Really incredible. Clear and straightforward. Written in 415 by one of the early fathers of the church. If someone were to read it without knowing the attribution they'd probably think is was written last week by a liberal protestant, except for some of the language. I'll keep this in my stack-o-quotes to bring out when I want to show my erudition.

Some of the Greek words in the Bible could be crossing with some of the philosophical concepts often appearing in the ancient Greek philosophical texts — Corvus

Three hundred-plus years separate what most of us think of as Greek philosophy and the NT. Some of the words cannot be used interchangeably without qualification or commentary. Like "car" or "gun" across American history. Except in some cases worse. Logos, for example, understood as referring to order in the universe, came to be grounded in Christian thought in one man, Jesus. Perhaps like saying that Newton is gravity, or relativity Einstein. An outrage on sense and meaning. But this not so much words as history of ideas and changes in thinking.

Learning ancient Greek is fun - it had better be because it's not much good for anything else - but imo to be undertaken incrementally over long time. Like a bottle of very expensive Scotch. It can be drunk in one evening, but that a waste leading to regret and a terrible hangover. Or enjoyed and appreciated, cumulatively, over a long time, but without undue breaks because easy to forget. Hard to build up, easy to forget. And churches filled with old seminarians force-fed their Greek who now want nothing to do with it, having never really learned it nor experienced its pleasures as such. Or again in short, patience - and some persistence.

I agree with @T Clark; that's some reference, and now I shall have to try to read it. But what, and this I care about, do you think he meant?

For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.

I both get this and don't get this, but in that division I find only my own understanding which in circumstances like these I've learned the virtues and benefits of at least bracketing.

The Bible is peculiar in many ways. One of the ways is how it is regarded as authority. Is Augustine suggesting that his Bible in itself is not, but that (his) interpretation is required? Or that some of it is not to be taken at face value - although that seems in itself a distinctly modern criticism. The question of authority seems in a nutshell the question of the Bible. Other books may not say what they mean or mean what they say, and critics and historians may sort that out. But it seems to me the Bible, on the basis of what some claim of it, doesn't get that break if what they claim has any truth at all.

And the question is not what a 21st century Augustine means, but a 4th century. Give it a try?

Why should I read them if we don't know what they say? — Gregory

Indeed. So why do you feel pressured to read them? Can you tell?

Reading the Bible has never really been a question of understanding a literal account, it is embedded in a 'community of discourse, faith and practice', within which it is meaningful. — Wayfarer

Exactly. Which is why outsiders who are not thusly embedded cannot hope to have a meaningful experience with the Bible. Similar goes for other ancient texts.

In original Christianity, those who heard that were never expected to understand it. They were expected to believe it. There was no question of ‘interpretation’. Interpretation was having an opinion, which is what ‘heresy’ means.

We live in a different world now. We wonder about what it means. But in the original setting, it was simply recited by the priests, and you simply listened to it. — Wayfarer

Exactly. The fact that at the time, the majority of the population was illiterate actually helped this state of affairs and probably made the whole experience of listening to sermons more meaningful for the people. (Note that the Roman Catholic Church was not in favor of simple people reading the Bible because the probability of misunderstanding was too great.)

It would be difficult to imagine that one can understand the Bible without knowing the rich meanings of the old, exotic or even plain words in it, when it even says that God has given the language, so that men could study with it their way to know him. — Corvus

It is vital to read the Bible in the right spirit, with faith and humility.

Understanding specific old words like "ephah" is, for the most part, irrelevant.

Without the right spirit, one can be a scholar in ancient languages, and still miss the point of the ancient text.

It is vital to read the Bible in the right spirit, with faith and humility.

Understanding specific old words like "ephah" is, for the most part, irrelevant.

Without the right spirit, one can be a scholar in ancient languages, and still miss the point of the ancient text. — baker

It was just a simple example to say how the words in the bible are rich in their meanings. I believe it is important for one to know them, if they are serious on their interpretation and understanding on it. Without the basic knowledge of the literal meanings, one cannot progress to the other levels, be it faith or spirit.

Without the basic knowledge of the literal meanings, one cannot progress to the other levels, be it faith or spirit. — Corvus

I am confident that actual religious people will say it's the other way around.

I am confident that actual religious people will say it's the other way around. — baker

Sure maybe. I was not talking about the religious people specifically, but general readers like me who are not religious, but is interested in the hermeneutical understanding and interpretation of the ancient texts, which happen to be the Bible.

IOW, you're someone who wants to read and understand the Bible on his own terms, quite cut off from the religious tradition it is part of.

Why on earth would anyone want to do that??

IOW, you're someone who wants to read and understand the Bible on his own terms, quite cut off from the religious tradition it is part of.

Why on earth would anyone want to do that?? — baker

Many people are interested in the ancient texts be it bible or literature, because they are interesting in many ways.

Many people are interested in the ancient texts be it bible or literature, because they are interesting in many ways. — Corvus

Interesting how?

Unless we're talking about a simple curiosity (or more like: attempts to relieve one's existential boredom), the pull one feels toward an acient text surely has something to do with the historical reception and influence of said text.

Interesting how?

Unless we're talking about a simple curiosity (or more like: attempts to relieve one's existential boredom), the pull one feels toward an acient text surely has something to do with the historical reception and influence of said text. — baker

The Bible is not just a religious text. It is linked to ethics, literature, anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies. The Bible is also a huge topic for Philosophy of Religion. Some books in the Bible such as Psalms and Job has huge significance in Literature, and people read and study them for the literal merits. There is no restrictions saying, only the religious people must read the Bible.

I read Christian literature because I was raised with it and I enjoy atheism more the more I understand the true place of Christianity. We all have connections to the past but they should never take away morality, as literal Christianity does

Based on a literal reading the Old Testament had a clear separation between God and man. In the New Testament though man "partakes of the Divine Nature". This is an acquittal of guilt by receiving the merits of Jesus. To have someone's else's worth given to you is to become that person. So, therefore, the New Testament says to give your self into a system that makes you one with Jesus in order to acquit you of what you bound yourself to in the first place. The Old Testament is more like Islam, wherein their is sufficient repentance and thus true forgiveness by the laws of karma (if I may use that word). The separation remains. Christians say that nobody can remedy their situation and thus must metamorphosize into Jesus and leave their sins behind like a snakes skin. But again this is not true forgiveness but pure acquittal because "Jesus says so". Augustine himself says this

And churches filled with old seminarians force-fed their Greek who now want nothing to do with it, having never really learned it nor experienced its pleasures as such. Or again in short, patience - and some persistence. — tim wood

Many English words originate from the ancient Latin and Greek words, and there are myriads of interesting words with the roots in the Bible. And then there are the old Hebrews and Aramaic words in it too. To me, it would be the linguistic and historical richness along with the mystic ancient wisdom, which make the Bible interesting reads.

If we don't know what type of book each book of the Bible is intended to be, every interpretation is valid and none heretical.

Can we say than the the Bible can only give us something subjective?

But what, and this I care about, do you think [Augustine] meant? — tim wood

I encountered that passage in an online article about the subject of literal interpretation of scripture and how today's Biblical fundamentalists would have received short shrift from Augustine. I haven't read the entire work, but I think the meaning of that passage is pretty clear. A current theologian comments

Augustine affirms that ordinary 24-hours days “are not at all like [the "days" of Genesis 1], but very, very different.” In Augustine’s view, God creates all things simultaneously, and the 'Seven Days" construct in Genesis 1 is an accommodation in which “the Scriptural style comes down to the level of little ones [i.e. children] and adjusts itself to their capacity.” Specifically, Augustine affirms that the ordering of Genesis is not according to temporal sequence but rather the ordering of angelic knowledge. Thus, Augustine not only distinguished the days of Genesis 1 from ordinary 24-hour days, he also distinguished God’s initial creative act from his subsequent activity in creation:

When we reflect upon the first establishment of creatures in the works of God from which he rested on the seventh day, we should not think either of those days as being like these ones governed by the sun, nor of that working as resembling the way God now works in time; but we should reflect rather upon the work from which times began, the work of making all things at once, simultaneously.

.....

Augustine wrestled with the nature of the light in days 1-3 before the creation of the luminaries on day 4. Noting the phrase “let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years” in Genesis 1:14, he asked, “who can fail to see how problematic is their implication that times began on the fourth day, as though the preceding three days could have passed without time?” This problem greatly vexed Augustine. Ultimately, he identified the pre-solar light of day 1 with the spiritual/angelic creation. — Ortlund

This illustrates that Augustine wrestled with questions of interpretation - actually 'exegesis' is the right word. I think he would have been appalled by anything like young-earth creationism.

Origen also criticized - or even ridiculed - those who couldn't differentiate the different layers of meaning in the Bible. 'Origen, in his Treatise on First Principles, recommends for the Old and New Testaments to be interpreted allegorically at three levels, the "flesh," the "soul," and the "spirit." He states that many of the events recounted in the Scriptures, if they are interpreted in the literal, or fleshly, sense, are impossible or nonsensical. They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. Some passages have parts that are literally true and parts that are literally impossible. Then, "the reader must endeavor to grasp the entire meaning, connecting by an intellectual process the account of what is literally impossible with the parts that are not impossible but historically true, these being interpreted allegorically in common with the part which, so far as the letter goes, did not happen at all.'

They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. — Wayfarer

Thank you for the answer. Part of it echoes an old thread

From Wiki: Interpretation of Biblical texts… is realized through
peshat (literal or plain meaning, lit. "plain" or "simple"),
remez (deep meaning, lit. "hints"),
derash (comparative meaning, from Hebrew darash—"to inquire" or "to seek"), and
sod(hidden meaning or philosophy, lit. "secret" or "mystery").

Or as follows:

DEPARTMENT...HEBREW...REVEALS . . .BELONGS TO . . .
Peshat... פשט... Simplest meanings... World of Action
Remez... רמז... Hinted meanings... World of Formation
Derush... דרוש... Deeper meanings... World of Creation
Sod... סוד... Secret meanings... World of Emanation — tim wood

Which is just off to the races again. That is, it does not mean what it says, although sometimes it does. Which makes it just another book, except that it' not really a book, either.

Yeah, well, you have to be interested in it otherwise I agree it's pointless.

This problem greatly vexed Augustine. Ultimately, he identified the pre-solar light of day 1 with the spiritual/angelic creation. — Ortlund

It makes more sense to say the light was stars because they could have caused the heat and light for vegetation to grow before they were pulled back for the sun and moon to be created after all that. If there is no literalism to the creation than what does it even mean? Other parts of the Bible, sure, but why this sequence if it's meaningless without a literal interpretation?

Yeah, well, you have to be interested in it otherwise I agree it's pointless. — Wayfarer

The most read book on the planet cannot be pointless. And I agree that most books require some interpretation at least. But the claim of divine origin on the one hand, combined with the claim that you cannot know what it means but I must interpret it for you - usually for a fee - is an absurdity we can all do without once it's acknowledged.

Augustine was plainly struggling to interpret the meaning of the Creation myth of Genesis. As that quote showed, he realised that creation really could not have occupied seven 24 hour days - there were no days before there was an earth, that was understood even in the 4th Century. So he’s going on whatever knowledge he has of the stars, which is precious little in our terms, but even so, he’s wanting to interpret the Biblical story in such a way that it doesn’t contradict what is known.

But I don’t think the ancients had any real idea of how far away the stars were, the size of the Cosmos, and so on. Typically their cosmological, mythological and historical accounts interpenetrated. The point I was trying to bring out with both Augustine and Origen, was that they understood the stupidity of saying that everything in the Bible is a literal account, when much of it is plainly figurative or allegorical.

I think interpretations of the Bible are bound to be subjective, and different to each individual. In that sense, it could be classed as the existential philosophising in nature.

The contents of the Bible is about the stories in ancient times. Any suggestions trying to verify or prove the contents along with modern sense of science and facts would be an incredibly irrational mind or attempt.

After good understanding on a literal basis (etymological basis), readers could go on to interpret it in faiths or spirit level, or in allegorical or literary aspects. It is up to the reader to veer their interpretations to the directions they want to pursue. But one thing clear would be that the interpretation is likely to be personal and subjective due to the depth and richness of the content of the Bible.

How the readers come to their interpretations of the Bible would demonstrate the reflection of the reader's psychological and mental states. Why does the reader or interpreter view the verses in the way he / she does? Why does he / she come to that interpretation rather than otherwise? It tells more about the reader and interpreters' spiritual and mental makeup / history than the Bible verses being quoted or interpreted in many cases, and that is why it could be regarded as Existential philosophising in some sense I suppose.

when much of it is plainly figurative or allegorical. — Wayfarer

It tells more about the reader and interpreters' spiritual and mental makeup / history than the Bible verses being quoted or interpreted in many cases, and that is why it could be regarded as Existential philosophising in some sense I suppose. — Corvus

Which is why it seems to me that the Bible left on it own doesnot give us a faith or religion. It gives us innumerable ones. Even the Catholic claim that their Church interprets for them is based on their interpretation of the "pope in the Bible" stuff in order to have something to start with

If the actual picture in Gen ch 1 verses 2 to end, is as far back as they could remember (perhaps after the Sunda Sea got formed after the Ice Ages - see Stephen Oppenheimer's Eden In The East, in which he parses the contents of Frazer's Golden Bough * and also Ryan and Pitman wrote a book they titled Noah's Flood about the Black Sea) and Adam and Eve the first people that could be remembered (nearer our time than mtEve and YAdam), then it is neither the creation time itself nor evolution that is delineated in these verses. But the meaning that had to be attached for teaching was about the first actual creation. Hebrew and Aramaic being a bit hyperbolic, the way a frugal mother "whips up a meal out of nothing", and bearing in mind hypotheses that even vacuums contain a little "something", and that we seem to be on an existence wave of sorts, allowing for long standing intuition or earlier research, "ex nihilo" begins to make a sort of sense.

In the exile the Judaeans met up with some Israelites who had been there longer who may have helped with slight editings. It may have been they that introduced the "rib" trope whose origin is a play: rib in Sumerian is the same as She who bears lives in Hebrew, hence it got overtranslated, perhaps as a mnemonic. I am convinced the Hebrews first had about four written books at Joshua's time, but these would only be used by senior trainers as a check and they would train declaimers / bards in reciting as in many semi-literate societies to this day (including those who are fully literate in secular affairs).

I've mentioned the origin of the visible elements of trext, I've mentioned meaning (the current fundamentalists deny Scripture has meaning which is why they don't teach any meaning) as creation (or beginning of this particular existence wave), but there is a deeper spiritual meaning for relating with "god", the spiritual side. Then there was also the usage in communal ceremonial remembrances.

{ * The details of the (up to) three inundations are sufficiently different in the versions of each nation. }

Which is why it seems to me that the Bible left on it own doesnot give us a faith or religion. It gives us innumerable ones. Even the Catholic claim that their Church interprets for them is based on their interpretation of the "pope in the Bible" stuff in order to have something to start with — Gregory

Sure. I agree with your point. I have never looked at the Bible as a religious text only. Psalm is a great ancient poetry, and Job is a very interesting fable. And the other books are full of mystic writings, which are interesting too.

I cannot imagine equating what is said in the Bible with the real world affair. There is a huge time gap between the current world and the Bible content to start with. No one knows who wrote them, and whether the books were recordings of the real events at the time, or just mystic storytellings of somebody, or indeed they were messages from God. Who knows?

What is important is, how one could read it now at this time, and manifest some insight into one's own spiritual awakenings, or just enjoy reading and interpreting from a literal point of view, or pick out some wise verses and use them as getting some motivations in daily life. The options are much flexible.

There are academics who are studying the ancient text from Hermeneutic point of view in linguistic studies, which is also interesting in its own merit.

I would be interested in learning the old Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Aramaic words in the bible, and that's what I meant by the literal understanding of the bible. It has nothing to do with matching the contents of the bible with the real world events or happenings, and drawing some bizarre analogies from them.

I would be interested in learning the old Hebrew, Greek, Latin and Aramaic words in the bible, and that's what I meant by the literal understanding of the bible. It has nothing to do with matching the contents of the bible with the real world events or happenings, and drawing some bizarre analogies from them. — Corvus

This is interesting because of the question of translation. Criticism tries to establish what type of document each text is but this requires some initial hermeneutics to start with. It's most interesting that we see a text differently when we read it in it's original language even though one might think you are just switching sounds and signs into your primary language. Something new seems to emerge but it's not clear how this works. I was, also, reading about Derrida's philosophy on Wikipedia and he seems to think as well that there is no definite reading of any text

I think Derrida said that the true origin of the message in any book is in the intention of the authors' mind, and speech is a copy of the intention, but writing is a copy of the speech. So writing is a copy of a copy of the original message, hence it is difficult to get an accurate message from the authors via reading the written texts.

I think it is called Phonocentrism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonocentrism)

All this opens the possibility of myriad different ways of interpretation of the ancient texts. In the churches, they do lectionary readings on the bible, which do the reading on the certain book of the bible of a certain chapter on a certain day of the year, trying to grasp more accurate atmosphere of the passage they are reading, and truer meanings of the bible.

Interesting how?

Unless we're talking about a simple curiosity (or more like: attempts to relieve one's existential boredom), the pull one feels toward an acient text surely has something to do with the historical reception and influence of said text.
— baker

The Bible is not just a religious text. It is linked to ethics, literature, anthropology, sociology, and cultural studies. The Bible is also a huge topic for Philosophy of Religion. Some books in the Bible such as Psalms and Job has huge significance in Literature, and people read and study them for the literal merits. — Corvus

But there is more!

Whence the significance of the Bible?
Why the assumption that there is something powerful about the text itself?

There is no restrictions saying, only the religious people must read the Bible.

The question was, why do the non-religious read it.

One's interests can be further analyzed, and I think this is the relevant aspect of reading ancient texts.