I Thought That Was Metaphorical!

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

No, it's not St Augustine. Anyone with half a brain can see that the Bible contains metaphor and poetry. This was the view of Jews and Christians long before Augustine.


Researching their history would help. Or you could listen to others who have researched their history.

Most types of communication, be they oral or written, contain metaphors and other figures of speech. We automatically recognise 99% of these as such - and the Bible is no different. We don't believe Jesus to be a literal door, nor do we think Israel was magically turned into a literal olive tree.

The further away we are from a text in culture and language, the more likely we are to misunderstand it. So, we are more likely to recognise a metaphor in a text written in English by a Dubliner in 2009 than in a text written in Greek by a Palestinian fisherman in 75 AD. Therefore, due to that cultural and linguistic distance, we have to work a bit harder to understand it.

BTW, what I have just written is just basic communication theory - it applies to all texts, not just to the Bible.

Yeah, what he said :pac:

AIR-AUSSIE

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, what he said :pac:

SO any chance of getting back to the question the OP asked or are you going to continue to debate how it should be asked?

PDN

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

SO any chance of getting back to the question the OP asked or are you going to continue to debate how it should be asked?

The Op's question (How do you tell what is metaphorical?) has been answered several times.

As for the bit about shrimps and homosexuals - that is nothing whatsoever to do with metaphor. Both the prohibition against eating shellfish and the prohibition against homosexual acts are literal instructions that were given to the Jews.

The New Testament clearly states that Old Testament ceremonial laws about what foods you can or cannot eat are not binding upon Christians. The New Testament also portrays homosexual acts as being sinful and incompatible with Christian faith and practice. Therefore obedient Christians happily eat shrimp and also refrain from homosexual acts (among other things). Quite straightforward really - but nothing to do with metaphors.

Overblood

Was the transformation of water into wine a metaphor?

PDN

Overblood wrote: »

Was the transformation of water into wine a metaphor?

No, everything about its context and its literary form indicates that the Gospel writer intended it to be understood literally.

Overblood

Could the virgin birth be a metaphor? I don't think it's mentioned in the bible is it?

prinz

Overblood wrote: »

Could the virgin birth be a metaphor? I don't think it's mentioned in the bible is it?

Could clutching at straws be a sign that you are ignoring the answers already given in this thread?

Read the Bible, either it's metaphor or it's not. If you're undecided pray and meditate, ask for guidance and advice.Eventually you will come to know how God wanted you to appreciate something.

Overblood

Prinz I do plan on reading the bible. I might actually pop into Easons on the way back from work and pick up a copy. I hope bibles are cheap. Are they cheap? Don't want to spend too much now. Recession and all.

prinz

Overblood wrote: »

Prinz I do plan on reading the bible. I might actually pop into Easons on the way back from work and pick up a copy. I hope bibles are cheap. Are they cheap? Don't want to spend too much now. Recession and all.

Good stuff. It is an interesting read, either way. Why don't you write away and get a free copy? There are many organisations which deal in distributing Bibles free gratis. Read with an open mind.

AIR-AUSSIE

prinz wrote: »

Good stuff. It is an interesting read, either way. Why don't you write away and get a free copy? There are many organisations which deal in distributing Bibles free gratis. Read with an open mind.

I like this whole go read the bible yourself lark. Isn't the main difference between Protestantism and Catholicism being that Catholics believe that their priest should explain the stories and 'metaphors' in the bible for them? But protestants believe that the bible should be understood by the individual.

I'm sure thats what they said in junior cert history anyway.

You do believe you're actually taking the body and blood of Jesus when you take communion do you? Thats one of my favourites. Surely they can could just say yea we're commemorating what jesus did before he was crucified to remember him and all he stood for. But no that have this ridiculous outlandish reasoning that we're actually eating his body. Is that not meant to be metaphor? Seeing as a lot of other christians think it is, I don't see why Catholics can't change that belief also.

It seems you are unwilling to give an answer or even your own opinion of how you it all works without referring back to the bible like a bullsh1ter. I wouldn't mind just hearing your opinion even if I'm against it, I like to meet different pple but really it just seems you don't have the ability to argue your point yourself, EVEN THOUGH, there are 2 billion pple approx that believe the roughly the same as you. So why can't you actually substianate your arguement without referring to the bible?

prinz

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

I like this whole go read the bible yourself lark. Isn't the main difference between Protestantism and Catholicism being that Catholics believe that their priest should explain the stories and 'metaphors' in the bible for them? But protestants believe that the bible should be understood by the individual.

I'm sure thats what they said in junior cert history anyway.

When you get an education beyond Junior Cert level, you might understand things better.

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

You do believe you're actually taking the body and blood of Jesus when you take communion do you? Thats one of my favourites. Surely they can could just say yea we're commemorating what jesus did before he was crucified to remember him and all he stood for. But no that have this ridiculous outlandish reasoning that we're actually eating his body. Is that not meant to be metaphor? Seeing as a lot of other christians think it is, I don't see why Catholics can't change that belief also.

It seems you are unwilling to give an answer or even your own opinion of how you it all works without referring back to the bible like a bullsh1ter. I wouldn't mind just hearing your opinion even if I'm against it, I like to meet different pple but really it just seems you don't have the ability to argue your point yourself, EVEN THOUGH, there are 2 billion pple approx that believe the roughly the same as you. So why can't you actually substianate your arguement without referring to the bible?

So you want people to explain and substantiate the Bible, Christianity and their faith without reference to the Bible Did you pass the Junior Cert?

The only ridiculous outlandish thing on here, is people with no understanding of different denominations and religious teachings, abusing those who do.

Oh and by the way this is a Christian forum, not a Catholic one.

liah

prinz wrote: »

When you get an education beyond Junior Cert level, you might understand things better.



So you want people to explain and substantiate Christianity and their faith without reference to the Bible Did you pass the Junior Cert?

The only ridiculous outlandish thing on here, is people with no understanding of different denominations and religious teachings, abusing those who do.

Oh and by the way this is a Christian forum, not a Catholic one.

No need for the personal insult, mate.

He's saying, I think, that he wants you guys to actually explain why things like the resurrection are fact but the seven days are metaphorical (pretty sure nothing clearly dictates that the seven days are metaphorical-- and what about the flood and ark and all that?), instead of getting into semantics as to how myth is interpreted from reality and "how to read the bible."

It's obviously not so clear cut, the bible doesn't tell you everything that's metaphorical and what isn't and a lot of christians believe in seven days and the ark and a lot don't.

So how about we get down to the question I'm ACTUALLY asking instead of bítching about "omg well you just didn't read the bible properly, omg it says loike right there!!11" because it obviously isn't THAT clear if so many denominations and individuals are split on things.

prinz

liah wrote: »

No need for the personal insult, mate.

There was no personal insult. If he wants to base his attack on Christians on his obviously hazy recollection of Junior Cert history than I am free to question it.Oh, and I'm not your mate.

liah wrote: »

He's saying, I think, that he wants you guys to actually explain why things like the resurrection are fact but the seven days are metaphorical (pretty sure nothing clearly dictates that the seven days are metaphorical-- and what about the flood and ark and all that?), instead of getting into semantics as to how myth is interpreted from reality and "how to read the bible."

This has been addressed and answered and explained repeatedly, as well as people giving their personal views.

liah wrote: »

It's obviously not so clear cut, the bible doesn't tell you everything that's metaphorical and what isn't and a lot of christians believe in seven days and the ark and a lot don't.

Nobody said it was clear cut. On the other hand you are looking for a clear cut answer..... there is none, however there have been many answers from many people's personal experience.

liah wrote: »

So how about we get down to the question I'm ACTUALLY asking instead of bítching about "omg well you just didn't read the bible properly, omg it says loike right there!!11" because it obviously isn't THAT clear if so many denominations and individuals are split on things.

If it isn't THAT clear, then why are you still looking for a clear answer? And I don't have a clue what the R.O.C.K. slang is for.....

liah

prinz wrote: »

There was no personal insult. If he wants to base his attack on Christians on his obviously hazy recollection of Junior Cert history than I am free to question it.Oh, and I'm not your mate.



This has been addressed and answered and explained repeatedly, as well as people giving their personal views.



Nobody said it was clear cut. On the other hand you are looking for a clear cut answer..... there is none, however there have been many answers from many people's personal experience.



If it isn't THAT clear, then why are you still looking for a clear answer? And I don't have a clue what the R.O.C.K. slang is for.....

You're very obviously missing my entire point. My question HASN'T been answered and explained repeatedly. Hell, I don't think it's even been answered once.

I don't know how to word it to make it any more simple.

Do you believe in Genesis and the seven days, Adam and Eve, etc? Why/why not? Do you believe in the story of ark? Why/why not? Do you believe in the resurrection? Why/why not? How do those differ, since there's nothing to dictate whether or not those incidents are or aren't metaphorical? How do other denominations feel about the same questions, and why?

I never once said I was looking for a clear cut answer. I was looking for personal views on very common subjects that are interpreted wholly differently from individual to individual.

Do you get it now?

prinz

liah wrote: »

You're very obviously missing my entire point. My question HASN'T been answered and explained repeatedly. Hell, I don't think it's even been answered once.

I don't know how to word it to make it any more simple.

Do you believe in Genesis and the seven days, Adam and Eve, etc? Why/why not? Do you believe in the story of ark? Why/why not? Do you believe in the resurrection? Why/why not? How do those differ, since there's nothing to dictate whether or not those incidents are or aren't metaphorical? How do other denominations feel about the same questions, and why?

I never once said I was looking for a clear cut answer. I was looking for personal views on very common subjects that are interpreted wholly differently from individual to individual.

Do you get it now?

Yes I do get it. Yes it has been answered. There are thread going into hundreds of posts on topics like Adam and Eve and creation etc. You should read those for more indepth discussion on specific parts of the Bible.

Here's a question for the Christians who read this forum-- how exactly do you decide what's metaphorical and what isn't? There's nothing in the Bible that clearly defines the difference

Now you're changing the goal posts. I suggest the question you actually asked, above, has been answered. You did not ask what people believed of different specific parts of Scripture.

liah

prinz wrote: »

Yes I do get it. Yes it has been answered. There are thread going into hundreds of posts on topics like Adam and Eve and creation etc. You should read those for more indepth discussion on specific parts of the Bible.



Now you're changing the goal posts. I suggest the question you actually asked, above, has been answered. You did not ask what people believed of different specific parts of Scripture.

You left out the rest of my post.

And I asked the question, I'm pretty damn sure I know what I was asking, thank you.

prinz

liah wrote: »

You left out the rest of my post.

And I asked the question, I'm pretty damn sure I know what I was asking, thank you.

You're welcome. That's why I suggested it, as opposed to corrected it. Like I said, there are many threads about specific sections of the Bible and how they are interpreted by different people.

liah

prinz wrote: »

You're welcome. That's why I suggested it, as opposed to corrected it. Like I said, there are many threads about specific sections of the Bible and how they are interpreted by different people.

I don't read the Christianity forum. I'm not subscribed to it. My thread was originally in Atheism for the few of you who insist on coming over there. I'm not about to go searching around millions of threads in Christianity when I can just ask some very simple questions-- which you still haven't answered.

So, I'll ask again, with the intent of my ORIGINAL QUESTION (regardless of how YOU interpret it), for the millionth time, and maybe this time someone will answer:

Do you believe in Genesis and the seven days, Adam and Eve, talking snake, etc? Why/why not? Do you believe in the story of ark? Why/why not? Do you believe in the resurrection? Why/why not? How do those differ, since there's nothing to dictate whether or not those incidents are or aren't metaphorical? How do other denominations feel about the same questions, and why?

AIR-AUSSIE

prinz wrote: »

When you get an education beyond Junior Cert level, you might understand things better.



So you want people to explain and substantiate the Bible, Christianity and their faith without reference to the Bible Did you pass the Junior Cert?

The only ridiculous outlandish thing on here, is people with no understanding of different denominations and religious teachings, abusing those who do.

Oh and by the way this is a Christian forum, not a Catholic one.

Where have I shown a ridiculous outlandish misunderstanding of the various denominations and religious teaching?

Where did I abuse christian in my post? You are the one lowering yourself to petty insults. Nice to see you're upholding the teachings of Christianity yourself...

I made the assumption that you would call yourself a Catholic, was I wrong?

prinz

liah wrote: »

I don't read the Christianity forum. I'm not subscribed to it. My thread was originally in Atheism for the few of you who insist on coming over there. I'm not about to go searching around millions of threads in Christianity when I can just ask some very simple questions-- which you still haven't answered.

So, I'll ask again, with the intent of my ORIGINAL QUESTION (regardless of how YOU interpret it), for the millionth time, and maybe this time someone will answer:

(a) They're not simple questions. If you think anything about this is simple then you're unfortunately misguided. Hence simple answers will be hard to come by.

(b) from...

Here's a question for the Christians who read this forum-- how exactly do you decide what's metaphorical and what isn't?

to...

liah wrote: »

Do you believe in Genesis and the seven days, Adam and Eve, talking snake, etc? Why/why not? Do you believe in the story of ark? Why/why not? Do you believe in the resurrection? Why/why not? How do those differ, since there's nothing to dictate whether or not those incidents are or aren't metaphorical? How do other denominations feel about the same questions, and why?

That's quite a leap. Regardless of how anyone interprets it.

I'll do my best, but as I said this has all been posted on hundreds of times, if you really are that interested then look it up. There are only 7 pages on threads on this forum, finding the threads in question is not a huge job.

Do you believe in Genesis and the seven days, Adam and Eve, talking snake, etc? Why/why not? Literally? No I do not. I believe it to be metaphorical, why because I have read theologians discussions and info on the issue, thought about it, reflected on it, and asked myself what though the writer was trying to tell us.

Do you believe in the story of ark? Why/why not? Same as above, the story of the Ark is based upon previous legends and mythology of the Middle East area. Perhaps the flood has it's origins in something historical. Many people now believe so. However as for a boat filled with animals, etc... see above, re prior similar stories, and the reasoning behind the story of the Great Flood and the Ark.

Do you believe in the resurrection? Why/why not? Yes, because they were written as primary evidence, with a clear message, and as a fulfilment of prophecies stretching back centuries before Jesus. I have faith that it is true as described.

How do those differ, since there's nothing to dictate whether or not those incidents are or aren't metaphorical? You use your head, you reflect, think about what message is being provided to us, you pray, you read it not as a single act but as part of a greater context. Nothing tells me that Hans Christian Andersen's tales were metaphorical, yet I read them as such.

How do other denominations feel about the same questions, and why? Better ask them, and like I said, this can be very personal and even people within a singe denomination could have different views. There are many schools of thought.

prinz

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

Isn't the main difference between Protestantism and Catholicism being that Catholics believe that their priest should explain the stories and 'metaphors' in the bible for them? But protestants believe that the bible should be understood by the individual.
I'm sure thats what they said in junior cert history anyway.

.....But no that have this ridiculous outlandish reasoning that we're actually eating his body. Is that not meant to be metaphor? Seeing as a lot of other christians think it is, I don't see why Catholics can't change that belief also........It seems you are unwilling to give an answer or even your own opinion of how you it all works without referring back to the bible like a bullsh1ter..... So why can't you actually substianate your arguement without referring to the bible?

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

Where have I shown a ridiculous outlandish misunderstanding of the various denominations and religious teaching?

See above for examples.

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

Where did I abuse christian in my post? You are the one lowering yourself to petty insults. Nice to see you're upholding the teachings of Christianity yourself...

Once again see above for examples. There was no insult in my post to you. Merely a recommendation that you educate yourself further as your knowledge of these issues seems hampered at best, and questioning why you would rely on Junior Cert history as a basis to question the belief systems of various Christian denominations.

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

I made the assumption that you would call yourself a Catholic, was I wrong?

Yes you did, and yes you were. I would call myself a Christian.

Mickeroo

I think metaphors are a personal thing. For example,many people see The Lord of the Rings as a metaphor for real life wars, some people thought the ring itself was a clear metaphor for the atomic bomb, Tolkien himself denied this, but its easy to see how it could be seen as metaphor. If you want just about any story can be seen as a metaphor for something, to me Twilight is clearly a metaphor for abstinance, i cant say if that was the intention though. People spend a lot of time analysing prose for meaning, when in all honesty the author probably just wanted to write a good story.

AIR-AUSSIE

prinz wrote: »

See above for examples.


Once again see above for examples. There was no insult in my post to you. Merely a recommendation that you educate yourself further as your knowledge of these issues seems hampered at best, and questioning why you would rely on Junior Cert history as a basis to question the belief systems of various Christian denominations.

So where lies my gross misunderstanding of the various denominations? COuld you explain what exactly the differences if they are not the ones I've mentioned?

Apologies if were offended by assuming you were a catholic.

prinz

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

So where lies my gross misunderstanding of the various denominations.

Your 'main difference' between Catholicism and Prostestantism. Also the fact that you cannot see why the Catholic Church cannot simply abandon one of it's core tenets and change.......just because.........

AIR-AUSSIE

Mickeroo wrote: »

People spend a lot of time analysing prose for meaning, when in all honesty the author probably just wanted to write a good story.

Sorry Mickroo for mutilating your post, but I think that sentence is quite apt.

PDN

liah wrote: »

So, I'll ask again, with the intent of my ORIGINAL QUESTION (regardless of how YOU interpret it), for the millionth time, and maybe this time someone will answer:

Do you believe in Genesis and the seven days, Adam and Eve, talking snake, etc? Why/why not? Do you believe in the story of ark? Why/why not? Do you believe in the resurrection? Why/why not? How do those differ, since there's nothing to dictate whether or not those incidents are or aren't metaphorical? How do other denominations feel about the same questions, and why?

Your original question asked why some things are interpreted metaphorically and others are not. That has been answered repeatedly - such interpretations are made on the basis of exegesis. This is where we look at the context and the type of literature to discern the original intent of the author.

(Another bit of your question in the OP, about homosexuality, has nothing to do with metaphor at all - as has already been pointed out.)

Some Christians believe that the intent of the author(s) of Genesis was indeed, in Chapters 1-3, to give a factual historical account. However many more, going back to the earliest days of Christianity, have felt that those Chapters are in the form of an extended parable. We know that Hebrew writers used the extended parable as a form of literature (eg the two slutty sisters in Ezekiel Chapter 23) and many Old Testament scholars believe that the early Chapters of Genesis fit into that genre of literature.

You ask how the Resurrection differs - which I would have thought was pretty obvious - but let's go there just in case you are asking a serious question:

1. The Resurrection differs because virtually all New Testament scholars (Christian and non-Christian) agree that the authors of the Gospels intended their accounts to be taken literally. The resurrection accounts do not fit any literary genre of metaphor or parable.

2. The Resurrection differs because - as I've already explained in a previous post - interpretation of communication is made easier when cultural and linguistic distance is reduced. It is much easier to spot a metaphor in a 2000-year-old text Greek text than it is in a much older Hebrew text. This is because we have an abundance of information about the language, culture, and literature of the New Testament period - but not nearly as much about the period when Genesis was written. Therefore we should expect New Testament interpretation to be much easier than interpreting Genesis.

3. The Resurrection differs because we have a good bit of literature dating from the earliest years of Christianity that demonstrates that the early readers of the Gospels understood the Resurrection accounts to be intended as recording literal event, not as a metaphor. We have no such contemporary witnesses for the first few Chapters of Genesis.

So, all in all, there is an abundance of difference between interpreting the first few Chapters of Genesis and interpreting the Resurrection.

PDN

AIR-AUSSIE wrote: »

So where lies my gross misunderstanding of the various denominations? COuld you explain what exactly the differences if they are not the ones I've mentioned?

Some major differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism:

1. Salvation. Is it by faith in Jesus Christ or by baptism?

2. The Church. Is the Roman Catholic Church the one true Church or not?

3. Revealed Truth. Is the basis for Christian belief and practice to be Scripture alone - or a combination of Scripture and Church tradition?

4. Is prayer and worship to be offered to God alone, or through the intermediaries of Mary, angels and saints.

prinz

Art in all it's forms is about expressing something, conveying something. There are few pieces of prose written without some metaphorical or allegorical undertone. Pulp fiction writers of course, and some genres, but in general most prose has a deeper meaning or lesson for the reader, it's up to the reader to reflect on what that meaning is...to them. Could mean something else to another person. It doesn't stop them being a good story though, either way. However when talking about scriptures thousands of years old, I don't think the author was catering for the pool-side readers of Galilee.

AIR-AUSSIE

PDN wrote: »

Some major differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism:

1. Salvation. Is it by faith in Jesus Christ or by baptism?

2. The Church. Is the Roman Catholic Church the one true Church or not?

3. Revealed Truth. Is the basis for Christian belief and practice to be Scripture alone - or a combination of Scripture and Church tradition?

4. Is prayer and worship to be offered to God alone, or through the intermediaries of Mary, angels and saints.

I believe you left out the difference that caused the must conflict during the reformation - Transubstantiation.

As i said in a previous post.

Mickeroo

prinz wrote: »

Art in all it's forms is about expressing something, conveying something. There are few pieces of prose written without some metaphorical or allegorical undertone. Pulp fiction writers of course, and some genres, but in general most prose has a deeper meaning or lesson for the reader, it's up to the reader to reflect on what that meaning is...to them. Could mean something else to another person. It doesn't stop them being a good story though, either way. However when talking about scriptures thousands of years old, I don't think the author was catering for the pool-side readers of Galilee.

You just reminded me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir1-A209boQ