Interpretation of Texts (General)

by dhw, Saturday, September 18, 2010, 12:49 (5179 days ago)

BALANCE_MAINTAINED (under Ain't Nature wonderful): Interpretation of the bible is indeed tricky. I generally start with a few basic premises:
A) The Bible does not contradict nature or accurate scientific knowledge.
B) The Bible does not contradict itself.
C) There are key words in the Bible that are clear indicators of figurative language when it is not otherwise stated. [...]-I'm starting a new thread with this, because I think we should leave "Ain't nature wonderful" to examples of wonderful nature.-To approach a text with such basic premises is already a problem in itself, and I wonder why you need them. The fact of the matter is that every reader will interpret texts in his own way, and there are no literary texts that aren't open to different approaches. Unlike yourself, most readers are unaware of the subjective elements they bring to interpretation, and that's why they're often surprised when other readers come up with completely different views. Not even the author's interpretation is final, because firstly very few writers are capable of expressing themselves unequivocally, secondly if they could, the text would probably be flat and boring and would not survive, and thirdly once the text is published, the fluid nature of language takes it out of the author's control. -All of this is self-evident when it comes to ancient texts like the Bible and the Koran, which is why colleges have been set up in order to interpret them. Just to make matters more complicated, these books are only known to most of us in translation, a translator is no less subjective a reader than any other, he is generally unlikely to be totally bilingual, no two translations are ever alike, and there is no one in authority to say which one is authentic. -I'm in no position to discuss all the finer details with you, and I'm full of admiration for your erudition, but I'm concerned when you come up with statements like: "It [Genesis] NEVER, and I can't make that any clearer, NEVER says that he created each species individually." All your subsequent posts on the subject make it clear that this is simply your interpretation. The translator's notes can easily mean that each species was created individually, and you yourself are now making qualifications and acknowledging the ambiguity of the words. With my own brand of agnosticism, I have no problem taking Genesis as one man's account of what might have happened (much like the thousand other creation myths), and I really don't care whether it does or doesn't fit in with evolution ... which I do believe happened, even though there are areas of the theory that I remain uncertain about. However, I become very uneasy when people insist (a) that these holy texts are the binding word of their God, and (b) that their interpretation of these man-made writings is the only one possible. Hence, in the case of the Koran, the murder of non-believers, or in the case of the Catholic Church the discrimination against women, homosexuals, and people who wish to avoid AIDS or unwanted pregnancy by using condoms. Text interpretation can be a dangerous exercise! Please don't misunderstand me. I'm finding your posts on this subject very enlightening, but I hope you in turn will see why I have misgivings about your approach.