It's like the Protestants bitching about the Catholics doing away with the Latin Mass. Or the lapsed Catholics complaining that the priests are not doing the folk liturgy in the right way, or yes, atheists worrying about the interpretation of scriptures. — Bitter Crank

Most of these Christians do not disagree about the general meaning of the Word of God though. I think if you look carefully you'd be surprised.

But you imply an understanding of a meaning that's lacking, probably, in some people. What meaning is that? — tim wood

You have to follow the Biblical story from beginning to end. Without understanding the whole, you cannot understand the part. You have to look at the entire picture that is painted. The Bible is like a puzzle - if you look at pieces separately, you won't be able to distinguish the real meaning. And then you must also understand the Judaic culture in which the Bible was written. This is a very good resource:

Accordingly, with regards to texts, God's text can't defy the inherent qualities of texts. So, if such an inherent quality is that meaning presupposes interpretation, then it's incoherent ("not even wrong") to expect a divine text to be free on interpretation. Note, also, that this doesn't necessarily mean that there can be no definitive interpretation. — Πετροκότσυφας

I'd argue that interpretation presupposes meaning (else the "interpretation" is just free invention, text unnecessary). But further, that interpretation adds to meaning what isn't present in meaning - by "meaning" I mean what is in the words.

But let's turn it around. Imagine you are the person who claims the divinity of the text. How flexible (then) are you on "interpretation"? Or might you be more a stickler for meaning? And if you allow interpretation, how do you defend the claim?

Some people claim these are God's words — tim wood

No Christian claims they are the words of God. The Bible is divinely inspired, not written by God like the Qu'ran claims to be. So I think you're confusing two different claims.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This text is well-known. As to what it says, I think it's reasonably transparent. — tim wood

Yep, but again, to break everything into pieces and analyze them separately is to fail to see the meaning of the whole. You asked what is the meaning of the Word of God? A short answer for that is Christ. But yet, you cannot find Christ by looking atomically at each individual sentence extracted from its context. You must look at the overarching meaning of the entire narrative.

Analysing each book of the Bible separately will reveal different and separate meanings in addition to the role they play in the overarching narrative. However, the Biblical text is revelatory - its aim is to reveal many things that are hidden. That's part of what makes the Bible different than any other text in history - and that's what makes it the most influential narrative in history, by far.

Interpretation, on the other hand, adds to or counters the text, either or both. In short, interpretation makes (the) text something other than it is. — tim wood

That doesn't follow. Interpretation is the process by which the meaning of the text is understood.

You have to follow the Biblical story from beginning to end. Without understanding the whole, you cannot understand the part. — Agustino

I've been told this. You do see the problem, here, yes? If I cannot understand any part, on what fulcrum do I lever myself into an understanding of the whole - which apparently is not gained by parts, but only as a whole?

And closer to the point, it would appear you argue that the Bible (perhaps all books) are more than the sum of the parts - the words.

Finally, you imply there exists people who "understand the whole," absent which, according to some people, you among them, not even the parts are understood. I agree that understanding can vary, but whoever understood the whole? Or by understanding do you mean something I'm not getting?

If I cannot understand any part, on what fulcrum do I lever myself into an understanding of the whole - which apparently is not gained by parts, but only as a whole? — tim wood

A non-question. You don't understand any part of the puzzle, but you do understand how they can fit together, and once every piece is in place suddenly - insight strikes - you get the meaning.

And closer to the point, it would appear you argue that the Bible (perhaps all books) are more than the some of the parts - the words. — tim wood

Yep, just like a puzzle. And meaning is always more than the sum of the words. Meaning isn't the same as the words, I think you understand that. The meaning of "fire" isn't the letters that compose the word. That's why the same meanings can sometimes be conveyed by very different words. The letters have no intrinsic/necessary connection to the meaning. Neither do the words for that matter.

I agree that understanding can vary, but whoever understood the whole? — tim wood

Many people, most Christians for example.

When did interpretation ever become part of the Bible? — tim wood

At the very beginning.

How do you think the Bible came into existence? You must think the High Priest of the Temple went into the Holy of Holies one Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and found a stack of scrolls on the Mercy Seat with a Post-It Note™ stuck to it saying, "Hot off the press -- the Old Testament. Hope you like it. Love, YHWH ps: working on New Testament now"

At the very beginning.

How do you think the Bible came into existence? You must think the High Priest of the Temple went into the Holy of Holies one Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and found a stack of scrolls on the Mercy Seat with a Post-It Note™ stuck to it saying, "Hot off the press -- the Old Testament. Hope you like it. Love, YHWH ps: working on New Testament now" — Bitter Crank

The Hebrew Scriptures probably came about as an evolution of fragments and wholesale revisions. Parts of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers were probably the oldest parts. They may have been written by Israelite and Judahite priests stitching together both region's traditions of various accounts by the end of the 700s (after Assyrian destruction of Northern Kingdom of Israel and influx of Israelite priests to Jerusalem in the Southern Kingdom of Judah).

Then there was the Deuteronomic author (possibly the author being mentioned in The Book of Kings itself as Shaphan) who more-or-less consolidated the earlierhenotheistic Israelite-Judaic tradition into a strictly monotheistic one around 600s under the reign of King Josiah of Judah.

Leviticus probably came last, written by the Solomon priesthood who were descended from the Sons of Zadok and who probably inserted the idea of Aaron as Moses' brother and being descended in some way from Moses' family, thus giving themselves legitimacy as priestly rulers. Further redactions probably took place in the Babylonian Captivity as traditions were consolidated, the very final version being stitched together by Ezra and his team of scribes to be brought back to Jerusalem with Nehemiah and the governorship under the appointment of Persia's King Cyrus.

Thus early Judaism took on many interpretations even within the Torah's text itself as it was pieced together to make a more coherent narrative. For a while, in early Second Temple Judaism the Temple Priests were essentially the conveyors of the law, but eventually "men of letters" (who essentially were learned in the art of hermeneutics) became a large faction of authority. Their interpretation was evolutionary in method as they applied what was written in the text of the Law to a contemporary problem that was beyond the original text or rather to a situation which had "outgrown" the time period that the text was written in. This evolutionary-hermeneutics approach was developed by the Pharisees, and their compendium of evolutionary interpretation became known eventually as the Oral Law or Talmud.

The elite Temple priestly class was mainly championed by Sadducees, those who rejected such methods. They fought often under the Hasmonean Dynasty from 160 BCE- 63 BCE. By the time of the Romans, the Pharisees were seen by the populace in and around Jerusalem as the most trusted faction for legal interpretation. When the Romans destroyed the Temple around 70 CE, the Pharisees reconstituted Judaism in a way without a Temple complex, priestly caste, and sacrifices.

If it wasn't the valid word of God, then there wouldn't be any reason to struggle to get it right for 3,000 years.

If it was the valid word of some god, don't you think he would have made it absolutely obvious what he wanted from us and for us instead of letting a bunch of ignorant, illiterate barely out of monkey stage goons decide what it meant for him?

Do you think you could do any better with no experience of the job?

The last bloody thing I would want would to be a god. But I would bet that given his supposed powers I could probably do better.

However, the Biblical text is revelatory - its aim is to reveal many things that are hidden.

This is only your opinion of what the bible is, how you interpret it. Personally I think the bible means to say exactly what it says and anything you add to it as "meaning" is actually a corruption of the original writing. Not that I actually believe a word of it.

People that try to find hidden meaning in things can be found by the dozen in museums, looking at the paintings of long dead artists and telling anyone that will listen what the paint was actually trying to express in the work. They have not got a bloody clue either.

Parts of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers were probably the oldest parts. They may have been written by Israelite and Judahite priests stitching together both region's traditions

Several African origins myths are almost exactly like genesis, and hundreds if not thousands of years earlier.

Several African origins myths are almost exactly like genesis, and hundreds if not thousands of years earlier. — Sir2u

Yep, funny how ancient human cultures devise similar myths in different regions. Some may have been influenced by others (Israelite traditions definitely influenced by previous Babylonian myths, etc.). Makes you want to read Joseph Campbell!

The last bloody thing I would want would to be a god. But I would bet that given his supposed powers I could probably do better. — Sir2u

Ahh, the chutzpah, the effrontery, the gall, the delusions of grandeur...

literally >:)

''

The last bloody thing I would want would to be a god. But I would bet that given his supposed powers I could probably do better. — Sir2u

Good post, as usual.

The Cohens, Kahns, Cahanes, Levites... these Jewish names are connected to the priestly caste of Israel, and there are genetic similarities linking the various families.

Nothing to do with the price of matzo ball soup, but interesting.

The Cohens, Kahns, Cahanes, Levites... these Jewish names are connected to the priestly caste of Israel, and there are genetic similarities linking the various families.

Nothing to do with the price of matzo ball soup, but interesting. — Bitter Crank

>:O . Interesting articles on that:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/07/science/finding-genetic-traces-of-jewish-priesthood.html?mcubz=0

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/09/us/dna-backs-a-tribe-s-tradition-of-early-descent-from-the-jews.html?mcubz=0

Makes you want to read Joseph Campbell!

Is he the soup guy? X-)

Ahh, the chutzpah, the effrontery, the gall, the delusions of grandeur...

Don't try to tell me that you could not at least keep the oceans clean if you had his "POWERS". Anyone could.

And I am not delusional, I just know how fucking great I am. >:)

Makes you want to read Joseph Campbell! — Sir2u

For some critics, Joseph Campbell is as pedestrian as Campbell's soup. Meant for the masses.

I just automatically came up with that quip after reading BitterCranks post.

Nothing to do with the price of matzo ball soup

Nothing to do with the price of matzo ball soup — Sir2u

Oh didn't see the other soup connection, duh.. I was trying to keep up.. couldn't think of too many soup-mythology analogies. Primordial soup?

Primordial soup

Blame that one on Heinz.

Primordial soup

Blame that one on Heinz. — Sir2u

I guess they do own Campbell's. I like that ketchup product of theirs.

I believe Heinz is owned by Kraft, foods. Kraft was part of Phillip Morris for a while, but the smoke folks decided it didn't make sense for them to own a food company, after all.

It's hard to keep track of who owns who, what with all the conglomerates.

Like most good products, Heinz Ketchup is made with high fructose corn syrup.

"the Biblical text is revelatory - its aim is to reveal many things that are hidden."

As Thomas Paine (not an atheist) pointed out, if any text is revelatory, it is only revelatory to the person that witnessed God directly speaking those words. To anybody else, it is just hearsay.

This is only your opinion of what the bible is, how you interpret it. — Sir2u

Sure, if you consider the tree that I see outside to be only my opinion, then you can say this too is only my opinion. :-} The truth is that all Christians have believed this to be so, so whether it's actually true, it certainly isn't "only my opinion". To say it is is to be ridiculous.

Personally I think the bible means to say exactly what it says and anything you add to it as "meaning" is actually a corruption of the original writing. — Sir2u

I don't think you understand exactly what it says, that is precisely the problem. You think this understanding what it says is a straightforward matter that involves just reading the words. That's not true, anymore than you can understand what "Fire!" means just by reading that word.

People that try to find hidden meaning — Sir2u

I never talked about a hidden meaning. I referenced hidden things that are revealed by the Biblical text. That's why other areas - art, science, philosophy etc. - need to be interpreted in the light of Biblical revelation.

They have not got a bloody clue either. — Sir2u

That's your non-expert opinion ;) - to adopt one of your favorite tropes X-)

A god that leaves his followers in a daze about what he meant should be disqualified as a god for incompetence.
— Sir2u

Do you think you could do any better with no experience of the job? — BlueBanana

Well, if I were a god, I'd try. But I am not. So... why do you ask Sir2u to perform a task which only gods are required to do? This is like asking a sea mollusk to solve a second degree equation system with five unknowns. You simply can't ask a mortal to perform the job of a god. That is not fair.

I am with Sir2u on the issue. The bible is so badly written, with so many infactuals, so many logical impossibilities, that one's hair stands on end when one thinks it has been inspired by a god.

In my private opinion the bible was written by uneducated, stupid men and women, and there is nothing godly about it. It is a badly written book for guidance and knowledge, and that's about the size of it.

Yep, funny how ancient human cultures devise similar myths in different regions. Some may have been influenced by others (Israelite traditions definitely influenced by previous Babylonian myths, etc.). Makes you want to read Joseph Campbell! — schopenhauer1

The Biblical story is not a myth. And this isn't only because the Biblical story is true (whereas myths are false), but rather because it serves exactly the opposite function to that of myth. It is true that the Biblical story is dressed in the clothes of myths, but its function is not obfuscation and removal of traces of the founding violence of culture and society - but rather their revelation. This is the reason why the Bible cannot but be inspired by a transcendent God - the Bible cannot come from humans, its source cannot be immanent.

I am with Sir2u on the issue. The bible is so badly written, with so many infactuals, so many logical impossibilities, that one's hair stands on end when one thinks it has been inspired by a god.

In my private opinion the bible was written by uneducated, stupid men and women, and there is nothing godly about it. It is a badly written book for guidance and knowledge, and that's about the size of it. — szardosszemagad

This opinion is hardly worth even refutation. If you cannot see the intricacies and wisdom of Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, or the Book of Job to name just three books of the Bible - and perceive that these texts could not under any circumstances be written by stupid and uneducated men and women, then you're just deluding yourself.

As Thomas Paine (not an atheist) pointed out, if any text is revelatory, it is only revelatory to the person that witnessed God directly speaking those words. To anybody else, it is just hearsay. — andrewk

A text is revelatory if its meaning shows or points to things that are otherwise hidden. The Biblical text does this.

I never talked about a hidden meaning. I referenced hidden things that are revealed by the Biblical text. That's why other areas - art, science, philosophy etc. - need to be interpreted in the light of Biblical revelation. — Agustino

A text is revelatory if its meaning shows or points to things that are otherwise hidden. The Biblical text does this. — Agustino

So you claim. Like I (or rather, Mr Paine) said, hearsay.

If you cannot see the intricacies and wisdom of Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, or the Book of Job to name just three books of the Bible - and perceive that these texts could not under any circumstances be written by stupid and uneducated men and women, then you're just deluding yourself. — Agustino

This sounds similar to the claims in the preface of my Quran, which say that the numerological patterns in the surahs, the language etc, are so intricate that they could not have been constructed by any human - hence they must have been written by Allah.