Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Bible: Literal or Figurative
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 40 (130552)
08-05-2004 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hangdawg13
08-05-2004 2:00 AM


Re: Can the Bible be Figurative?
quote:
Originally posted by Hangdawg13
Now can you prove that?
Hi Hangdawg13,
In this thread he really doesn't need to prove it. I can understand why you would feel compelled to ask that question, but this thread isn't about "proof", not in the sense you're asking for.
The OP question is, "Can the bible be figurative?". IOW, the only thing that needs to be "proven" is that a given figurative reading remains consistent with the rest of scripture and also still supports basic Christian doctrine.
I (for one) will be interested to see just where that line of inquiry will lead.
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-05-2004 2:00 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 32 of 40 (130576)
08-05-2004 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hangdawg13
08-05-2004 2:00 AM


Re: Can the Bible be Figurative?
quote:
The geneologies are certainly mostly fiction. Their ages are pure fiction.
Now can you prove that?
this work for you?
quote:
1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: [so do].
quote:
Tts 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-05-2004 2:00 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 40 (130600)
08-05-2004 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hangdawg13
08-05-2004 2:00 AM


Re: Can the Bible be Figurative?
Well, since there is no evidence that most of them ever even lived, there is no way to establish their lifespans.
But there are a few indicators that would tend to make folk believe that they are simply imaginary.
First, tales of extrememly long lived individuals are very common. In fact, the Patriarchs from the Summerian legends (which were compiled long before the Bible) were several orders of magnitude longer lived than the Biblical ones. It's as though the Biblical writers, as the borrowed stories from the popular folklore, said,"Ain't nobody going to believe these folk lived tens of thousands of years. Let's tone it down some."
The bigger reason though is that seeing the claims that the patriarchs lived 900 years and that lifespans then got shorter (but not uniformly) adds nothing to the theology. The message of salvation does not rely on whether or not the Bible is taken figuratively or literally.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-05-2004 2:00 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-06-2004 1:14 AM jar has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 34 of 40 (130894)
08-06-2004 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
08-05-2004 8:20 AM


Re: Can the Bible be Figurative?
I'm only saying that you can neither prove nor disprove your dogmatic statment that the geneologies and ages were mythical and had no foundation in reality.
Without proof either way, I don't think its good to be so dogmatic about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 08-05-2004 8:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 08-06-2004 1:31 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 36 by lfen, posted 08-06-2004 12:39 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 37 by Loudmouth, posted 08-06-2004 1:00 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 35 of 40 (130900)
08-06-2004 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hangdawg13
08-06-2004 1:14 AM


That's a position that you can take
but IMHO, it's not very reasonable or logical.
We can't prove anything because we can not even show that the people existed.
What we can say is that there is absolutely no evidence of any exceptionaly long lived individuals even though most mythology does have tales of such folk.
We've been gathering a bunch of information and there are actually quite a few skeletons that have been found date between now and 10,000 years ago. And from those remains we can gather a bunch of information. We can figure out how long they lived, what they ate, sicknesses and injury. And there are certainly no signs that any of these folk lived very long lives.
So once again, these is lots of evidence that lifespans were pretty normal or even shorter, but no evidence of super long lifespans. It's like so many other Biblical claims. It serves no purpose as far as dogma or belief systems, and it requires adding in something that has no support or evidence.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-06-2004 1:14 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 36 of 40 (131009)
08-06-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hangdawg13
08-06-2004 1:14 AM


preponderance of the evidence?
quote:
I'm only saying that you can neither prove nor disprove your dogmatic statment that the geneologies and ages were mythical and had no foundation in reality.
Without proof either way, I don't think its good to be so dogmatic about it.
Hi Dawg!
Not proven, but I'm going to say that the preponderance of the evidence would indicate little variance in life span beyond what we already know from history and archaeology, etc. As a naturalist who is willing to consider transcedent aspects to the universe but not miraculous suspension of natural law (until science begins to find evidence for it) it works for me. I don't think it's dogmatic so much as common sense until shown to be otherwise.
This is probably no consolation to you but this is my position on all religions and miracles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-06-2004 1:14 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 40 (131018)
08-06-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hangdawg13
08-06-2004 1:14 AM


Re: Can the Bible be Figurative?
quote:
Without proof either way, I don't think its good to be so dogmatic about it.
Which begs the question of why creationists are so dogmatic about their stance. If there is no proof one way or another, why do Bible literalist insist that they are true? Ifen is simply stating that without proof he will not accept the claim, which is a very logical and fair stance. We do the same every day with claims that are not supported by proof, such as sasquatches and UFO's. It is not so much that we are claiming it is untrue, only that it is unproven and therefore not accepted as true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hangdawg13, posted 08-06-2004 1:14 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 38 of 40 (145617)
09-29-2004 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by lfen
08-04-2004 2:07 PM


Re: Can the Bible be Figurative?
Mission for Truth writes:
Is the Bible supposed to be taken as literal truth or is it a book of applicable moral suggestions? The Bible was written by fallible men and it is the "inspired" word of God which makes it subject to error through the translation from "above", to the mind of man, to paper... So, how does one deal with that? ...Such as I understand, certain credibilities become hazy when viewed with a figurative mental pretense. But, that is my question, DO we take it as figurative? Or not? And if so, does it cause problems?
I believe that the Bible is Inerrent in its message,yet not necessarily Literal.
jar writes:
The Bible can be trusted as a Map or Guide toward How to Live and Why things are as they are. But that is all that it is, it is a map.
I look at it as more than that. The book is about the mapmaker. The one who blazed the trails. The one who has not only found the destination, but is Himself that destination.
Hangdawg13 writes:
The Bible was written by men guided by the Holy Spirit so that every jot and tittle is the way God intended it to be.
Loudmouth writes:
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that God wanted Genesis to be literal.
Since it is "god-breathed" it is absolute truth. Sure, metaphors and symbolism are used along with many other literary devices. And of course one must have a complete knowledge of the original languages to get an absolutely precise interpretation.
Loudmouth writes:
Absolute truth and literally true can be two different things.
Such is the extremes. Hangdawg and I are believers, so we DO represent that extreme. I prefer to call it an absolute. Again, Inerrent yet NOT literal.
nipok writes:
I submit that the holy texts are figurative works because had God tried to relay the true nature of the world and universe with scientific explanations, the holy texts would not be comprehended by the masses. Even now the masses cannot fully appreciate the true complexity of the universe and the full scope of scientific progress and knowledge we have accumulated.
Scintific progress has impressed me in many ways, yet I do not see the overall behavior of humans getting any better. The blood in rthe Middle East has flowed steadily from wounds caused by many different weapons throughout history. a stick, rock, or missle will still produce a wound, and the intent behind throwing a rock or pushing a button cannot be contrasted.
custard writes:
Most likely it's a combination of truth and fiction; like most books.
Fiction?
Some would say "Parables".
Amlodhi writes:
Has this thread strayed from the intent of the OP already? I hope Mission for Truth will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the question being asked is: If the bible is taken figuratively instead of literally, how does this effect modern Christian doctrine? For instance: If the Adam and Eve story is figurative, then (regardless of any argument that it "still contains God's truth"), the doctrine of original sin is immediately called into question. Obvious parables and certain other stories in the bible can certainly be taken in a figurative sense. However, if the tenets of Christian doctrine are to be taken seriously and literally, huge portions of the biblical text must be taken to be literal as well.
Inerrent truth does not need to be literal. Jesus told parables that were Inerrently true. They need not have been literal. Adam and Eve were not mean't to be figurative, IMHO.
jar writes:
There is nothing that I know of in Christian Dogma that requires ANY of the Bible to be taken literally other than the existance of GOD and the life and mission of Jesus.
So jar, what of the words and lessons of Jesus? Are these literal? If not, than do you believe them to be Inerrent? Truth is truth, and if the text is to be taken at a relative value, all that we have are no answers and lots of opinions! I guess that is how an extreme believer sees it, anyway!
Paisano writes:
Depends on what precisely is meant by "original sin". In Catholic theology, original sin refers to a loss of sanctifying grace that humans experienced at some point, nothing more than that.
Good point. Catholics DO tend to be more open minded. I always worried about whether they were as apt to stick to absolutes vs relativism. I guess that the infallible Pope thing is debateable, but tie that in with an infallible Bible in terms of Inerrency. We either have
1)Infallible Bible and/or Infallible Church.
2)Fallible Bible, fallible church.
Which leads to the question of how an absolute standard can be defined, much less observed.
almevda writes:
If there wasnt a literal fall, in a literal place, by a literal man. Then what fall are we talking about? Jesus shouldnt even have a reason to save mankind. Sin is the reason why we see death, bloodshed, disease and a cursed world. Before this, God made a perfect world. Gods plan is to save mankind from the judgement on sin through Christ. Now Jar you tell me if this isnt an important aspect of the faith?
jar writes:
Nope. It most certainly is not very important at all.
Yikes! You are straying from MY beliefs, yet ...
Amlodhi writes:
I think this is pointing in the right direction now.
shows me that a rift is occurring. Any more opinions or observations?
Loudmouth writes:
Jesus said that "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Nowhere does this require a literal place, event, or human. The fact is that we all sin and therefore need saving.
So, Loudmouth, are you suggesting that the ability of Jesus to save us is both literal and Inerrent? If so, NOW we are going in the right direction. Jar? Any opinion?
jar writes:
That is part of the divinity of Jesus. The virgin birth (not unusual from a mythological point of view) helps establish that Jesus was more than simply a prophet. For Christians, that IS one of the core beliefs. We believe that Jesus was the Son of God.
Wow! I thought that the Christians had lost jar! They still have him. Do they have me?? Maybe I need sleep!
Ifen writes:
Do you believe in the virgin birth? Do you believe some one could be considered a christian who didn't believe in it?
Personally, Ifen, I say No. You say that you stopped being a christian, yet I will not go so far as to decide your fate. You are simply thinking. Nobody decides their life beliefs in high school...be they Christians or not. God gave us a brain!
The question remains: Did He give us a Book as a necessary manuel for our faith? Could anyone actually believe in Jesus and be saved without the book? Obviously the early believers did. They had no book, yet they did have relationship with Jesus and His closest followers.
What about now. If every Bible on the planet were removed, would it be possible to have new Christian converts in the traditional sense? If so, the Inerrency is a Spirit shared among Believers. If not, religion is an academic and relative concept. I believe the former.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by lfen, posted 08-04-2004 2:07 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 09-29-2004 11:08 AM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 39 of 40 (145619)
09-29-2004 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Phat
09-29-2004 10:52 AM


Re: Can the Bible be Figurative?
So jar, what of the words and lessons of Jesus?
They are very good lessons. Should they be taken literally? No. Does it matter if any of them actually happened or if they are only tales? No.
I think that was the only question you asked me in that composite post, but if I missed one, let me know.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Phat, posted 09-29-2004 10:52 AM Phat has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 40 of 40 (145757)
09-29-2004 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
06-20-2004 5:39 PM


Re: Can the Bible be Figurative?
The Hebrew Bible is split into three sections:
Torah (Teaching, Instruction, or Law)
Nevi'im (The Prophets) Split into two parts: First Prophets - narrative books and the Latter Prophets - prophecies written mostly in the form of biblical poetry.
Ketuvim (The Writings)
IMO, the Bible is not one entity that can be labeled as only literal or figurative. As you can see even the Hebrews split the Bible into sections. Hopefully a legal section would be written literally as opposed to a song, a poem, or a teaching story.
Each style of writing served its purpose for the Hebrews. Just remember, the Hebrew Bible was written for Hebrews, by Hebrews, about Hebrews. It is through their eyes, their knowledge, and their beliefs that they interpreted their world and passed on their culture.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mission for Truth, posted 06-20-2004 5:39 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024