In your opinion, whose interpretation of the Bible is more accurate?

[Htom Sirveaux]

EDIT: To clarify, what I mean is, "who better understands what the Bible is trying to say" not whether what the Bible is trying to say is true or not.

6 votes, 6 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Fundamentalists
	1 (17%)
	Religious liberals
	5 (83%)
	6 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hrmjustin]

1. Well not all religious liberals agree on interpretation but I say liberals over fundamentalists.

Of course liberal Christians have different views on the resurrection and other events in Jesus's life.

[immoderate]

2. Are you asking whose interpretation of mythology is more likely true?

You forgot a "none of the above" button. False dichotomy.

--imm

[Htom Sirveaux]

3. Not quite.

More like, "who better understands what the Bible is trying to say?" I'm not asking whether what the Bible is trying to say is true or not.

[immoderate]

6. What is the bible "trying to say?" So why does it say something else?

Why can't it "just spit it out?"

If it says "we're a bunch of myths that were developed by oral transmission," ring the bell.

--imm

[skepticscott]

4. The Bible is an inanimate object (or concept, if you prefer)

It isn't "trying" to "say" anything.

Perhaps you should clarify yet again.

[mindwalker_i]

5. How do you define "accurate" in this case?

The question is nonsensical.

[Htom Sirveaux]

7. It like translation from a foreign language.

When a translator translates, do the words they choose capture as much of the meaning of the original as possible? Likewise, whose explanations of the Bible best reflect the original understandings, meanings, and messages of the Biblical authors?

[mindwalker_i]

8. But since this stuff was written 2000 years ago

the original meaning is impossible to derive. Therefore, the only answers possible will reflect what each individual wants the "iterpretation" to say, rather than what the original authors wanted to say. It's the ultimate observer-created reality.

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. In that case, whose interpretation leads to better ethics? n/t

[mindwalker_i]

10. Ethics changes with time and society

I have a friend who comes from a very religious family, while he is very much not religious. He like to quote things in the worst possible light (especially when he's been drinking), and from that, I've found that the ethics at the time to bible was written are very different than now.

Actually, I think this is a strength for religion: allow the tenants to be re-interpreted for changing times, or the religion becomes useless too quickly. Ideally, religions should provide a lens with which to view the world that attempts to guide followers in a direction beneficial to society. Unfortunately that also allows for people to twist it to their own personal agenda.

[Htom Sirveaux]

39. True, but then the question becomes...

Is there such a thing as moral progress?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. that is an entirely different question.

The fundamentalist interpretation is way more accurate than the liberal interpretation.

[Htom Sirveaux]

38. So you and the fundamentalists do agree on something.

You both think their interpretation is more accurate than the liberals' interpretation(s).

[Warren Stupidity]

53. yes. and honest liberals would also agree.

Until of course you change the meaning of your question, which you did, into whose interpretation is "better ethics". Fundamentalists are at least attempting to use the literal meaning of the various books of the bible. Their interpretation is more accurate.

[hrmjustin]

55. I disagree but we will just have to disagree.

[Htom Sirveaux]

56. Who are these honest liberals who agree with fundamentalist interpretations?

Do you know of any real life examples? And why would liberals agree that "most accurate" equals "literal"? That 's something you and the fundamentalists share, but I much doubt that many or any liberals would agree. Again, examples?

[Warren Stupidity]

57. again we are going to have a definitional problem.

Liberal Christianity historically was and is the abandonment of biblical literalism and inerrancy. All honest liberal Christians would by definition agree that their fundamentalist counterparts are adhering to an orthodox literal theology, that is the point. One side is looking for truth behind the words in that book, the other holds that the words are the truth. If you can't see that, then we can't agree on what well known meanings of words are and this discussion is pointless.

[hrmjustin]

58. You are aware that through Christian history that the bible was not always taken literally on

everything?

[Warren Stupidity]

65. You are aware that there was is a history of Liberal Christianity, right?

Perhaps you should google it.

"not always taken literally" - well for the most part it was. Until really rather recently. The bible as metaphor is a modernist concept. Its roots go back to the enlightenment, but really it is the 19th century that sees major religions move away from literalism.

Again, the point is that fundamentalists are literalists, as such they are at least attempting to NOT interpret the bible. Liberal Christians view the bible as metaphor, they are explicitly interpreting the bible to fit within a modernist world view.

[hrmjustin]

67. Allegory and metaphor was around before the enlightenment.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Sure. Not the point.

The bible was interpreted literally by mainstream religions until quite recently, as in the last two hundred years. The modernist schism in this country was a huge todo in the first part of the 20th century, and it was largely about literalism.

[hrmjustin]

69. I would agree for the most part that Rome tow the line for the most part

Last edited Thu Feb 6, 2014, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

but that does not mean all churches and theologians agreed.

And let us remember that literalists today claim things that the church centuries ago did not.

[PassingFair]

72. If they didn't "tow" the line....they found out what was what!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade


P.S. It's "toe" the line.

[Htom Sirveaux]

59. The common-sense explanation is that liberals reject literalism

because it is inaccurate. That you do have to go beyond the words to get the full truth. Again, for liberals, accuracy does not equal literalism. That's still just you and the fundamentalists.

[Act_of_Reparation]

63. I cannot accept any of these premises

The common-sense explanation is that liberals reject literalism because it is inaccurate.

Liberal Christians do not reject literalism, and neither do fundamentalists embrace it. Again, the difference between a liberal Christian and a fundamentalist Christian is their attitude towards orthodox dogma. Fundamentalists presuppose established dogma to be true, while liberal Christians do not. They are both capable of reading either literally or figuratively, and both do. Routinely.

Again, for liberals, accuracy does not equal literalism.

Then define what you mean by accuracy, because by any accepted meaning of the word I do not understand how you could personally measure the accuracy of Biblical interpretation.

If I go to a rifle range, I can tell how accurate a shot I am because I have the target in front of me. I can compare where my shots are landing versus where they should be landing. Nobody has the slightest indication what God means to say through scripture, so you have NO WAY of measuring how accurate your own interpretations are, let alone anyone else's.

That's still just you and the fundamentalists.

Again, I'm not sure where you've picked up these notions. There are plenty of liberal Christians who take literally quite a few scriptural passages.

[trotsky]

22. How do we decide who has better ethics?

Folks on the right think that abortion is murder. They would therefore naturally assume their ethics are better since they want to stop abortion.

[Htom Sirveaux]

40. An excellent question.

We'd need some kind of objective moral standard to decide. Does such a thing exist?

[trotsky]

41. Nope, not that we are aware of. n/t

[Htom Sirveaux]

43. So from an ethical stand point,

there's no difference between being a YEC and being an atheist?

[Heddi]

46. What are the standard set of ethics that all Atheists and all YEC's share?

An atheist can be unethical. A YEC can be very ethically minded.

You're asking silly questions that I think you want to come off as sounding deeply logical and philosophical. They don't though.

There is no standard of ethics that every Atheist holds. There is no standard of ethics that every YEC holds. There are ethical people and there are unethical people. There are ethical actions and there are unethical actions.

No, without knowing ANYTHING about the person that you've assigned as a YEC and the person you've assigned as an Atheist, No, there is NO difference (from an ethical standpoint) from being a YEC and being an Atheist.

Is there any difference, from an ethical standpoint, between being a Saggitarius, or someone born in the year of the Dragon?

[Htom Sirveaux]

48. Ok, how about this...

No ethical difference between hating gays and respecting them?

[Heddi]

49. Is there an ethical difference? What does that have to do with YEC vs Atheist?

You know there are homophobic atheists. And there are non-homophobic YEC's.

And I can "hate" a certain type of people, but respect them at the same time. I'm not the only person who is able to do this, as I think it's called "being a human being with a wide range of emotions and the ability to hold multiple thoughts and opinions at the same time."

I generally despise republicans in a general sense, but each person is entitled to respect based on his or her actions. So I can despise a person who is a republican for their political leanings, yet still respect that same person for rushing into a burning building and saving wheelchair-bound orphans. Hate them for being anti-choice, respect them for risking their lives for others.

But How is that ethical or unethical?

If I put action to my hate--beating people, harming them, speaking lies about them...then that's unethical.

Hate, in an of itself? I don't think that's unethical at all.

Is respecting someone always ethical? Is someone who respects the political views and actions of Pol Pot an ethical person?


Ethically speaking, is there any difference between being someone who is allergic to tomatoes, or being someone who likes the taste of a crisp, refreshing Mountain Dew?

[trotsky]

60. What if one holds the religious belief that homosexuality angers god?

That by expressing homosexual love, one is sinning, and will be punished by god?

If one truly believes that god thinks homosexuality is evil, then "hating" gays (i.e., hating the behavior, wanting them to stop, etc.) becomes ethical.

See why this is a bit more complicated than you would like it to be?

[Htom Sirveaux]

62. Indeed, but Trotsky, how do you personally tell them they are wrong without an objective

moral standard? Even if you argue "don't believe anything without evidence", that's just your personal view, they aren't obliged to accept it anymore than you are obliged to accept theirs. They are exactly as moral or immoral as you, exactly as right or wrong as you, so how can you justify opposing them?

[trotsky]

66. Who has the objective moral standard, Htom?

That's the thing you're not seeing. THEY already believe they have the objective standard. You also believe you have the objective standard. They are not only not obligated to accept your personal view (which you think is objective), but they have the additional belief that their view is sanctioned by god and yours (and everyone else's) is evil.

You have no more innate ability to oppose them than I do - your belief doesn't solve anything, and in fact, makes the problem worse because now both sides have dug in their heels, basing their viewpoint on beliefs that are not amenable to reason or discussion. They're god-given.

[Htom Sirveaux]

74. The thing of it is...

even now you are trying to argue to me that it's wrong to believe in an objective moral standard, which is something that only makes sense if right and wrong have meaning apart from personal opinion. In other words, your argument presupposes the very thing you are arguing against. It's not at all clear to me believing in objective moral standards forecloses on reasoned discussion. As you note, just believing in objective morality, by itself doesn't tell us what that morality consists of. That's still up for discussion. But at least now that discussion has stakes that make sense.

[trotsky]

75. It's funny, you remind me of someone who used to post here.

You're advancing the same faulty ideas, and making the same errors in reasoning that they did.

Answer me one question: what's the difference between an absolute moral standard not existing, and one existing but there is no way for anyone to know what it is?

[Htom Sirveaux]

76. If objective morality doesn't exist, there's no such thing as moral progress.

If it does, then we can do the best we can to come up with an understandable picture of what it could be, and refine that picture over time in light of new experience and perspective.

That's a rather important difference.

[trotsky]

79. No such thing as moral progress? How do you know that?

On what are you basing that claim?

I think that's quite insulting to anyone who doesn't believe in your notion of god. And besides, it doesn't even answer my question. Even if your objective moral standard existed, but we had no way to find out what it is, how can we possibly know if we're making progress toward it? WE DONT FREAKING KNOW WHAT IT IS!

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. I think that can be argued

Matt Dillahunty presents a pretty convincing argument about objective, fluid morality. He makes the case that "morals" ensure the greatest possible happiness for the greatest number of people.

If your question therefore becomes, "who presents a better moral code?", you're still going to run into problems. Liberal Christianity isn't unified in any meaningful way, and liberal Christians may just as well reach the same moral conclusions as do the fundamentalists. So, this question is really about as meaningful as, "Who makes a better moral argument: Fundamentalist Christians or men who don't wear hats?"

[Htom Sirveaux]

45. I'd be interested to hear that argument

Do you have a link?

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. I have a shoddily recorded 75 minute video >_>

[Meshuga]

24. As mentioned above...

...ethics is in the eye of the beholder.

So, what it comes down to is different groups framing the biblical text to fit their own ethics.

Part of this process includes ignoring the passages that don't fit the group's ethical values and part of it includes crediting the "good" biblical passages when the values fit the ethics.

[DreamGypsy]

11. In the Beginning...

...a recitation/song by Nick Annis.

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth,
and the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon
the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters."
It's an oral history, passed down, word of mouth, from father to son.
From Adam to Seth, from Seth to Enos, from Enos to Caanan, for 40 generations
a growing, changing story, passed down, word of mouth, father to son.

Till Moses finally gets it down on lambskin.
But lambskins wear out, need to be copied.

So you have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy
of an oral history passed down through 40 generations.

From Hebrew it's translated into Arabic. From Arabic into Greek.
From Greek into Latin. From Latin into Russian, from Russian into German,
from German into an Olde form of English that you could not read.
Through 400 years of evolution of the English language to the book we have today.
Which is:
A translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation
of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy
of an oral history passed down through 40 generations.

You can't put a grocery list through that many copies, translations and re-tellings
and not get some big changes in the dinner menu when the kids make it back from Superfresh.

And yet people are killing each other over this written word.

Here's a tip.

If you're killing someone in the name of God...
you might be missing the message.

[MisterP]

36. which edition exactly is the Russian-German one again?

[Itchinjim]

12. My own of course.

[Fumesucker]

13. I'm amazed it took 12 replies to get this answer

It was the first thing I thought when I read the OP title.

[Humanist_Activist]

14. This is like asking what is the "accurate" interpretation of Shakespeare's plays, or Moby Dick is...

its up to the reader to decide, and is ultimately subjective without being able to test any claims in it against an external source.

[Heddi]

15. The question is, how do we know what "accuracy" in the bible is?

The fundamentalists think they're accurate in their translations and interpretations.
Literalists think they're accurate in their translations and interpretations.
Progressives think they're accurate in their translations and interpretations.

What about the books of the bible deemed to inflammatory to be included, that were removed by weary church officials? I would think that reading them and interpreting them would be important, but they're not included anymore.

It's uninterpretable...or more correctly, it's open to infinite interpretation. It's a 2000+ year old book of oral stories, mixed with politics, superstition, ancient laws, customs....it can't be interpreted accurately by anyone. That's why there's so many attempts at interpretation. And they're all equally wrong, and they're all equally valid.

[Meshuga]

16. What about an option for none of the above?

Or one option for all of the above?

These books were put together in such a complex way with some many intentions, contexts, from different periods of time, from different groups with different world views, and interpreted over and over to be finally redacted to a final version, and finally translated by different groups giving even more different contexts, etc.

Now, if the question is "which interpretation is preferable?" Then it would say the liberal interpretation, of course.

[trotsky]

17. I dunno, which ones are the True Scotsmen? n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. That would be the Greater Scythians

From one of the most important documents in Scottish history, the Declaration of Arbroath, 1320:

Most Holy Father, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. It journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage peoples, but nowhere could it be subdued by any people, however barbarous. Thence it came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to its home in the west where it still lives today.

http://www.nas.gov.uk/downloads/declarationArbroath.pdf

[trotsky]

61. Dang, and here I was hoping it was the ones who made their Scotch using real sherry barrels.

That's the best stuff.

[el_bryanto]

18. Difficult to answer in a meaningful way.

I believe my interpretation of the Bible to be accurate but that is because of how I feel when I read it, not something I can point to in the text and say "Aha. See i'm right." I mean there are verses I can point to that suggest that caring for the poor is a good idea and being cruel to the weak is a bad idea. But fundamentalists would point to Leviticus and some of Pauls statements and say "Yes but what about this. See?"

Reading the Bible (or any holy work) is intended to be a spiritual experience. What is supposed to happen isn't in the text itself or in the reader him or herself, but in the interaction of the two with the presence of some connection to the divine (the Holy Spirit in my belief system).

That said, I think that people who read the Bible (or any other holy work) and conclude that God wants them to be more cruel and mean-spirited is probably doing it wrong - but I admit that's a judgement on my part; I can't prove it one way or another.

Bryant

[edhopper]

19. I think the most accurate is

by historians and archeologists who try to figure out which people and groups of people wrote the Bible and what their social, cultural and political circumstances were at the time.
Any attempt to decide what God was trying to say is a exercise in futility. (being that there was no God trying to say anything.)

[madrchsod]

78. agreed..biblical archeology is my hobby reading

there`s always some very interesting finds that confirm or put doubt in the biblical writings. as for god..there were more than one in that area of the world.

[cleanhippie]

21. Mine is. And no one can prove me wrong.

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. What separates a liberal (modernist) from a fundamentalist is not their conclusions...

...but their hermeneutics. A fundamentalist and a liberal could very well hold the same views, depending on the liberal's reading of the text.

Remember: "liberal" Christianity has nothing to do with political liberalism. It is a method of hermeneutics, by which the interpreter tries to employ an academic, objective reading of the text, making no presuppositions as to the accuracy of orthodox dogma.

[Iggo]

25. Fundamentalists.

[jschurchin]

26. My Own. nt

[upaloopa]

27. No one. The bible is used by people to support

their already conceived notions.

[trotsky]

30. We have a winner! n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. 'The Bible' is a (slightly variable) collection of books written over several centuries

by authors with widely differing views. I can't accept that "what the Bible is trying to say" is a phrase that you can meaningfully apply "understand" to.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Selected 'pass'.

Given that I don't believe in the contents at all, I am in no position to judge the accuracy of faithful interpretation, whether 'fundamentalist' or 'progressive', etc.

[Half-Century Man]

32. Which version of the Bible?

Which translation?
Including which books?

[wandy]

33. You are not supposed to interpret the bible. So say it the church..........

So go they forth and learnith sanskrit or what ever all the various parts of it were written in.
Truth is, if you could do so it would probably make more sense than the versions "translated" at the whim of numerous kings, sects, cults and other power mad despots working in the "name of the lord".

Now if you will excuse me, I must go forth and feed my Dinosaur.

[hrmjustin]

34. As others have said my own.

[WovenGems]

35. Define please

New or OT. Because one belongs to Christians and the other does not.

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. That's a lot like saying the New Testament doesn't belong to Mormons

Christianity began as a Jewish sect. The scripture Jesus allegedly fulfilled was established in the OT. Sounds to me like it belongs in the Christian Bible.

[WovenGems]

80. Bingo

The NT doesn't belong to Mormons. Christianity came long after Jesus died and thus only a distant cousin of Judaism.
Let's review
OT = Jew
NT = Christian
Koram = Islam
LDS = Mormon
Four religions, four books.

[trotsky]

82. Wow, that's a whole lotta ignorance concentrated in one little post.

I'm impressed.

[Act_of_Reparation]

85. Yes, let's review, indeed

Christianity came long after Jesus died and thus only a distant cousin of Judaism.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written some sixty years after Christ's death, makes mention of the Christians -- which one has to assume had established themselves some time prior to the date of composition.

Christianity emerged as a Jewish sect. The Evangelists were Jewish. Peter -- the first Pope -- was Jewish. Paul, who was chiefly responsible for bringing the religion to Eastern Empire and Rome, was Jewish. Christianity is directly and incontrovertibly related to Judaism, so much that it is impossible to understand the religion completely without looking back into the Old Testament. It is much more than a "distant cousin"; it is a "successor" religion.

Furthermore, Christians accept the Old Testament as the inspired word of their God, if not the direct word of their God. If they believe it is true, why should they need any additional reason for including it in their canon?

OT = Jew
NT = Christian
Koram = Islam
LDS = Mormon

Mormons would disagree with that assessment. They steadfastly maintain they are Christians, and seeing as they believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the redemptive power of faith in him, I have to agree with them. They, like Early Christians, believe the Old Testament to be the revealed word of God, and have as much right to the books as do the Jews.

[Heddi]

44. How can you ask "more accurate" when there is no baseline for what "accurate" is?

Asking whose interpretations are more "accurate" means that there is a definition for what an accurate interpretation of the bible is.

As far as I know, there isn't.

You're asking an unanswerable question. Everyone's interpretation is as accurate as anyone else's because there is no baseline for accuracy when it comes to interpreting the bible. There are OPINIONS, but opinions are subjective and not subject to being "accurate" or "inaccurate."

Another way to ask your question:
Whose description of the wetness of water is more accurate?

You can't answer it. It's a nonsensical question without an answer.

[Beachwood]

47. Which copy of Harry Potter is more accurate?

Which story of Santa Claus is more accurate?

No polls on this? Why not?

[JoePhilly]

51. Hey ... You forgot ... "The POPE"

He's the decider.

[bravenak]

52. Nobody knows what the bible is trying to say.

Don't kill. Scratch that, kill those people and take their land.
Don't covet. Scratch that, see that awesome land that those people live on, kill them and take it, it's better than what you have.
Who knows what it all means.

[Warren Stupidity]

54. there are many sections that are rather unambiguous and completely ignored.

[eomer]

64. Neither - it's "trying to say" many contradictory things...

...so neither is right if they say it means something less schizophrenic than what it really is.

[LostOne4Ever]

70. There are a ton of nuances to this question

There first being do you actually believe the bible is divine in anyway.

If you are like me then the bible is nothing more than the collection of myths, traditions, values, and ethics of various holy men through out a variety of times and places. These values could often change or be completely different. In fact some of them are incompatible if not outright contradictory. Thus no one interpretation one way or the other will hold in all cases.

In this case sometimes the liberal christian view will more correctly represent the books original meaning and at other times the fundamentalist. That said, for the majority of the times and places that these books were written the people were often misogynist and xenophobic. So probably, if you believe in a purely mundane/secular origin of the bible I would figure a more conservative fundamentalist view would be correct a greater percentage of the time.

Now if you really believe that there is something supernatural/divine about the Bible I guess it depends on how you see god. If you are liberal, you will tend to see the Yahweh as being liberal as well and interpret the bible liberally. Conversely, if you are conservative you will probably side with the fundamentalist. The group that is right depends on the nature of Yawhew.

So that being the case, I chose neither option.

[Leontius]

71. The interpretation of the Bible that has been the standard teaching of the Church

for over two thousand years is the one everyone calls the "liberal" view of the Bible. So as with all revisionist views a very careful and skeptical eye is needed when such a decision is being made .

[skepticscott]

73. If it's the interpretation of the Bible

that says women can't be priests, then no..that's not what "everyone" calls the "liberal" view.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. Or the one that murdered heretics, imprisoned Galileo, and fought against

modernity, including not officially accepting Darwinian Evolution until 1950.

[2naSalit]

77. Neither.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

83. I think this is a classic example of people substituting an easier question.

I suspect that nearly all the people answering "liberals" were actually answering the question "whose interpretation of the bible do you like more?".

[cbayer]

84. Accurate?

While I am in more agreement with how liberal/progressive theists interpret the bible, I don't think anyone is necessarily more accurate.

When people use it to support causes I believe in, like social justice, caring for the most needy and civil liberties, I support them.

When people use it to support causes I am opposed to, I don't support them.

The bible is a tool for some and a weapon for others.