InFlames

Hi everyone. I've been reading through these forums for a while, however this is my first post here. I apologize if this has been discussed before. Anyway...

There are many events in the bible (new and old testaments) that really cannot be taken as truth today by many people (weather religious or not). Noah and the flood and the story of Adam and Eve are probably the most well known and also most unbelievable.
When asked, religious people say things like "these are metaphors" or "lessons/messages that God wants to convey" Most [Christians] don't believe these stories because there is no evidence to support them.
My question then is: what determines whether something is to be taken literally or metaphorically?
If evidence is the answer, then why is the concept of God taken literally by most all Christians?

-Nat

Godbert

One main problem I have with the "it's obviously just a metaphor" excuse is that for someone who lived at the time the the bible was "published' they are not obviously metaphors. Genesis sounds totally idiotic today but back then it would not seem farfetched to most people.

Also when someone tells me all those stupid stories in the OT (including pagelong ancestor-lineages!!!) are just metaphors they never come up with anything when I ask "methaphor for what exactly?"

wordsmyth

What really gives me the "hee bee gee bees" are the people that believe every word of the bible is literally true and actually happened.

Tercel

Such considerations as:
-What does science/archeology say (if anything) about whether it was factually, literally, true or not?
-What hints are there in the texts that the author meant it metaphorically or literally?
-Is there an obvious metaphorical interpretation or are such interpretations unreasonably strained?
-What have Christian writers over the past 2000 years thought and why?
-What have scholars in the last 100 years thought and why?
-Do any other Bible passages have anything to say on the same subject? Do they suggest an interpretation?
-How well does taking it literally or metaphorically agree with Christian doctrine?
-How well does taking it literally or metaphorically agree with logic and reason?
-And of course: How the interpreter personally feels about it.
etc.

Because God's a proven fact.

Tercel

I don't know quite what to make of the ancestor lineages. Although two random pieces of info come to mind that I remember hearing from conservative sources (I take zero accountability for their accuracy I'm just repeating what I've heard):
*That the meanings of those names used in those lineages if placed together in a sentence, form a meaningful one. Apparently a prophesy predicting the coming of a saviour... (I have serious doubts on that second one, but the idea of the names meaning something in themselves (even if it's no longer meaningful to us) is quite plausible, since people then apparently cared considerably about the meaning of names)
*That the names appear in groups the same size (groups of 10 I think), and the writer meant something by the number of names. (Matthew for example in his Genealogy of Jesus deliberately divides the names into groups of 7 and comments on it - omitting names in order to do so)

Generally, most non-conservative Christians agree that Genesis 11 and prior is meant metaphorically by the writer who is selectively using well known myths in order to teach theological truths. I'm not sure what the standard explanation for the names are though... good point.

Jack the Bodiless

As the individual books of the Bible were written by different people at different times, this allows apologists to arbitrarily decree various books as metaphorical "because of the prose style used".

Thus, to a Young-Earth Creationist, references to flat-Earthism are in a "metaphorical prose style", whereas the Genesis creation story and Noah's Flood are not. Other Christians will argue that Genesis and the Flood are clearly metaphorical because of the prose style used.

And so it goes...

Try a Google search on "Hermeneutics Genesis Flood" and see how everyone thinks the Bible's language style supports their position.

beyelzu

I think the way to determine whether or not a particular verse is a metaphor is pretty simple.


If you are a xian and you dont like the fact that if taken literally part of the bible is false, you say presto chango and poof it is all a metaphor.

Psycho Economist

I would say that none of its depections of events are metaphors or allegories. Sure, there are metaphors in the bible, like when God is called a father or a sheperd, and such. But the stories themselves fall into three categories:

1. Wholly fictional mythology
2. Historical events distorted to the point of fiction for narrative appeal
3. Historical events fictionalized for political / theological ends

sandlewood

I expect this will get transferred to another forum. But anyway...

Why is it that theists divide the Bible up into literal and metaphorical instead of simply correct and incorrect? When it’s obvious a given section cannot be correct, it is immediately considered a metaphor rather than just plain wrong. What counts as wrong for you?
So as we learn more by science, less of the Bible is real and more of it becomes metaphor? I expect we will learn more and more through science. So don’t you think even less of the Bible will be considered real in the future? Science also says that lack of any evidence for something indicates it isn’t there. Why not listen to that bit of science instead of only selectively listening to the palatable parts.
Why is the Bible made to be a puzzle that we need to decipher through “hints”? Doesn’t that count against it? Doesn’t that count as evidence that it is just plain wrong?
What is “obvious” and what is “unreasonably strained” is subjective. So this doesn’t help.
Isn’t Christian doctrine based on the Bible, making this circular?
So which parts agree with logic and reason again? God, an infinitely powerful being, needs puny humans to worship him. And when they are imperfect (by inherited guilt), he blames it on them. Then he sets it up so this guilt can be removed by his son (who is really himself) brutally dying. But he’s not really dead because he came back to life and is now living alongside God again (who is really himself remember).

Perhaps the whole parts about God and Jesus are metaphor also, since they don’t make sense. Perhaps the entire Bible is metaphor. Why doesn’t logic and reason count for something in this case?

Edit: Sorry, I meant to type "metaphorical" and not "metaphysical" in that first paragraph.

braces_for_impact

Posted by sandlewood:

Well said! (Saved me a lot of typing too!)
:notworthy :notworthy