The Bible: literal or metaphorical?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I'm starting this thread because it was suggested by Too Few Lions, I think.  Fundamentalists generally interpret the entire Bible as the literal word of God, and hold that it should always be interpreted literally.  Of course, they don't interpret books like Revelation literally, even though they say they do.  It's pretty obvious that a seven-headed, ten-horned beast coming out of the sea is metaphorical, and fundamentalists go to great lengths to tell us what each head and each horn mean, but they still claim that they are literalists. So when they get to the Lake of Fire in Chapter 20, they interpret that as a literal, burning hell. But why should that be literal, when the seven-headed, ten-horned beast is not literal?  The point here is that each writing in the Bible must be interpreted first according to the genre of literature into which it falls: historical narrative vs. poetry vs. wisdom literature vs. homily vs. didactic vs. apocalyptic, etc.  One size does not fit all.  That's enough for now.

[xSilverPhinx]

Though I think that interpreting the bible literally is absurd, fundamentalists do have a point when they say that if you don't take it all literally and at face value, then the next decision is: what do you take at face value and what needs to be interpreted? How should it be interpreted?

Ultimately you will have to fall back on some authority of some sort, who in turn can't demonstrate to anybody outside their group that they are an authority, such as the Pope and the Vatican, or on what you personally (and subjectively) feel is right.

Neither are good grounds for trying to make cherry-picked morals and laws more Christian while basing their reasoning on Christianity, or any other generic theist religion (not that every theist wants to do this).

Edit: another point I'd like to add...interpreting began when the first copies (which are no longer around) were translated. 

[Attila]

Hi Bruce,
Following on from xSP's comments, can we say that MAN (no sex implied) created god is his/her image rather than the reverse. A quick example, as a kid a could not avoid being exposed to some bible stories including the Adam & Eve caper. I recall being appalled at the foul and evil god who punished them (and ultimately all humanity?) for eating the fruit of what tree??? The tree of violence? nope. The tree of ignorance? nope. The tree of oppression? nope. It was the tree of knowledge. My moral code was and still is that the acquisition  knowledge was a good thing. And now here's god forbidding it. So I disagree with god. (or is this another metaphor). And what was the original sin? The thing that Jesus allegedly died for and what we are all "guilty" of from birth? The original sin was disobedience, correct? And yet in my moral code disobedience of authority was a virtue and not a sin. So here am I just a little kid thinking that this god is a monster. In brief, I disagreed with god on a large number of moral issues. I also disagree at some point with every single person I've ever met: sometimes just one or two minor things (just enough to spice up a relationship) and with other people, more major. That is normal when we are speaking of two independent beings.

My next question, Bruce, is the obvious one: on what points do you disagree with your god? To make this more concrete, consider the "christian"  reaction to homosexuality. Some christians claim that "god hates fags". Others claim that "god doesn't hate fags". Now let look at the personal opinions of each set of believers: I would predict that believers of the god of the former group also "hate fags" (their god agrees with them) whilst the members of the latter group "don't hate fags".  Notice I can be wrong -- this is not a faith-based statement but rather an empirical claim subject to falsification. So again, can you imagine the following scenario. Someone completely accepts homosexuality as quite natural and believes in a god that hates it. That person says, "I have nothing against gay people but the big guy thinks different so I gotta go with Him on this one." Does that strike you as plausible.
Have fun and ciao,
Attila

[Stevil]

This could be very interesting. Are we about to devise a secret decoder ring allowing the wearer to see the true meaning of the cryptic bible?
Will this ring apply equally to both New and Old Testament? What about all the other stories about god and Jesus that Constantine did not chose to include?
Did Constantine make editorial modifications to stories he chose to include? Can the decoder ring undo these changes or do we need to discover the original text?

Do we decode sentence by sentence, or paragraph by paragraph? Is there a way to qualify our decoding to ensure we got it right. Would everyone agree with our translation?

[OldGit]

The correct intrepretation always backs up what you thought anyway. 

[Attila]

The correct intrepretation always backs up what you thought anyway. 

From one old git to another, we agree. If you and I voice an opinion, we're just a couple of old gits having a rant and we could be making complete pratt's of ourselves -- we could be wrong. If a theist does the same thing, it must be "the word of god"  (do not omit the hushed voice when saying this phrase) and based on faith not on any reason and thus cannot be refuted. Nice trick, eh?
ciao,
attila

[Too Few Lions]

I'm starting this thread because it was suggested by Too Few Lions, I think.  Fundamentalists generally interpret the entire Bible as the literal word of God, and hold that it should always be interpreted literally.  Of course, they don't interpret books like Revelation literally, even though they say they do.  It's pretty obvious that a seven-headed, ten-horned beast coming out of the sea is metaphorical, and fundamentalists go to great lengths to tell us what each head and each horn mean, but they still claim that they are literalists. So when they get to the Lake of Fire in Chapter 20, they interpret that as a literal, burning hell. But why should that be literal, when the seven-headed, ten-horned beast is not literal?  The point here is that each writing in the Bible must be interpreted first according to the genre of literature into which it falls: historical narrative vs. poetry vs. wisdom literature vs. homily vs. didactic vs. apocalyptic, etc.  One size does not fit all.  That's enough for now.

Thanks Bruce, I think we were getting a polite telling off from the police for possibly derailing the other thread  
I was just wondering which parts of the Bible you choose to read as allegorical / mythical, and which as historical / real. I'm off the opinion pretty much all of it's mythological / allegorical.
I think we'd both agree (I hope!) that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are mythical. I'd also place Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses and Joshua in that camp, as well as all the other folk who lived for hundreds of years in the OT. I was just wondering who out of the OT figures you see as historical, and which stories from the OT you believe represent some form of historical truth.
Personally I'd also place Jesus, the 12 apostles and Paul (as his story is told in Acts) in the mythological camp, but I accept someone wrote the letters ascribed to Paul. I just don't believe the story of his life as told in Acts.
Obviously you're going to differ in opinion on these figures, but I was also wondering how much (if any) of the NT you read as allegorical/mythological and not historical (eg virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, second coming etc)

[Crow]

This is the main problem I have with Christianity (well all the Abraham beliefs) is that it is contrived in a manner that is incoherent, inconsistent, and unnecessarily convoluted. The bible is viewed as the word of god or at least inspired by god to hundreds of thousands if not millions of Christians yet it is ill contrived and many interpretations can be made to suit the viewpoint of any individual that believes in the god, yet not just support their opinion in a philosophical sense but then back it up with a mythical god angle, allowing for a belief that their viewpoint is supreme to others.

Due to the holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam we view the word fundamentalist as one that embodies violence and oppression bringing to mind negative impressions. I think it is important to judge a faith by its fundamentalists and what they are capable of, they are those that take a literal interpretation and highlight what ideologies can arise out of religious teachings. What we consider fundamentalist today in Christianity was once the norm, many passages that are now considered to be metaphorical interpretations by the masses of believers were once taken literally and influenced laws of the state, fundamentalist and those that take a literal interpretation have and can have very real repercussions on to the lives of many. In my view Christianity is a highly flawed belief system that that likes to state it is a force of good yet the teachings in the bible do not reflect that statement, nor do the actions of some believers. However I find those that take more of a metaphorical interpretation usually dislike a certain passages therefore decide it must be metaphorical as it is opposed to there viewpoint.

[Cforcerunner]

This is the main problem I have with Christianity (well all the Abraham beliefs) is that it is contrived in a manner that is incoherent, inconsistent, and unnecessarily convoluted.

Can you name one or two major examples of this?

The bible is viewed as the word of god or at least inspired by god to hundreds of thousands if not millions of Christians yet it is ill contrived and many interpretations can be made to suit the viewpoint of any individual that believes in the god, yet not just support their opinion in a philosophical sense but then back it up with a mythical god angle, allowing for a belief that their viewpoint is supreme to others.

Just because there can be many interpretations of it (when considering the length and the extended history throughout the nation of Isreal) does not follow that it is necessarily ill contrived.  

Yes, there are many interpretations ("doctrines" would be the more appropriate word here), but there are clearly better insinuations than others which are truer to the overall context, purpose, and cohesiveness of the passage. Just because it is merely possible to interpret a text one or the way, does not follow that the bible suffers from irreconcilable ambiguity.  

Due to the holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam we view the word fundamentalist as one that embodies violence and oppression bringing to mind negative impressions. I think it is important to judge a faith by its fundamentalists and what they are capable of, they are those that take a literal interpretation and highlight what ideologies can arise out of religious teachings.What we consider fundamentalist today in Christianity was once the norm....

If you are speaking of religious extremists as literally being "extremely religious", you may not have the right idea. Extremism is any ideology that goes fervently  against common moral practices of any society. When you add the "religious" to the entitlement, it means the ideology is in a name of particular religion, regardless of the actual practices of that religion.  

...many passages that are now considered to be metaphorical interpretations by the masses of believers were once taken literally and influenced laws of the state, fundamentalist and those that take a literal interpretation have and can have very real repercussions on to the lives of many.

Many passages are now considered to be interpreted as they actually were during that time period. Some sections historical, others poetic, and some allegorical. I have yet to see these dire "very real repercussions" of following the characteristics of Jesus.

In my view Christianity is a highly flawed belief system that that likes to state it is a force of good yet the teachings in the bible do not reflect that statement, nor do the actions of some believers. However I find those that take more of a metaphorical interpretation usually dislike a certain passages therefore decide it must be metaphorical as it is opposed to there viewpoint.

I don't see what exactly you are arguing here. Something being metaphorical does not follow that it is something void and irrelevant. What is an example of something now being deemed as metaphorical that can now be expelled from a belief system due to it's allegorical nature?

[xSilverPhinx]

I don't see what exactly you are arguing here. Something being metaphorical does not follow that it is something void and irrelevant. What is an example of something now being deemed as metaphorical that can now be expelled from a belief system due to it's allegorical nature?

I'd like to add to this point a bit:

As far as I see it, it (and any thing else that requires interpretation) runs into problems when arguing any form of objective, absolute and concrete morality, which consequently means judging others that do not follow what is believed to be the One Morality as immoral, evil, "the bad guys" etc.

[Crow]

I don't normally see the point of justifying an opinion but seeing as you took the time to dissect what I wrote I may as well reply.

Can you name one or two major examples of this?

There are bloody loads of examples so I am just going to give one of each.

Incoherent:
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" Isaiah 40:22

Inconsistent:
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." Mathew 27:46,50

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." Luke 23:46

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." John 19:30

Convoluted: All of it. why? due to the nature of its structure, the inconstancy of who said what, who is related to who, where things took place, peoples age, what was said, who was present, and the different interpretations of events if you read one canonical gospel over another for one example.

Just because there can be many interpretations of it (when considering the length and the extended history throughout the nation of Isreal) does not follow that it is necessarily ill contrived.

Yes, there are many interpretations ("doctrines" would be the more appropriate word here), but there are clearly better insinuations than others which are truer to the overall context, purpose, and cohesiveness of the passage. Just because it is merely possible to interpret a text one or the way, does not follow that the bible suffers from irreconcilable ambiguity.  

It is ill contrived because of the inconsistency found between the different books of the bible, the editors of the bible could have done a better job at editing the different books.

If you are speaking of religious extremists as literally being "extremely religious", you may not have the right idea. Extremism is any ideology that goes fervently  against common moral practices of any society. When you add the "religious" to the entitlement, it means the ideology is in a name of particular religion, regardless of the actual practices of that religion.

I don't now where you got this from what I wrote. You are wrong in terms that all extremists are those that go against common moral practices, not all extremists are a danger depending on the ideology they are extreme about. Taoist fundamentalists for one example are harmless to others due to the nature of their beliefs.

Many passages are now considered to be interpreted as they actually were during that time period. Some sections historical, others poetic, and some allegorical. I have yet to see these dire "very real repercussions" of following the characteristics of Jesus.

This may be true for some but not for all, there are thousands of different christian sects so I highly doubt they are all preaching the same message. Christianity isn't just about the teachings or actions of Jesus (otherwise the bible would be a lot shorter and probably be more concise if it was) and throughout history and has had very repercussions resulting in death, life imprisonment and awful acts of cruelty.

I don't see what exactly you are arguing here. Something being metaphorical does not follow that it is something void and irrelevant. What is an example of something now being deemed as metaphorical that can now be expelled from a belief system due to it's allegorical nature?

Yeah sorry that was written poorly. I never said that because it is a metaphor it is irrelevant, but rather hinting that people pick and mix what is literal and what is a metaphor depending upon what sits with there view of the world. For example do you take everything from the sermon on the mount as literal or do you think some is a metaphor?

[Cforcerunner]

I don't normally see the point of justifying an opinion but seeing as you took the time to dissect what I wrote I may as well reply.

Thanks for replying, I believe it is quite healthy to share, discuss, and strengthen one's own opinions whenever possible, a great principle to be taken from skepticism. I think we can agree not all opinions are created equally and that critically evaluating what we believe and why we believe it is a good thing.

There are bloody loads of examples so I am just going to give one of each.


Incoherent:
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" Isaiah 40:22

First off, please cite from the NASB!

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Second, I believe this is a poetic of sorts understood by Isreali culture describing nature. But no, it wasn't written as gibberish at the time it was read despite not being easily understood to an everyday person today. Regardless, I don't see how this verse could best represents the overall incoherence of the old testament.

Inconsistent:
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." Mathew 27:46,50

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." Luke 23:46

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." John 19:30

Lets see what exactly these books are....The Gospel accounts according to Matthew, Luke and John. Three of some of the earliest independent accounts of the life of Jesus which so happened to be found. Historically speaking, these are clear variations of the same event (Jesus giving up His spirit) with a clear portrait of one single actual event, the secondary details are of poor relevance (especially considering the time period in which these accounts were written).

Convoluted: All of it. why? due to the nature of its structure, the inconstancy of who said what, who is related to who, where things took place, peoples age, what was said, who was present, and the different interpretations of events if you read one canonical gospel over another for one example.

You are simply being selective in your critical skepticism. The bible holds up extremely well comparative to the other historical documentations of it's time. You're doubting the authenticity of the bible, because you trust in it's fallaciousness as granted. Try researching literally any other works of literature during the biblical era (many I'm sure you already take as granted) and use your exact critical standards as you use for the bible. If you do so, you'd likely end up concluding what standards you hold to be "coherent" and "consistent", has yet to be invented.

 

It is ill contrived because of the inconsistency found between the different books of the bible, the editors of the bible could have done a better job at editing the different books.

Unfortunately, most (if not all) the authors of the bible wrote independently of one another and never had a chance to gather for any sort of editing. But I'd say they did just fine for the most part regardless.  

I don't now where you got this from what I wrote. You are wrong in terms that all extremists are those that go against common moral practices, not all extremists are a danger depending on the ideology they are extreme about. Taoist fundamentalists for one example are harmless to others due to the nature of their beliefs.

No, I'm exactly correct in my definition of extremism, but fundamentalism is different story. A fundamentalist can be as broad as anyone who stands firm or uncompromisingly to particular stance (i.e. a right-wing fundamentalist). You're example of fundamental Muslims/Christian becoming violent or socially deterrent  would be an example of extremism, not necessarily fundamentalism.    

This may be true for some but not for all, there are thousands of different christian sects so I highly doubt they are all preaching the same message. Christianity isn't just about the teachings or actions of Jesus (otherwise the bible would be a lot shorter and probably be more concise if it was) and throughout history and has had very repercussions resulting in death, life imprisonment and awful acts of cruelty.

I completely agree with you, and this has become something that is very much unfortunate. But from a purely logical standpoint it is important to separate the actual theological belief system and people who claim to follow it. It is fallacious by association to claim that a set of people who called themselves a certain religious sect, performed acts of extremism in the name of a particular deity, despite completely disregarding the founder of that religion.

You bring up another good point, that all scripture is scripture. But in reality, the New Testament (more specially the Gospels) lay the main foundations of Christianity. Despite the fact the all scripture is God-breathed and useful teaching.  

Yeah sorry that was written poorly. I never said that because it is a metaphor it is irrelevant, but rather hinting that people pick and mix what is literal and what is a metaphor depending upon what sits with there view of the world. For example do you take everything from the sermon on the mount as literal or do you think some is a metaphor?

It has everything to do with context. Clearly, everything Jesus said was not intended to be taken literally. Jesus' disciples even complained about how He would speak in a "riddle-like" fashion (the parable of the seeds for example), and Jesus broke down all symbolic entailments of the entire parable.

[Crow]

Thanks for replying...

I don't have the NASB only the king james version, I wasn't using the old english to highlight the incoherence. I think the incoherent quote is quite apt (even though you are right there are much worse examples that I could have used, just used the first that I flicked to) it highlights the lack of knowledge about the world at the time and how out of touch it is, which will only sound more incoherent as time passes. There are similar aged religious documents that still sound relevant, are they convoluted? yes, but incoherent and inconsistent? not really.

With the example I used of Matthew, Luke, & John they all agree on the death of Jesus but their words paint very different pictures of the event, if one one is incorrect about what actually happened how can the rest of their writings be taken seriously, the problem is there is no way of knowing who is correct and who is wrong and the inconsistencies fuel that problem. The inconsistencies go beyond the gospels and is found throughput the old and new testament so how much of it can be taken seriously.

I don't take the bible to be a historical document at all, in terms of is historical creditability it is no more than chinese whispers without any evidence to back it up, some may be historically correct, some may not. If the books in the bible were written more like that of the Qur'an then I would put my hands up and say it is probably more historically correct than what I thought but the problem is the authors of the books most likely didn't know the man and some certainly didn't, depending on what version of history you like to believe.

The Bible was edited, it has been in many different states from what you read now, just look at the differences between Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus which are the oldest and closest versions of the bible that have been found, you can see from these that the bible went through a clear process of editing then also combine that with remains of Chester Beatty Papyri and it shows that it took a long time of editing before the final format was selected.

I'm not sure if the example I gave would be an example of only extremism, as a person who thinks homosexuality is wrong and outspoken about it because of what is said in a religious book wouldn't be extreme form but a fundamentalist as they believe in the fundamental teachings of that book, however the "god hates fags" nutters would be an extreme example of this as they willfully go out of their way to spread their despicable beliefs.

[Gawen]

Believe it or not, I have nothing to add. Perhaps more of an observation...

Most points were already covered. Bruce nailed part of it:

The point here is that each writing in the Bible must be interpreted first according to the genre of literature into which it falls: historical narrative vs. poetry vs. wisdom literature vs. homily vs. didactic vs. apocalyptic, etc.  One size does not fit all.

I'm not about to get involved in a thread that covers all Biblical Criticism and History and how to interpret it, not when this subject takes a complete forum with many threads and many subjects. At any rate, the Bible is user friendly. It MAKES people who want or need to believe what is written inside AND want or need (by necessity) to pick and choose AND to make out anything chosen (good or bad) they need useful.

The contradictions, fatal flaws, absurdities and atrocities, questionable precepts, guidelines, ethics, morals and even just plain idiotic advice should be enough, despite what genre of literature the writing falls into, to shove readers away from it. Add to that politicians and hate groups (amongst others) that "interpret" the way they wish should push basically "good" believers to recognise that the book they interpret is so ambiguous that even their own interpretations are as suspect as the bad ones using the very same pieces of scripture.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Ultimately you will have to fall back on some authority of some sort, who in turn can't demonstrate to anybody outside their group that they are an authority, such as the Pope and the Vatican, or on what you personally (and subjectively) feel is right.

I respectfullyl disagree.  Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and Christians are not required to commit logical fallacies in their relationship with God.  There does not have to be a black and white answer to every issue, and different people may come to different conclusions. That does not mean that the whole thing is invalid.  As I indicated in the OP, the various books of the Bible cover a wide range of literary styles, and we have a great number of tools in our modern tool chest to assist us in interpreting the author's intent.  Appeal to authority is not one of them, anymore for the Bible than for Shakespeare or Milton.