Some interpretation of course will always be needed because so much of the bible is either abstract, nonsensical or long winded for the ancient uneducated layman, not to mention that it was translated in latin, or kept in greek and other original languages which the lay man wouldn't know. It wasn't until John Wycliff made the first english bible in...what like 1400 or somewheres about there that the common man even had a chance to look at it.

When I say literal, I don't mean absent from interpretation. There are so many absurdities, contradictions, or vile acts that need justification that all through time they have attempted to rectify the things that are wrong with the bible. When I say literal, I mean taking the bible as a completely accurate historical and scientific account of our world.

And while I understand that ancient christians didn't take the bible 100% literally, neither do today's fundementalists. Very very few are waiting for a scarlet colored wild beast to arrive and devour a harlot as prophesied in Revelations. But in the early days of christianity they definitely believed that the earth was made in seven days, mankind was only six thousand years old, and the flood of noah's day was a literal historical event. They had no reason to think otherwise. They also thought that murdering people or children of other faiths was justified, and that if you disobeyed god he would burn you in eternal torment. But as both our understanding of the world, and the further development of our morality, more and more liberal interpretation is needed.

I will concede that yes you are right, at no point in time was there a complete 100% literal acceptance of scripture. But my point still stands that on one hand you have a group that is sticking to their guns no matter how absurd, ignorant and offensive they may be, and on the other hand there is a group cutting up the bible into whatever is convenient for the modern age. And yes, again I concede, that in times past religious leaders have done exactly that. Make the bible say what it is that they need it to say for their time, and their circumstances. But that doesn't somehow make it more intellectually honest for those still doing it, opposed to those that are just taking it for whatever mess it is.

^ So you're saying we don't need judges to interpret the law except for really complicated laws (which religious texts certainly can't be accused of being ) and appellate courts.

Final-Fan said: ^ So you're saying we don't need judges to interpret the law except for really complicated laws (which religious texts certainly can't be accused of being ) and appellate courts.

Religious texts... if taken as literal aren't complicated.  It's just a plain story where stuff happnes.  This guy goes there, see's god.  God tells him to build a boat.  He does.... etc.

I mean what's there to it?

Like I said.  I disagree.  There were reasons.

As stated in early christianity there were 20 stories for each situation and they were all different.

For example.  Genesis wasn't the only book that talked about god creating the earth.  Far from it actually.  There was no other way to take them.  The bible was cobbled together out of the "Best" stories that they thought made the best christian and roman to make it easier through a narrative tradition so people didn't go "Which creation story?"  etc.

What? Genesis, and really all of the old testament was considered Jewish canon before christianity even formed. And even then, the new testament was decided relatively early on (around 300 AD or so if I remember correctly), and added ontop of the already Old Testament Canon which had included Genesis for many hundreds of years prior. Granted their were some squibbles here and there about Jude and I think James, and a few books now consider apocryphal, but not Genesis or really any of the pentateuch. The Pentateuch (Genesis through deutoronomy) which contains a large portion of the absurdities that are taken literally were not cobbled together by the romans to stop people from asking "Which creation story". By far and large The romans didn't canonize the pentateuch, historical writings, poetic writings, major and minor prophets (the five major divisions of the old testament). They were set in stone before Rome became a church state espousing christianity, and they by far and large took them as they were.

Now whether or not the Jews peiced together Genesis based on a variety of myths is a diffirent discussion, but the romans certainly didn't create the old testament, and they only decided between various early christian writings to create the new testament.

And furthermore, this line of reasoning doesn't even apply. Regardless of where the creation myth, or the the bible's flood myth or ect came from has no bearing on whether or not people actually believed it was true. Which they did.

Kasz216 said: Final-Fan said: ^ So you're saying we don't need judges to interpret the law except for really complicated laws (which religious texts certainly can't be accused of being ) and appellate courts. Religious texts... if taken as literal aren't complicated.  It's just a plain story where stuff happnes.  This guy goes there, see's god.  God tells him to build a boat.  He does.... etc. I mean what's there to it?

Well, it's been a long time since I read the Bible, and I didn't exactly read all of it, but aren't a lot of those moral stories?  So you have to take a lot of those stories and apply whatever lessons there are to your life OR GO TO HELL!!!!! j/k for a lot of people but not really for others.  

Anyway, considering how drastic the consequences of misinterpretation -- how absolute the judgement -- how inscrutable the judge -- I think it's very reasonable to want professional expertise to weigh in on even what seem like the simplest and most straightforward interpretations of the text (e.g., what the lessons are, exactly, and how to apply them in modern life).  (Of course, opinions vary on how "expert" the priests are, but that's a-whole-nother issue.) 

And what about the Jews, who still have to mess with all those Old Testament rules?  That's a mess and a half.  I thought that that was the cliche about why so many of them were lawyers -- because they were  already used to having to deal with God's laws?  

My symbolic/literal comment about the Bible sparked a debate!

Excellent