold. If you interpret it as something else, how do you know it is an accurate interpretation? You can get contextual information from the author, either directly or indirectly. You can seek historical information to guide an interpretation. You can get ideas from the linguistic context. But the further you go back in time, the less the authors tell you about how to interpret, and the less historical information you have to guide your interpretation, the less likely you are to be making a valid interpretation of any metaphors, metonyms, etc..

With the bible being written over a long period 1900-2800 years ago, (1) with so much historical context now lost, (2) subject to so many translations between such disparate languages, (3) with so many stories almost certainly taken from other neighbouring cultures and languages, and (4) with so few hints to possible interpretations in the book itself, how can any scholar have any confidence that their particular interpretation has any validity? The situation is far worse for armchair bible scholars, who have got no idea of what they are doing, and are really just making up random shit because they don't like what it tells them. The situation is somewhat different for some other religious texts. But interpretation is unavoidable.

J-D

Of course interpretation is unavoidable. But interpretation is unavoidable even when language is being used literally and not figuratively. Sometimes the people who read or hear figurative language are unsure of the meaning intended by the writers or speakers, but then sometimes the people who read or hear literal language are unsure of the meaning intended by the hearers or speakers. Figurative language can be ambiguous, but so can literal language. In some cases disambiguation is harder and in some cases easier, but interpretation is always required. There's no such thing as an uninterpreted meaning, literal or figurative: all meaning is the product of interpretation. It's one thing to say that in some cases interpretation is particularly difficult; it's quite another (and rubbish, as I said originally) to say that interpretation is a totally arbitrary process. Look at the specific biblical example I gave. When I say that it's figurative language and not literal, do you really think I'm just making that up?

Dr Evil

You seem to be essentially agreeing with my assertion. Is all meaning interpretation? Absolutely. There is no 100% certainty that I know even what your intention is in the above post. But at least we are using largely the same language, and are contemporaries.

In the case of the Bible(s) it is quite another matter. How can you know, after a Bible story has been translated several times, that the original 2000+ year old prose is NOT literal. It is even worse, because the oldest texts are from hundreds of years after the stories were supposed to have taken place, and are in a completely different language (Greek). In a lot of cases interpretation is not difficult, it is impossible to have any good idea. In that case, yes, it is arbitrary. To answer your last question, yes it is quite possible that you are just making it up. Do you really think the interpretations of non-literal language in the Bible(s), of a 5th Century Byzantine monk, and a 21st Century New Guinean highland villager, are even remotely similar?

Dr Evil

You appear to be missing the point that definitions are the BEGINNING of discovery, not the end. Defining something in a particular manner does not make it so. Defining something in a manner that is logically contradictory does make it not so. Defining God as an uncaused cause does not make God any of these things. I can define Hukalacukla as the deity that existed before all of the eternal deities. But defining Hukalacukla in this way does not make it so. And as there is nothing before an eternal past, it is not possible for Hukalacukla to have these qualities, no matter whether there are other deities, or whether they are eternal or not.

The second part of discovery is showing or finding evidence for the definition you have given. If I define humans as eternal beings, it does not make them eternal, because 95% of all humans that were ever born have died. If God is eternal, and uncaused, just find evidence, and that will make your definition true.

J-D

No, I don't, but just by framing the question in that way you've contradicted yourself by accepting that there is non-literal language in the Bible and therefore that I'm not just making that up.

Whether I'm essentially agreeing with your assertion depends on what the essence of your assertion is. If the essence of your assertion is that there are many difficulties in interpreting Biblical texts, then I agree. But if the essence of your assertion is that all attempts at non-literal interpretation of Biblical texts are automatically totally arbitrary and fruitless, then I don't agree. 'Many difficulties' is not the same thing as 'total impossibilities', and it doesn't license an automatic blanket dismissal of any and all attempts at non-literal interpretation of Biblical texts.

Dr Evil

J-D - This conversation is starting to become interesting. I appreciate your intelligent posts.

I don't believe I am contradicting myself for one simple reason. Literal language is simple language, the simplest form of communication. Seeing the words 'Object A', means simply that - Object A. Understanding it requires little in the way of interpretation, either of what is written, or of attempting to emphathise with the author. Believing that a communication contains non-literal language requires either:

(1) the language to be contradictory, and be of something that cannot be literal. Reading 'I saw a squared circle' cannot be literal language, as a squared circle is a logical impossibility. Therefore, it must be non-literal. The Bible does contain statements which are logically contradictory. Therefore, it must contain non-literal language.

(2) a decision to interpret, or emphathise with the author. This could be because of an expectation that the communication does contain non-literal language.

I disagree that interpretations of non-literal language can be difficult. I think these interpretations are effortless for people. What is difficult is knowing whether these interpretations are even remotely like those intended by the author. But whether they are, or are not, correct, we do create them. That is the point I am trying to make about interpretations being arbitrary. If people don't have any linguistic, historical, or cultural context for what must be non-literal language in the Bible, it doesn't mean they prevent themselves from interpreting. It merely means their interpretations are probably not what the author intended.

J-D

As you accepted earlier, all meaning comes from interpretation. In some cases it is difficult to know how closely the interpretation of a message by the recipient matches the intention of the originator of the message. In other cases it's not so difficult. This is true whether the interpretation is literal or not.

This whole discussion traces back to your assertion that when people say that a Biblical text is not to be taken literally, their interpretations can automatically be dismissed as totally arbitrary, with no reason to think they bear any relation to the original authorial intention. That is not the case. Look again at the particular Biblical verse I offered earlier as a counter-example. Do you seriously think there's good cause for doubt about the author's intended meaning?

Dr Evil

The first para - pretty reasonable assertion..

Para two - how do you know that the biblical verse you offered is in any way even what the supposed author even wrote? That was likely written in Aramaic, with no original version existing. Even the author is unknown. I assert that there is no cause to have any idea of what the original author even wrote, let alone intended. But you are free to interpret it any way you like. That is what readers of the Bible have been doing for 2000 years, and I don't expect it to stop.

J-D

I didn't say anything about the 'supposed author'. I referred to the author--that is, the person who wrote it, whoever that was.

Also, I didn't refer to possible earlier versions of the text, predating the extant one and no longer surviving. I used the accepted modern form of citation, which refers to the text as found in extant Bibles, as follows (to be completely explicit):

אֲנִי חֲבַצֶּלֶת הַשָּׁרוֹן, שׁוֹשַׁנַּת הָעֲמָקִים

That's the Hebrew text I'm talking about, the one from which the English translation in extant English Bibles--to be explicit, this--

'I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys'

--is derived.

Are you seriously telling me there's serious significant doubt about what that specific text means? What plausible alternative meanings can you conceive?

Sure, in principle every interpretation is subject to uncertainty, but the rational grounds for uncertainty vary in extent from case to case. This particular case is not one of huge grounds for major uncertainty. It's towards the other end of the spectrum.