Bible Teachings: Literal or Metaphor?

Black Swan

If the Christian Bible is divinely inspired, would the omniscient God expect humans to take its content literally, word for word, or as metaphors to enhance understanding? The education literature suggests that metaphors greatly facilitate learning and understanding, while things taken literally are not as effective. Comments?

Scofflaw

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

If the Christian Bible is divinely inspired, would the omniscient God expect humans to take its content literally, word for word, or as metaphors to enhance understanding? The education literature suggests that metaphors greatly facilitate learning and understanding, while things taken literally are not as effective. Comments?

Comment: I wish you the best of luck.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Black Swan

Scofflaw wrote:

Comment: I wish you the best of luck.
cordially,
Scofflaw

Thank you. With the lack of response, I am under the impression that perhaps I framed the question poorly?

Scofflaw

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

Thank you. With the lack of response, I am under the impression that perhaps I framed the question poorly?

Interesting, given the amount of stuff on other threads that revolves around this question. Possibly it's simply not up for debate to a lot of posters - they're either literalists, or not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> I am under the impression that perhaps I framed the question poorly?

No, the question's fine. But this topic has been discussed in passing a few times before without (unsurprisingly) much agreement being reached.

> would the omniscient God expect humans to take its content literally, word
> for word, or as metaphors to enhance understanding?

As Scofflaw says, that depends on who you ask. Amongst the friendly and patient crew of this forum, there are a few biblical literalists who assert the literal truth of every word and every story because they know that god wouldn't tell lies. There are also a few less certain folks who say that some is literal and some is allegory and god made it that way because they know that god would have wanted you to use your head to work out which is which. Then there are a few people who say that that the bible is a series of stories, some pleasant and some not, some original but most cobbled together from earlier sources, and all of which combine to present a front of ideas which is so broad and varied that almost anybody who thinks that any of it is literally true should be able to find enough there to justify whatever they want, conveniently reinforcing their belief in the text (and themselves). Your own mileage may vary.

Black Swan

Hi robindch!
A range or spectrum of believers? Great variety? If Newman were alive today to recruit a theological college to satisfy his idea of a university, perhaps he would ensure that such a range or spectrum would exist in the faculty; i.e., a university of thought?

5uspect

I think there is a correlation between how deep some people examine their faith in the bable and their literal belief in it. Most christians generally believe in a god and jesus but take the old testament to be a mix of truth and fiction. Most probably just ignore the old testament. Those who really read the new testament have to believe the adam and eve version of events since jesus did die for our origional sin. after that its like a house of cards as all logic collapses to maintain the belief in jesus.

This arguement is how Richard Dawkins finished his Root of all Evil series.
Tho he used it to show that god is quite nasty for moderate belivers as jesus as god is victim, judge and jury of humanity for a methaphorical sin.
If you believe the gospels you have to believe the old testament is entirely true.

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

s Scofflaw says, that depends on who you ask. Amongst the friendly and patient crew of this forum, there are a few biblical literalists who assert the literal truth of every word and every story because they know that god wouldn't tell lies. There are also a few less certain folks who say that some is literal and some is allegory and god made it that way because they know that god would have wanted you to use your head to work out which is which. Then there are a few people who say that that the bible is a series of stories, some pleasant and some not, some original but most cobbled together from earlier sources, and all of which combine to present a front of ideas which is so broad and varied that almost anybody who thinks that any of it is literally true should be able to find enough there to justify whatever they want, conveniently reinforcing their belief in the text (and themselves). Your own mileage may vary.

Very well put indeed, both of you take a round of applause. That sums it all up in a nut shell. All this reminds me of Poker where you play with the cards you are dealt. The trick is knowing when to bluff and when to fold.:D

Excelsior

If you pick up any introductory book on how to read the Bible, (like say for example, Douglas Fee's How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth) you will see that this collection of 66 books written over a period of about 1400 years is beyond so simple a categorisation as literal or metaphorical.

Each book in the bible has a context, like any other book on any other shelf. What did the writer intend by writing it? How did he or she hope to influence their peers and us in the future? What forces in society were influencing their writing. Finding out the context of a book is crucial, understanding what the author intends is the first step to understanding what he wants to say. Poetry in the Bible can't be taken literally. The Epistles cannot be simply read literally or figuratively. Gospel can't be read figurately (alone).

Let me put it to you this way:
Imagine you wrote me a letter and in the letter you say, "I went and visited that friend of yours, Asiaprod. He is as interesting as you say he is. He really did beat me up".

I get this letter and read that sentence and I'm shocked and appalled- "he beat her up? What! How could Asiaprod do that?" So I call the police and tell them to go round to his house and arrest him for assault. The police go and investigate and nothing comes of it. But a few days later you ring me up furious with me because of what I have done. You don't understand why I would ever cause a great guy like Asiaprod such hassle. And I say, "Hey wait a second! I was defending you. You said he beat you up!"

Now you see where I got my crazy ideas from but you're no less angry because I have fundamentally warped your context. Within the paragraph of the letter and within the broader scope of the letter and reading the letter through the lens of the society we live in where assault is an uncommon thing, it had to take an almost deliberate effort to misinterpret your words. What you meant, as could be easily enough seen, was that Asiaprod applied his usual logic to your arguments and he lovingly put you straight on all the flawed notions you had.

When we come to read the Bible (or any text) we have to make an assessment of the intentions of the author, the genre they are writing in and the influence of the society at large. Literal or figurative is much too simple.

5uspect

Excelsior wrote:

If you pick up any introductory book on how to read the Bible, (like say for example, Douglas Fee's How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth) you will see that this collection of 66 books written over a period of about 1400 years is beyond so simple a categorisation as literal or metaphorical.

Each book in the bible has a context, like any other book on any other shelf. What did the writer intend by writing it? How did he or she hope to influence their peers and us in the future? What forces in society were influencing their writing. Finding out the context of a book is crucial, understanding what the author intends is the first step to understanding what he wants to say. Poetry in the Bible can't be taken literally. The Epistles cannot be simply read literally or figuratively. Gospel can't be read figurately (alone).

Let me put it to you this way:
Imagine you wrote me a letter and in the letter you say, "I went and visited that friend of yours, Asiaprod. He is as interesting as you say he is. He really did beat me up".

I get this letter and read that sentence and I'm shocked and appalled- "he beat her up? What! How could Asiaprod do that?" So I call the police and tell them to go round to his house and arrest him for assault. The police go and investigate and nothing comes of it. But a few days later you ring me up furious with me because of what I have done. You don't understand why I would ever cause a great guy like Asiaprod such hassle. And I say, "Hey wait a second! I was defending you. You said he beat you up!"

Now you see where I got my crazy ideas from but you're no less angry because I have fundamentally warped your context. Within the paragraph of the letter and within the broader scope of the letter and reading the letter through the lens of the society we live in where assault is an uncommon thing, it had to take an almost deliberate effort to misinterpret your words. What you meant, as could be easily enough seen, was that Asiaprod applied his usual logic to your arguments and he lovingly put you straight on all the flawed notions you had.

When we come to read the Bible (or any text) we have to make an assessment of the intentions of the author, the genre they are writing in and the influence of the society at large. Literal or figurative is much too simple.

Thats all well and good for someone who studies literature but the bible is touted as the moral er..bible for the masses. Shouldn't the authors included some sort of preamle stating what is fact and what is fiction? If not can we safely assume one or the other?

Lunoma

Em......the Bible isn't the direct word of G-d! The Qur'an of Islam is said to be but the Bible is only inspired by G-d but not actually written by G-d. There are major problems with taking the Bible literally as it contradicts itself several times over. If you takes each bit with such literacy, isn't there going to be problems? You're going to get confused with what to believe in - you can't believe in opposing beliefs. Then you start to major on the minor. Then you might become very fundalmentalist which isn't good at all. So do you choose to believe Jesus' words of "love your enemy" or take the earlier view which he changed of "hating your enemy" - an eye for an eye? Will you protest with picket signs outside with "God Hates Fags" or will you become tolerant and show love and compassion for all people like Jesus told his followers to do. Will you reflect on Jesus' teachings of love and virtue or focus on some tiny line in the middle of the Old Testament? The ultimite question is will you try to be like Jesus? Discriminating against others, hatred, abuse, sinning, is that way of acting as indictated by Jesus. As he said only if we are to be like young innocent children then we can enter the kingdom of heaven.

Do you want to seen as a nice, honest loving Christian person who has a sense of humanity, knows what is right and wrong? Or do you want to be seen as that quack, that nutcase who lives down the road rambling on about rubbish and giving a bad name to Christianity? Many of my fellow Jews have already done the latter. They rampage around Israel, take land from poor Muslim people with their stupid Zionist movement which is a very un-Jewish and nasty thing. Fundamentalism is a scary thing which has never helped anyone.

Excelsior

5uspect wrote:

Thats all well and good for someone who studies literature but the bible is touted as the moral er..bible for the masses. Shouldn't the authors included some sort of preamle stating what is fact and what is fiction? If not can we safely assume one or the other?

All literature is moral to some extent. The authors were writing what was the equivalent of contemporary literature for their time- their approach to history, to poetry, to lament etc. When Ian McEwan published his latest novel Saturday, that wraps real events around a fictional scenario, he didn't feel a need to clarify that which was "fact" and that which was "fiction" becase the point of the novel is in the story.

The same is actually true in any popular science book of any worth. The great strength of say, Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, is that he tells the compelling story of phrenology. Its all "fact" but fact can't exist independent of context.

The Bible is not a moral guidebook. Aside from Matthew 5-7, Luke 6, Proverbs and the legal stipulations of the Torah, the Bible is not concerned with laying out how to live. It is much more complex and much more beautiful than we often would like to think.

Pocari Sweat

If a god or gods were only hands on, up to the point of the big bang, and after the eons and after 1000's of religions, we are left with a collection of popular religious books "bibles" written by the many cultures, then the various bibles are simply scholastic attempts to fill the gap between the big bang and now, using a god or gods as omnipotent figures who were also suggested as being hands on in the process of universal development after the big bang.

If god or gods, knew at the point of the big bang, that intelligent life forms would eventually have an attempt in the form of a mix of literal and metaphorical writings to present a divine picture of his / her / their existence, then they probably knew what an eclectic mix of writings they were probably going to turn out to be.

Man's current interpretations of these various eclectic mixes of literal and metaphorical writings in the forms of bibles which are a combined result of thousands of religions over thousands of years, are current interpretations.

Because our individual minds change over a lifetime and are a continual flux of thoughts and views interacting with other continual shifting threads of thought, then any given bible which may be a focus of a general religious viewpoint, are then interpreted by a spectrum of different religious factions and viewpoints, meaning that out of a current 6 billion population each with a billion views over their lives, the King James bible may still be in print in 50 years time, but views continually change in what we personally think ...

so Scofflaw's answer in the second post in this thread is a fair and concise reply to the original post and anything more descriptive is probably unlikely to get to any further to a resolution.

robindch

> The Bible is not a moral guidebook

So why do so many people, including yourself(*), seem to think that it is?

(*) I'm thinking here about our old friends, the bits in the bible about homosexuality, which you said on a few occasions were something like moral signposts from god.

Excelsior

To Kill A Mockingbird or the Gulag Archipelago are not moral guidebooks. Yet they contain profound moral teachings. Based on what the Bible says, I ultimately do not think that, to use your example, sex outside of marriage is healthy. However, based on what the Bible says, if one is not in relationship with God then abstaining from sex (heterosexual or homosexual) is missing the point.

It would not be true to describe the Bible as a poetry anthology. It is equally empty-headed to call it a moral guidebook.

5uspect

Excelsior wrote:

To Kill A Mockingbird or the Gulag Archipelago are not moral guidebooks. Yet they contain profound moral teachings. Based on what the Bible says, I ultimately do not think that, to use your example, sex outside of marriage is healthy. However, based on what the Bible says, if one is not in relationship with God then abstaining from sex (heterosexual or homosexual) is missing the point.

I think my problem is that the bible is seen solely as a moral guidebook by the majority of people as a result of the supernatural endorsement attached to it.
Read any book you like and find valid moral arguementsbut fail to folllow the teachings of the bible and you will burn in hell. I'm not saying that this is what the bible was intended for but it is how the vast majority see it today.

Dades

Excelsior wrote:

It is equally empty-headed to call it a moral guidebook.

How can you expect any average person to think otherwise?

The bible does not wield the influence it does today because it told an exciting story, or because it contains historical references. It's in the drawer of every room in every hotel in the world because it tells you how you can live forever.

But you can't live forever by just reading it - you have to follow the rules.
And those rules are moral rules.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

The Bible is not a moral guidebook.

Not quite sure how you can say that.

Even putting it in a totally Christian "believer" framework, the Bible explains that God loves you and that if you love Him back you should follow the way He meant for us to live. That is moral guiding.

I'm not sure how the Bible is anything but a moral guidebook.

robindch

> Based on what the Bible says, I ultimately do not think that sex outside
> of marriage is healthy. [...] It is equally empty-headed to call it a moral guidebook.

So in your own personal dealings, you accept that the bible's approach to sex is the right one, but at the same time, you believe that it's stupid to say that the bible is a good guide to personal behaviour? I presume that I must have misunderstood your position, because this makes no sense at all to me!

Also, you've not answered my previous question: even if you don't believe that the bible is a moral guidebook, why do so many other people think that it is? And why do many of those go even further and say that not only is it a moral guidebook, but that it's actually impossible for human beings to behave decently unless you believe that it's a perfect moral guidebook.

BrianCalgary

The Atheist wrote:

How can you expect any average person to think otherwise?

The bible does not wield the influence it does today because it told an exciting story, or because it contains historical references. It's in the drawer of every room in every hotel in the world because it tells you how you can live forever.

But you can't live forever by just reading it - you have to follow the rules.
And those rules are moral rules.

That is where you are wrong in your impression of the Bible. It is God's communication to man of His unfolding plan of redemption, of bringing humanity back into relationship with God.

In order to live forever you have to accept Christ as saviour.
Ephesians 2:8 (New International Version)

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—


Nothing about rules. I add though that according to 2 Corinthians 3:18
And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

This has the result of our desires matching those of God's, which leads us to leading lives of no sin. None of us have reached the point of being the full likeness of Christ, we still sin. Through this process I no longer have the desire to get drunk or gamble, both of which at one time would have led to a very destructive life.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

In order to live forever you have to accept Christ as saviour.
Ephesians 2:8 (New International Version)
...
Nothing about rules.

God has a plan for how we should live, but there are no rules? That doesn't make senes.

There are rules, the rules are Gods plan. Rule number one is you have to accept Christ as saviour. After than comes a whole load of other moral rules. Example, homosexuality is not part of Gods plan for us. That is a rule. Sex before marriage is not part of Gods wishes. That is also a rule.

You have talked before about Gods love, and you loving God, and as such you follow his notions of "sin". How you can't see that as moral teaching, or the following of moral rules is beyond me. The entire concept of sin is morality teaching.

You seem to think that they are not moral guides because they are just obvious, but they aren't really obvious, they are taught through the Bible as God's wishes.

BrianCalgary wrote:

This has the result of our desires matching those of God's, which leads us to leading lives of no sin.

Sin which is defined in the Bible, and therefore the Bible is a book describing what is moral and immoral behaviour.

BrianCalgary wrote:

None of us have reached the point of being the full likeness of Christ, we still sin.

So, who gets to heaven and who goes to hell. If you accept Jesus but continue to sin a lot are you saved and put in heaven? If you don't accept Jesus, but don't sin much are you still put in hell?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Through this process I no longer have the desire to get drunk or gamble, both of which at one time would have led to a very destructive life.

So, through your study of the Bible and your acceptance of Jesus, you have a different moral outlook. So can you not say that the Bible taught you a different moral outlook than you originally had? Did you always know getting drunk and gambling was immoral, or did the Bible teach you that fact? If you always knew it, why did you do it in the first place?

This is all very confusing and rather contradictory.

robindch

> It is God's communication to man of His unfolding plan of redemption
> In order to live forever you have to accept Christ as saviour.
> Nothing about rules.

Er, as wicknight points out, isn't it a rule that "you have to accept Christ as saviour"?

I must say that this idea, fairly consistently expressed by both BC and Excelsior, is a new one on me (thanks guys, I thought I'd seen most of them by now!): the bible tells you what you must do and think to achieve rewards, but, at the same time, the bible is not a guide to actions.

I'm mystified by how these two flatly contradictory propositions can be believed at the same time!

Help me out here folks, please, I'm out of my depth...

robindch

anyone?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

Er, as wicknight points out, isn't it a rule that "you have to accept Christ as saviour"?

I must say that this idea, fairly consistently expressed by both BC and Excelsior, is a new one on me (thanks guys, I thought I'd seen most of them by now!): the bible tells you what you must do and think to achieve rewards, but, at the same time, the bible is not a guide to actions.

I'm mystified by how these two flatly contradictory propositions can be believed at the same time!

Help me out here folks, please, I'm out of my depth...

There are those people who desire and need rules. While there are those, like me, who can't stand rules. To me the world is full of guidelines that are based on common sense. The only rules that I tend to follow are the rules of offside and if the foul happens inside the 18 a penalty is awarded.

In Christianity the one action that must be taken is the acceptance of Christ as saviour. The rules people then like to form legalism, which is so negative, see the RC and Cof I churches and their concept of BIG (Built in Guilt).

The Christian life on the other hand is a very rewarding one where you are guided by the Holy Spirit. Your desires become those of God's. Hence the ability to avoid sin. No rules, just a common sense avoidance of activities that would be deemed unholy by God. Since one is being guided by the Spirit the avoidance becomes easier and easier as time goes by. The Bible then will give you guidance on the conviction side of things.

No matter what though the rules people will still want rules in order to be comfortable and the ones who seek power will try and impose those rules on others. And people like me will want to rebel aginst any rule structure that doesn't allow me to use my God given gifts to further His kingdom.

bus77

Wicknight wrote:

There are rules, the rules are Gods plan. Rule number one is you have to accept Christ as saviour.

I'd call that more of a 'condition' tbh

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

If the Christian Bible is divinely inspired, would the omniscient God expect humans to take its content literally, word for word, or as metaphors to enhance understanding?

An omniscient God dos'nt care. He can speak through your mother ffs. I'd say It would depend on what ya needed.

Blue_Lagoon wrote:

The education literature suggests that metaphors greatly facilitate learning and understanding, while things taken literally are not as effective. Comments?

I would have loved stuff like that in school, completly freeform, do what you like with them. They were too busy getting me to write down lists of Irish verbs though

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

.
You have talked before about Gods love, and you loving God, and as such you follow his notions of "sin". How you can't see that as moral teaching, or the following of moral rules is beyond me. The entire concept of sin is morality teaching.

You seem to think that they are not moral guides because they are just obvious, but they aren't really obvious, they are taught through the Bible as God's wishes.


Sin which is defined in the Bible, and therefore the Bible is a book describing what is moral and immoral behaviour..

They are very obvious, once you accept Christ. i also think that regardless we have a built in moral compass. I always get a kick out of people who accuse Christains of being judgemental, when in fact, once someone finds out that you are a Christian, that light shines and people see their own sin and don't like the feeling they get when they realise that they are not really as good as what they thought. The immediate reaction is to blame someone else.

Wicknight wrote:

.So, who gets to heaven and who goes to hell. If you accept Jesus but continue to sin a lot are you saved and put in heaven? If you don't accept Jesus, but don't sin much are you still put in hell?.

The thing is that we all sin. So you sin accept Jesus you get into Heaven. The second statement can't take effect, because we all sin.

Wicknight wrote:

.So, through your study of the Bible and your acceptance of Jesus, you have a different moral outlook. So can you not say that the Bible taught you a different moral outlook than you originally had? Did you always know getting drunk and gambling was immoral, or did the Bible teach you that fact? If you always knew it, why did you do it in the first place?

The Holy Spirit taught me. I thought in a secular sense, that I was having a booze up with my buddies and not harming anyone, therefore it was OK. Then while reading the Bible the Holy Spirit convicted me to stop getting tanked. The same with gambling. I didn't want to believe they were immoral,.

Matthew 13:15
For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

They are very obvious, once you accept Christ. i also think that regardless we have a built in moral compass. I always get a kick out of people who accuse Christains of being judgemental, when in fact, once someone finds out that you are a Christian, that light shines and people see their own sin and don't like the feeling they get when they realise that they are not really as good as what they thought. The immediate reaction is to blame someone else.

The thing is that we all sin. So you sin accept Jesus you get into Heaven. The second statement can't take effect, because we all sin.

I think that's why Wicknight said "sin much".

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Holy Spirit taught me. I thought in a secular sense, that I was having a booze up with my buddies and not harming anyone, therefore it was OK. Then while reading the Bible the Holy Spirit convicted me to stop getting tanked. The same with gambling. I didn't want to believe they were immoral,.

Except that it's a heck of a stretch to claim the Bible condemns gambling. Drunkenness at least is warned against, although not drink.

cordially,
Scofflaw