Support for a literal interpretation of the Bible?

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by muffler dragon

Understood.

From what (little) I have seen on this topic, the Jewish translations and understanding of the text seems to be universal. When this universality came into being, I haven't a clue. However, this link shows Rashi's understanding of the passage. This would go back to the 12th century and/or before.

True, but is also true that the archeological advances of the last century and the discovery of written texts from the region that were unknown to the fine rabinical scholars of the 12th century may add new context to the debate.

I wonder that they were apprised of the use of the term Elohim and related phrases in the Ugaritic texts when the translations were made. I cannot imagine any Rabbi agreeing that any statement in the Torah backed polytheism in any way shape or form.

[muffler dragon]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

True, but is also true that the archeological advances of the last century and the discovery of written texts from the region that were unknown to the fine rabinical scholars of the 12th century may add new context to the debate.

This may or may not address what you're saying above, but Rabbinic tradition spans millenia not just the time period of said Rabbis. When Rashi comments about things, he is amalgamating a lot of the time from what the Sages before him have shared/thought. Here is a small comment:

A grape grower living in Northern France, Rashi wrote the definitive commentaries on the Babylonian Talmud and the Bible. Rashi pulled together materials from a wide variety of sources, wrote them down in the order of the Talmud and the Bible for easy reference, and wrote them in such clear, concise and plain language that it can be appreciated by beginners and experts alike. Almost every edition of the Talmud printed since the invention of the printing press has included the text of Rashi's commentary side-by-side with the Talmudic text. Many traditional Jews will not study the Bible without a Rashi commentary beside it.

This isn't to say that there aren't items that arise through archeology that wouldn't affect thoughts and such; however, Jewish tradition is organic and has been around a long time.

Originally Posted by Gator

I wonder that they were apprised of the use of the term Elohim and related phrases in the Ugaritic texts when the translations were made. I cannot imagine any Rabbi agreeing that any statement in the Torah backed polytheism in any way shape or form.

You are correct. No Rabbi would agree that any statement backed polytheism; hence, the reason why I spoke of a perceived universality of Jewish tradition.

I think that I am slightly misunderstanding what you're saying, because I agree with this last paragraph of yours. I may just be too tired to attempt to formulate my thoughts correctly to you. If so, I am sorry.

[Muck]

Edit: Gators beat me to it...

[billmac91]

The following quotes don't seem to fit the Bible if you are a literalist. If the Bible condones slavery, I want no part of it.

If the Bible treats women as unequal, I want no part. Both are difficult to explain away, although I'm sure there is some response.

Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

Corinthians 14:34-35
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

[MuckFich06]

Just my observation, but literalists seem to take only the parts they like "literally."

[Brewtus]

Originally Posted by billmac91

The following quotes don't seem to fit the Bible if you are a literalist. If the Bible condones slavery, I want no part of it.

If the Bible treats women as unequal, I want no part. Both are difficult to explain away, although I'm sure there is some response.

That's a major problem with the Bible that many Christians seem to gloss over. If one is to use the Bible as a book of moral teachings and as a guideline to live one's life by, then you need to cherry-pick the good parts and ignore a significant part of it. And if parts of the Bible need to be ignored, why does that make it such a revered holy book? Seems to me that the Bible is actually a poor source of moral enlightenment.