The Bible is so full of contradictions that I need not delve into them as they can readily be researched by anyone equipped with Google and a keyboard. Because of these contradictions, the bible cannot be taken literally, and I suspect that very few Christians indeed take the bible literally. Thus, most all theists interpret the bible as they see fit. But who has authority on these interpretations? Which interpretation is the correct way to view the bible?
When you take an English class, you inevitably are required to interpret some novel and write an essay about it. It has long been stipulated that there is no wrong interpretation (so long as you backup your interpretation), and if you happen to interpret a novel differently from someone else then both views are accepted. Indeed, most theists who are members of one of the over 200 denominations of Christianity agree to disagree about their varied interpretations of the bible – to a certain extent. There are those who think you’re actually eating Jesus at communion, and there are those who think it’s only symbolic. There are those who think that you have to believe to get to heaven, and there are those who think you get there by your actions. Then you get to the interpretations that Christians more likely disagree to disagree (not inclusively or exclusively): women’s rights, homosexuality, abortions, sex out of wed-lock, contraceptives, indoctrination, etc. But who’s right?
Obviously, you cannot know how to interpret an object from the object itself. There must be an outside source. We can no longer ask the writers, and so far as we know they didn’t write out how to interpret their own writings. So who do we get our interpretations from: the pope, the priest, your parents, yourself, the guy on the soap-box, the mentally ill, etc.? Regardless of where you get your interpretation from, others will get theirs from somewhere or someone else. Everyone will be convinced that theirs is right. You might tell me that you just know that yours is right because you (and probably only you) truly know how to correctly interpret the bible because of your supreme closeness and understanding of your god, but then I’d feel obligated to send you to a Psychiatric ward with a toe-tag labeled ‘Delusions of Grandeur’.
But here’s the question that’s being begged: What are the limits to interpretation? Who’s to say that I cannot interpret the bible as condoning child sacrifice, raping virgins of captive nations, going to war over religion, etc.? Who’s to say that I cannot interpret the bible as nothing more than the equivalent of Homer’s The Iliad where there may be some historical relevance but for the most part it’s all the product of human creativity? Once you allow room for interpretation, there are no barriers to how much is to be interpreted and in how many ways.
Now if you argue that there are some things to be interpreted and some things to be taken literal, you still have the problem of deciding which of those things are which. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Further, it’s not really that you’re taking a part of the bible literally, but rather interpreting that part of the bible as if it were to be taken literally. And so I am equally able to interpret that bible as not literal. Let me explain: If you are to read a book as being literal, you need not read the book first before deciding whether it or which parts should be read literally; just like I don’t need to read a scientific book before I read it as being literal because the book itself is designed to be read literally. There’s no interpretation either required or intended. The bible does not have this quality – one has to read it first to decide which parts should be taken literally, and so it is for any book which has room for interpretation. So, if a book is to be read for interpretation, I need to read it first to know which parts are to be taken interpretively and which parts are to be taken literal. But then I am only interpreting those parts deemed literal to be literal; just like I can interpret literally Hamlet saying ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’ as meaning there’s some organic substance decaying in the state of Denmark (maybe he was referring to his lunch and was getting hungry?). The quote itself is not inherently literal, but it can be interpreted as if it were literal.
So much emphasis is put on the bible and yet so very few people can agree on the same interpretation of it. If you allow free interpretation, then I’m free to interpret it as a fable and equally as a guide (and proponent for) on how to torment mankind – and you should not think it wrong of me to do so since you allow yourself equal maneuvering. If you allow for only your interpretation, then you delude yourself with thinking you’re the only one who really knows what it’s all about. And let me tell you this: no matter how much you are convinced that you know the true interpretation, I guarantee you there’s someone else out there with a different interpretation just as convinced as you – neither of which can be verified since it is a completely subjective stance. If you allow for no interpretation, you’ll be committed to removing all contradictions from the bible which would ultimately leave you with not much of anything.
