Hi hooah, I've really been enjoying your posts lately. I've been meditating on this one pretty hard, because I don't want to come off as just disagreeing with you; but I do hope that I can add something to your understanding, or clarify things maybe, if I'm smart enough.
Of course. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the multitude of denominations of christianity there are. I, personally, have come to read it literally and the same I would a contemporary piece of literature: because that's what it is. I had a reading teacher in 8th grade who was, in my opinion, a bit over the top in his methods. However, he did teach us to pretty much tear about text. I remember reading a poem in class and we spent a good 20 minutes discussing why the writer used the word "the". This was a standard 8th grade reading class, not advanced, mind you.
Agree really hard. And when you read it that way, as literature, you can see that there are different genres involved. And these have to be dealt with in different ways, yes?
At any rate, when you allow yourself to read the bible as allegory or parable, you open it up to a multitude of interpretations, none more right or wrong than the next. Couple that with an unwavering amount of faith in you particular interpretation, and you can see how no good can come from it.
Here's where I think things get too fuzzy. It
is allegory, amongst many other things. Just as an example, the bit that bred this thread, the Deluge myth, is three different strands of literature woven together. At the bottom is a narrative text culled off some ancient poetry, full of puns and language-rich material. Basically similar to the Viking sagas. Then on top of that is a folk tale from oral tradition, that evolved in the course of the ministry of the northern prophets. Then on top of that is a set of inline notes and commentary from the Persian restoration.
So while it has elements of allegory, it isn't open to "a multitude of interpretations, none more right or wrong than the next." It tells you right in the text what the interpretation is. This part, the rainbow for example, means he learned his lesson. No matter how bad he fucks up, he won't just erase the chalkboard and start over again. It repenteth him that he made us, sure; but it also repenteth him that he drowned us. He is learning from his mistakes, he is trying to improve. This process continues, covenant after covenant, until he steps up and takes full responsibility for the whole mess.
The lying buck-passing apologetics that you are concerned about, isn't a legitimate interpretation of the text. The text is all about giving up idolatry, step by step. The apologetics is about making the text into a new idol.