Autism and Interpreting the Bible

Post Reply New Topic

Dernhelm23 posted (in part): To all the Christians in the forum: Because we're autistic, and one of the trademarks of autism is predominately concrete understanding of an idea, and difficulty with abstract concepts, I would imagine I'm not the only one struggling with interpreting the Bible. There are lots of things we know to take at face value, and there are other things that we should understand are abstract or cultural. How do we know which is which? --- Dernhelm23 - Agree, the Bible can be doublely difficult to interpret for those with autism/related challenges. The most extreme view I currently have is that it's very likely that Jesus Christ and others mentioned in the both the Old Testament and New Testament had undiagnosed forms of subtle brain injuries/concussions/perhaps Complex Partial/Temporal Lobe seizures. That's why they said what they said/thought what they thought. Although many people either like him or hate him, the cartoonist - evangelist Jack T. Chick - as well as the detractors of Jack T. Chick offer a very wide variety of what the Bible may mean/may not mean. There are many contradictory statements about almost everything in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. Some statements are clearly poetry, some statements appear factual, and some are in the middle. One of the more interesting books in the Bible (my view) are the Psalms (songs) by King David. Parts of the Psalms appear to be literal, parts of the Psalms appear to be symbolic, part of the Psalms are similes, part of the Psalms are metaphors, and many of the Psalms tell wonderful stories/are examples of good storytelling (my view). The gospel of Mark is a good place to start since it is the oldest of the gospels. Personally I lean toward English translations of the Bible like the KJV or the NKJV also as a good place to start although I am very aware that the original Bible was not written in English at all and that the mindset and how words were used in the middle east/Israel is far different at times as to how translated words into English from the Bible are used today. Because of this, I tend to believe it only possible to understand parts of the Bible at best since the original meaning is hidden within foreign languages, not English. That's my two cents on the topic. - pgd

The Bible was constructed to be as convincing as humanly possible at that time, as well as "future-proof" by making them completely open to interpretation. The texts, before the rearrangement, additions and translation, were carried orally by several distinct groups, and for decades were passed back and forth after the events they relate to actually happened, until the most successful stories remained in the form similar to that which is seen today. It was how many followers the stories got and maintained in a religious group that determined it's prevalence, not necessarily it's truth.

All in all it's supposed to be digestable in any manner, so that everyone can, to themselves, be right, regardless of how they interpret it.

It should be kept in mind that a lot of the OT (and the Torah, obviously) was aimed at the sort of people who could literally follow the evidence of YHVH day and night for a prolonged period, being led through the desert by pillars of flame and smoke, could camp at the foot of a mountain surmounted by an unmoving cloud generated by YHVH Himself while Moses went to chat with Him - and could, within a matter of weeks, completely abandon their belief and begin worshiping an idol they had constructed themselves. These people needed some very strict guidelines to keep reminding themselves of who they were supposed to be.

Romans chapter 14 addresses the fact that some people need more rules than others in order to remember their faith. This doesn't make one group "better" or "more faithful" than the other - just different.

Try to study the societies in which the books were written, and the people who were supposed to read them. Keep in mind what they knew of the universe (for instance, a tale of creation that spans fourteen billion years would have meant nothing to a tribe of semi-nomadic goatherds for whom any number higher than about twenty was abstract, and whose entire world was bounded by the lands they grazed their flocks upon). Remember that the Bible was intended for moral instruction, not scientific or historical instruction (what we consider historical instruction didn't even exist before the 18th Century - prior to that, myth, legend, and history intermingled freely, such that to a 16th-century Englishman, King Richard II would have been exactly as historical as King Arthur; the famed scientific method didn't begin spreading until the 17th Century, prior to which "appeal to authority" was regarded as a valid tactic in discussions).

I would recommend a "student's Bible" for quite some time, to provide some of that modern historical perspective on the situation.

I grew up in a tradition of literal reading of the bible, "fundamentalism", "proof texting theology" etc. I would like to go through the Bible knowing yhe original meanings of the words, stories, their historical context, what they meant to people at the time, (ie, sayings and stories that were understood at the time, but misunderstood at face value by us), the complex meaning of words which have no easy english equivalent.

Saying that, I know a few christians who studied the bible in it's original languages and did secular Theology, and they remained "literalists" and did not have their faith debunked.

Yes, Christians always make a big fuss about that chapter being a supposed prediction of Jesus right? And I thought you were going to give me lecture on studying lord of the rings in its context.

(continued)

Autism and Interpreting the Bible

It appears to me that there is no uniformity as to autism and interpreting the Bible.

There is a very wide range of interpretations given from viewing the Bible/parts of the Bible as fiction only/storytelling to viewing the whole Bible as being perfect, literal, and without error of any kind.

Some of those with autism are believed to have difficulties with symbolic meanings vs literal meanings - the difference between a statement of fact, a simile, and a metaphor - understanding proverbs and sayings like:

A rolling stone gathers no moss.

A stitch in time saves nine.

(etc.)

Personally I feel that the Bible is difficult for almost anyone to understand it correctly all the time for a wide variety of reasons including the fact the Bible was never written in English to begin with so all English Bibles are translations only.

A person living at the time the Bible was written (2,000 to 4,000 years ago/whenever) likely had a better chance of understanding what it really means (my view).

The Bible is an interesting book to discuss and it's the only book I am aware of which often has gold edges - suggesting that some of the ideas in the book of stories called the Bible are worthwhile to read - inspiring - worthwhile.

In my view, the Bible tells about/outlines a little how the word - God - was invented and used by Judaism, later reinterpreted here and there by Christianity.

http://www.bibles.net/

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/previou ... index.html

http://www.beliefnet.com/

My problem with being a Christian was not the Bible and the idea of God but how cruel and hyprocrytical other so called "Christians" were to me and how so many Christians think it's okay to abuse animals and use the "dominon" thing as an excuse.

An observation:

Protestant Christian fundamentalists and Creationists tend to be the same people. Fundamentalists are very fond of saying there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the findings of science, and that there are many scientists among their number. I am a scientist by training and used to be a Christian fundamentalist myself. I'd say the Creationists are RIGHT when they claim that a large number of Creationists are scientists. They are often physicists, chemists and technicians, such as engineers, or medical doctors, although they are less often high-level biologists or palaeontologists. I don't believe this is a coincidence... I believe it is because such people often have difficulties with metaphor and so tend to think the Bible has to be interpreted literally or it is worthless. They are happier with struggling to make the Bible fit the "findings of science" than they would be with the world of theological metaphor and symbolism. They are happier with "left-brain" protestant "scripture" than with "right-brain" catholic imagery.