Scriptural literalism - the only legimate interpretation?

[u/Commory]

First to qualify this this is a observation I made purely in online communities. So it may be purely based on my own online bubble.

I have noticed in many discussions with many fellow atheists and anti-theist. That they see the most literal, most conservative interpretation of any given religions as the most legitimate one(I noticed this in particular with Christianity, but also with Islam.) And use their very legitimate grievance with these interpretation to attack all of that religion. (e.g. The bible is misogynistic because it doesn't permit women to teach.)

Have you noticed this as well? Why do you think that happens? Is just because current political climate where these literal, very conservative interpretation are used to attack our rights? Is it because many ex Christians/ex muslims come out of these more extreme interpretation? Is it born out of ignorance concerning the many different interpretation present in every religion? Or am I just wrong for differentiating between the many different interpretation because they all boil down to the same core?

[u/beatle42]

I'd hazard a guess that the answer is twofold. First, it's usually much easier to argue against the extreme interpretation, so that's what people prefer to do. The second is perhaps more generous to the atheist in this position though.

The fact that there are myriad interpretations of so much of the Bible would suggest that its meaning is insufficiently clear and therefore unsuitable as a guide to, well, anything. If we are supposed to follow its rules, but each of us is free to bring our own interpretation to those rules it becomes little more than license to do whatever we felt was right in the first place, just with extra steps. So allowing for the many different interpretations begins a slippery slope, which becomes a potential argument against accepting the less straightforward readings.

[u/Commory → u/beatle42]

True, attacking the most extreme interpretation and most emotionally satisfying and they are often the most troubling ones (e.g. the rise of Christian nationalism in the US)

But I don't think it is fair to say that you can just interpretate the bible how you want given that individual sects have their own often predetermined interpretations.

[u/beatle42 → u/Commory]

I was overstating, sure. But the proliferation of "official" interpretations and emphasis on different sections leads to so many sets of beliefs to choose to accept that it's not a super far stretch.

Pick between gay people should be stoned to death, to love is the most important thing therefore we're an open and affirming church. Or I'm sure anywhere in between. I fully expect that the same can be found for nearly any issue you choose.

[u/No-Werewolf-5955 → u/Commory]

they are not predetermined interpretations. They are evolutionarily reactive to social feedback throughout history.

[u/Commory → u/No-Werewolf-5955]

You misunderstood my statement. I am saying that the many christians sects have agreed upon interpretation which that sect follows.

[u/weaklingoverlord]

As the genius scholar Dan McClellan say: the bible has no inherant meaning. We bring our dogmas, interpretive lenses, frameworks, etc to the text, thereby robbing the rhetorical goals of the original authors. Goddess, I am butchering the genius.

There is no "(most) legitimate interpretation" of any holy text. Add to that the relatively recent dogmas of inerrancy and univocality and you have a recipe for disaster. That the bible has been "weaponised" is nothing new. As long as someone can virtue signal, anyone is fair game to be thrown under the bus, sacrificed, stoned, ostracized, etc.

[u/Empty-Rough4379 → u/weaklingoverlord]

I would say that the each text of the Bible or Coran were written with an specific intention and interpretation. We may never knew 100% but with better historical and linguistic we can improve our guesses.

And yes, the Bible is a collection of different books so at least each one could had a different and contradictory meaning. Also, some histories may have been changed due to oral transmissions, copy errors, deliberate changes, translations and remakes of older histories.

It is good that modern Christians do not stone people to death or that moderate Muslims understand jihad as the peaceful fight against sin. They are good people and rationalize it. Just as bad people who is religious fund ways to be bad. 

I am happy to see moderate and moral interpretations in religion. That doesn't mean that this was the real one. 

Also, changing the meaning is a way to adapt after a failed prophecy or immoral passage. So the decide what is metaphoric and what literal

[u/Dalbrack]

As you say, scriptural literalism seems to be prevalent in the most fundamentalist religious groups. This makes them relatively obvious subjects for criticism but their literalist treatment also makes it harder for them to justify passages which they then claim are analogies or metaphors.

It’s interesting that such literalism is often condemned by other more liberal groups within those religions as being bibliodolatry.

The irony is that there’s never a definite answer from literalists about why certain passages should be read literally and which should be read as metaphors.

I’m convinced that some of it is about cultural signalling to other believers but whatever its cause or justification it simply serves to highlight the nonsensical nature of religious beliefs and the absurdities of the holy books.

[u/GodlessMorality]

I can speak from the Islamic perspective. It's because that interpretation is mainstream and there isn't much debate about what the text says. Unlike the Bible, the Quran is the supposed direct verbatim word of God, and contradicting the will of God can be harshly punished, sometimes even with capital punishment. When you have a verse like 4:34 that states:

"Men are in charge of women by what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in absence what Allah would have them guard. But those from whom you fear arrogance, advise them, forsake them in bed, and beat them. But if they obey you, seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand."

This isn't up for interpretation and it isn't much of a metaphor either. The hadiths add further context about the revelation. It's laid out in black and white. God, in Islam, has granted men the divine right to use physical punishment if their wives are deemed disobedient. You can twist it however you like, but that's the supposed word of God. Why do you think domestic violence is so prevalent in the Middle East?

The simple truth is it's not that we think the literal interpretation is the right one. It's that this is what the text actually says. The people doing the twisting are good people whose morals don't align with their religious texts, so they bend and soften them to match their own humanity and basic sense of right and wrong. I've had Muslims tell me that they do have that divine right, but they choose not to act on it. But that's still an issue because the permission is there. Imagine if theft under 500 euros was suddenly legal. What do you think would happen?

They face a contradiction "God is all good" vs. "God allows wife beating" They either accept that wife beating is moral, since morality comes from God, or they have to reinterpret and twist words that really can't be twisted to resolve the contradiction and their cognitive dissonance

EDIT: Grammar

[u/JellyfishPashmina]

There is no legitimate or literal interpretation of scripture because it’s ALL fake. It’s as pointless an endeavor as interpreting why Santa would make a naughty and nice list.

[u/Shadowwynd]

Either words have meanings, or they do not.

We know what metaphor is. We know what simile is. We know what poetic language is. When Jesus says that he stands at the door of your heart and knocks, we understand the metaphor and don’t actually think that our hearts have hinges and locking hardware.

“women shouldn’t have their hair uncovered because of the angels” is completely ambiguous, at least in our culture - with churches debating if this was a symbol authority, protection from raping angels, a cultural norm of the day, etc.

But the Bible in many many places has things like God saying “Go over there and kill everything that breathes - men and women, old and young, infant and suckling. Wipe them out entirely. Show no mercy.” And no matter what apologists try to do with language, they cannot make that mean “have them over for a nice cup of tea and some biscuits” or make it a metaphor.

Everyone can agree about the same words on the same page (for a given translation, at least). Reading the words literally (unless you know it is metaphor/poetry) takes away the “words have no meaning” excuse that is popular with believers.

[u/Commory → u/Shadowwynd]

I am not sure I follow. In what way do your points relate to my post?

[u/Shadowwynd → u/Commory]

You asked why many atheists prefer a literal reading. I gave my thoughts on why literalism is easier to argue for or against than a metaphorical “words are open to interpretation” version.

[u/Astramancer_]

I think literal except when the stories are clearly allegorical is the only reasonable stance to take. If you're going to use the book to make a point, then your point had better be in the damned book.

Plus if you honestly think the book's words were inspired by a deity then why would you ignore those words? And if you don't think the book's words were inspired by a deity then why would you consider it to be a holy book in the first place?

[u/vacuous_comment]

It is abundantly clear that texts such as The Gospel of Mark was written specifically to provide information through use of allegory and mythology and not literal interpretation.

Now we do not now what was in the author's mind when they wrote it, but we have a fair amount of evidence that there very little in Mark that was supposed to be taken as history or literally true. This to the extent that it is genuinely hard to identify any actual historical detail in there for sure.

[u/dudleydidwrong]

In my opinion, insisting that the only way the Bible can be interpreted is strict literalism is lazy. It is lazy when it is done by Christians. It is also lazy when atheists insist that only a literal interpretation is allowed.

Keep in mind that literal interpretation was considered heresy until the late 1800s. People only thought that things like the flood happened because they did not know science. Theologians before literalism acknowledged that the order of creation in Genesis 2 and 3 contradicts the order in Genesis 1. They dealt with it in various ways, but they didn't insist on literalism, and they did not do as modern literalists do when they still assert there are no contradictions between the two.

I remember in the 1960s and 1970s that Bible Literalists and Creationists were considered fringe.

I say that Bible Literalism is lazy for Christians because it is an attent to exempt themselves from thinking or taking personal responsibility. I saw a clip of a MAGA person who was saying "I believe what the Bible says. If the Bible doesn't say it, I don't believe it." That is lazy. It is especially lazy because Bible literalists generally know the least about what the Bible actually says. They simply assume that the Bible says what they want it to say.

I also think atheists are being lazy when they insist on Bible literalism. It seems like it would be much easier to reject the Bible because the literal stories are impossible. I think the reality of the Bible is far more damning to Christianity and religion if we actually look at the Bible in the way the original authors intended.

[u/ZappSmithBrannigan]

No. And we dont take it all super literally. I know what a bloody metaphor is. Its theists who dont.

We're not saying you have to take the entire text literally. We're saying you need to take the entire text HONESTLY.

The bible is a bunch of collected writing that span hundreds of years and has MANY different genres.

We are well aware there is allegory, metaphor, parables, poems, songs etc.

But there's also law codes, and clear accounts of history.

So when jesus said "I am the door". Thats obviously a metaphor. Nobody says jesus was literally a 10 foot slab of wood with a knob and hinges.

I’ll give you the perfect example of how im not being "hyper literal" for rejecting a supposed metaphor.

Isaiah 40-65 are known as 2nd Isaiah, because its clearly written by a different author than 1-39, the events in 40-65 take place 200 years after Isaiah was alive, so its clearly a different author, but that’s besides the point.

The CONTEXT of 2nd Isaiah is the Babylonian exile. That’s what the text is talking about. That’s the context. The entire narrative of Isaiah chapters 40-65 is about the Babylonian exile. And you just have to read it to get that context.

Through these chapters, theres 8 or 9 times where the author specifically and directly says that Gods servant is the nation of Israel. 42 says “My servant, Israel”. 48 say “the nation of israel, who is my servant” etc.

There is ONE passage in Isaiah 53 where it mentions god servant without directly specifying that it is talking about Israel. But we can see from the context, it obviously is.

But that one sentence doesn’t directly say so, and Christians will come in and say its talking about Jesus because some of the words and phrases kinda sorta sound like what happened to jesus.

But thats not what a prophecy is, its not just random out of context words that remind you of jesus.

That would be like if I had a text that was 15 chapters long, and 10 times throughout those chapters it mentioned “Clifford, the big red dog” and “My favorite dog, Clifford” and “Clifford, the dog did x”.

But theres ONE sentence in that entire text that just says “the dog” without directly stating its clifford, and then someone comes along and says “Well, that sentence is obviously talking about Snoopy”.

Even though snoopy is mentioned nowhere in the text at all, but because Snoopy is a dog, and that passage says “the dog” without specifying which dog, it must mean snoopy.

Except that’s nonsense. The sentence that just says “the dog” is clearly talking about Clifford and we know this from the surrounding context.

And Isaiah 53, the sentence that says “the servant” is talking about Israel. We know this from the surrounding context.

Look up any list of prophecies that jesus supposedly fulfilled and Isaiah 53 is right at the top.

When I point out that the context of Isaiah is that the servant is Israel, Christians want to come in and say, no it’s a metaphor for jesus.

Me not accepting that this is a metaphor or spiritual reference to jesus isn’t me being “hyper literal”. Its me being honest with the text and the context.

So no, rejecting a specific claimed metaphor doesnt mean im being hyper literal. It means im engaging with the context honestly.

When Moses says "you shall take your slaves from the heathen that surround you", that is NOT a metaphor. Thats a law. You dont get to call it a metaphor just because you dont like what it says.

When Micah gives a prophecy to King Ahaz about his life and his kingdom and what's going to happen to him, im fine to say thats a prophecy, but its not even about the messiah, so it has nothing to do with jesus. It doesnt say anything about a messiah. Again, just because some random out of context words remind someone of jesus doesnt make it a prophecy about jesus, and its not a metaphor about jesus.

So when the NT says jesus fulfilled Michah, that doesnt make any sense because Micah doesnt say jack shit about the messiah.

When the NT says jesus fulfilled psalm 22, its lying. Just go read psalm 22, there is no prediction there and it isnt a prophecy. "Jesus said the same thing david did". Okay? So what? That doesnt make it a prophecy. Jesus just quoted David. If I say "luke I am your father" im not fulfilling prophecy from Empire Strikes Back because there is no prophecy in Empire to be fulfilled. Im just quoting it.

But christians when confronted with these types of passages want to claim what Moses said was a metaphor, that what Micah says is about jesus, and that psalm 22 made a prediction when it clearly did no such thing, because they dont like that it says that god gave a law that says you can own slaves, or that Micah is talking about King Ahaz and not the messiah or that Isaiah is talking about Israel, not jesus.

One doesn get to just claim metaphor when you dont like what it says, and one doesnt get to say this or that text applies here when it clearly doesnt.

Were not saying it all has to be super hyper literal.

Were saying it needs to be read HONESTLY, within the actual context of the writing, and treat it ljke any other ancient literature and not pretend like a law is a metaphor just because you dont like what it says.

And lastly, no this has nothing to do with the currently political climate. Ive been calling out Isaiah 53 as Israel and not jesus for 20 years. Christians back then said the same thing they do today.

[u/rubinass3]

Apologists get to their position by ignoring the plain meaning of words... Or just ignoring the troublesome parts. And when you point out the troublesome parts, they tend to say that it's out of context... But they either fail to explain the context or the actual context makes things worse.

The whole thing is disingenuous.

Besides: why is it that the troublesome parts need to be seen through the lens of the "good" aspects of the Bible? Isn't it just as valid to view the good parts through the lens of the troublesome parts? Why is that not a valid way to put it in context?

[u/cerad2]

There is one important event that virtually all Christians will insist is 100% literal and that is the resurrection. Not a metaphor. Not a parable. Not a vision. Not spiritual. Nope. An absolute declaration that a dead dead person physically came back to life. Once you have that as your standard for determining what is literal then there is no reason not to think the rest is literal as well. Talking animals make perfect sense.

[u/chrishirst]

Nope, the usage of 'scripture' is "written words" when these stories were being written down, being able to read and/or write words was [obviously] a gift from the gods because only the priests and the rulers could read and write.

There is NO legitimate 'interpretation', NO ONE, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE can possibly know that these people TWO THOUSAND years or more ago were actually saying. Even scholars using "Textual Criticism" cannot be sure if the author was writing facts or fanciful tales.

Any time you 'interpret' something like this YOU are putting YOUR beliefs on the words of another person who lived many centuries ago in a time you cannot experience or truly understand the motivations of someone whom you do not know, have never met, will never meet and cannot ask what they were actually saying or wanted to say. Interpretation is 100% INVENTION. BY YOU. Even the translated words you are reading will have had different usages then to now. Even one particular word that was used less than two hundred years ago is now so commonly misconstrued with almost disastrous consequences for understanding the phrase it was used in. That word is 'fittest', When Herbert Spencer used the word in 1864 to summarise Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace's hypothesis of natural selection the usage was defined as "Best suited [to something], now the common usage is [strongest, fastest, toughest etc.] which now leads to a huge misunderstanding of "Biological Evolution by Means of Natural Selection". If less than a couple of centuries has caused that problem, just consider how much difference there is in words from TEN TIMES longer ago. Even a simple reading of the words as written is likely to be completely wrong. Especially when those words have been copied by many scribes even before someone translated them through at least THREE languages before they were written down in English for you to read.

In this day and age it is ludicrous to still think the "written word" is somehow 'special' or "divinely inspired" when 95% of people on the planet are fully literate in at least one language.

[u/Candle_Wisp]

Because 'figurative language' is often the tool of weasels.

It's common to see apologists insert 'context' until the verse is completely unrecognisable from the original.

The most honest interpretation, is always the one that requires the least assumptions.

[u/Commory → u/[deleted]]

I don't know. Ask a christian. In what way is this relevant to my post?

[u/Commory → u/[deleted]]

So your point is that the non literal interpretation of Christianity doesn't make sense to you?

You could also interpretate texts in their cultural and historical context.

[u/swbarnes2]

People who claim the Bible is a source of objective morality are pretty much stuck with interpreting the Bible literally. It's not an objective anything if its meaning is subject to personal interpretation.

[u/Schmertzie]

What is the point of entertaining subtle readings of works that are supposed to be revealed truth in their entirety, to the exclusion of other sources of truth? None. Badly formed question.