Metaphor vs. Literal

I think you just repeated what I just said.People interpret things how they "like", based on their "biases" or "world view." Things that are read that fit within your world view are "obvious" interpretations, things that don't fit in are not. It's possible to try to take an "objective" stance, but of course there are limitations.I have a Japanese girlfriend. 3 years. We deal with this issue EVERY DAY OF OUR LIVES. It's not fun.And by the way, even if you think people are "misreading" intentionally, there's a very crossable fine line between intentional misreading and actually convincing yourself that's the true reading. The "intentional" part just falls right out.And I think you agree with my point anyway. You keep repeating that it's "obviously" metaphor, but because we don't read it "as believers" we are unable to see it. In other words, what is obvious to you each person is guided by their worldview. And the mismatch in belief of what the passage says is simply based on worldview as well.

But some believers see it as non-literal (allegory, metaphor whatever). How do you explain that?

In the case of what is a metaphor vs history vs poetry etc, I have to disagree with you. This is not about the worldview one brings to the discussion, this is about the nature of the English language.

quote:

---

We read the Bible straight, the way one should read any literature. It is simply obvious what is metaphor, what is poetic expression, what is historical narrative to a believer. And our religion doesn't dictate these things.

---

I said faith/religion and you just stated above that it is obvious what is metaphor, poetic expression, or historical narrative to a believer, therefore your faith/religion does determine how you view these writings.In Message 71 you stated:

quote:

---

That is not the way I read it or the traditional church reads it.

---

Many statements you have made allude to the fact that your faith/religion determines how you view these passages.You do not appear to read them from a strictly literary standpoint when determining if they are figurative or literal.Even though the descriptions in Job are poetic they still describe a different cosmology than we have today, but which was appropriate for the author's day and age.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Just as I said. They are reading it from unbelief and imposing something on it that is not there. They are "believers" about something else but not about this. There is absolutely NOTHING about Genesis that indicates it is to be read as an allegory or in any nonhistorical sense at all. In order to read it that way they must impose an idea from outside on it, such as that the flood has been proved not to have occurred, and force the text to fit that idea. The text itself otherwise has nothing at all about it that suggests allegory or anything nonfactual.This message has been edited by Faith, 09-30-2005 04:01 PM

Well, then this is a misunderstanding. I merely meant that believers read it straight, as it is written, whereas unbelievers may have an axe to grind and therefore try to force it to fit something it doesn't fit.{Edit: "Believer" means that we let the text speak to us as it is written, believing it as written. We don't come to it imposing some OTHER "belief" on it but get our belief FROM it. }This message has been edited by Faith, 09-30-2005 04:08 PM

That's exactly what I study. What is meaning in language.There is no objective "meaning" in language. There is no objective "thing" language. "Language" is a generalization created to describe a cultural behavior we exhibit and share in. Everybody has a different set of knowledge, a different set of lingustic skills, and different experiences. The "language" skill is the same as any other skill. We ad hoc try set some standards (they sometimes unconsciously "emerge", other times we try to consciously impose them) to help communication occur.That's what it means to say "there's no meaning without interpretation." Without a person to understand it, there's no message. Without a person to understand it, no written document has meaning.I'm not sure, maybe you have another view based on God? Maybe God created languages or something? I'm not well read enough to anticipate your thoughts. But if so, I'd be interested to discuss it in a "Bibie: Inerrancy" forum topic about if this view is consistent with what observations have been made about linguistic behavior...Don't mean to be butting heads with you Faith. Just this is my area of study, so I have fairly strong ideas about these things.Ben

Let us compare two pieces of text. The first is from my 'Holy Book':

quote:

---

A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to
meet a House-dog who was passing by. "Ah, Cousin," said the Dog.
"I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin
of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food
regularly given to you?"

​

"I would have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only
get a place."

​

"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with
me to my master and you shall share my work."

​

So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On
the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of
the Dog's neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that
had come about.

​

"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only the place
where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it
chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it."

​

"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master
Dog."

---

And one from Faith's Holy Book:

quote:

---

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

​

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

​

But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

​

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

​

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

​

And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

​

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

---

They both have talking animals in them, but one has a supernatural all powerful entity and a magic knowledge/wisdom/modesty fruit in it. Which one should we take literally and which one should we take allegorically? Believers in my Holy Book would see that the talking snake and supernatural entity story is clearly not meant to be taken literally. It is obvious that there was literally a talking dog and a talking wolf and they literally discussed housing arrangements, before the wolf realised he would rather be free and suffer than be chained but looked after.

So you are saying that someone that believes it to be literal believes it to be literal? And there is absolutely NOTHING about Genesis that indicates that it is to be read literally or as a history. It is quite literally open to interpretation. I'm reading a book at the moment. There is nothing about the book which suggests that it is nonfactual, should I assume it is a factual account (or at least that it claims to be). Perhaps Gulliver went to Lilliput after all? Incidentally, the tortoise beat the hare as well, clearly intended as factual.

It is not the fact of the talking animals or the supernatural that determines whether the story is allegory or not.

quote:

---

This is not about the worldview one brings to the discussion, this is about the nature of the English language.

---

I find you answer to Ben very fascinating.Roughly Ben and I have said the same thing but you continue to take a stance against being guided by your worldview in discerning how you read the Bible.Not sure what you mean by "it is about the nature of the English language" though. Clarification would be nice.In Message 95 you state: Let's use Noah and the Flood story and only Noah and the flood story as our test subject. (This is not about whether the flood happened or not etc. This is about the process of reading the story.)You say there is absolutely NOTHING that indicates it is to be read as an allegory or as nonhistorical. The text itself does not suggest allegory or anything nonfactual.This tells me you accept the flood story as a factual happening just as it is written in Genesis. (Obviously, correct me if I'm wrong.)What within the text suggests to you that it is to be read as historical or factual?Here are a few passages that tell me this is not factual and not a historical happening as written.Only one being, a human, was blameless. All flesh was corrupted. Flood didn't appear to cleanse the world. This is not about whether I am reading these wrong or not, this is about what within the text tells you that this story is to be read as factual or historical?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

You judge the story according to your own preconceptions about what *could* be real or not. The WAY IT IS WRITTEN is what leads me to to read it as fact. NOT ITS CONTENT. A believer comes to it without judgments, and accepts it as presented, according to how it is written. If you read it as it presents itself, you learn from it, but if you impose your preconceptions on it you can't learn from it. This is the difference.

Excellent. We've eliminated some aspects. So if it isn't that some of the elements of the tale are fantastical in nature (talking animals, all powerful gods etc) that would mark it as allegorical what is it? I would say that mankind gaining a knowledge of good and evil and developing modesty from a magic fruit is clearly an abstract concept in terms of a material object, and genesis attempts to explain it using characters with little to no personality depth. I would say it clearly can be read literally and figuratively. My evidence for this is that many many people can find both literal and figuritive meanings in it.Also - given the dogma that has arisen above and beyond the book itself (the Fall, original sin etc) I think we can clearly see that there is meaning there above and beyond the literal words being used.I cannot see how this cannot be defined as allegorical. I don't have a problem with you believing it to be literally true, but it has a secondary meaning (which is moral, social and religious in nature) not explicitly stated in the literal narrative, thus it is by definition allegorical.

funny. it's the way that it's written that leads me to read it as folk tale.one of people i went to college with went from squeeky-clean christian to doubting anostic within the span of about two years. i found out why recently. apparently, what had lead him to accept the bible as fact was the way it was written, not the content. it was old, and sounded valid, like it had weight and power to it. my college was literature-intensive, and as a result, he read lots of other ancient books he hadn't read before. i imagine these included the bhagavad gita, the vedas, the iliad, beowulf, gilgamesh, etc.he said that after reading these classic works of ancient literature that the bible sounded just the same. and it does.the bible is written like a collection of ancient literature. genesis is written like a set of folktales. if you've read a few other things that sound so similar it's sort of hard to read it any differently.

---

אָרַח

When I first read this, I thought "this is self contradictory!" I mean, a believer--by definition somebody guided by preconceptions, "accepts it how it is written." Amazing!But I think I can understand what you are saying. If the Bible is written for those who believe, then only a believer can read it "for what it is" and "without judgements." Somehow that makes sense. It fits with the idea of "cultural literacy" that I won't get into now.But then a question. Where does faith come from? I thought I read this discussed in another thread, and faith starts from the Bible. I must be very confused. If you have to be a believer to read the Bible, how do you get to know God in the first place?I guess I should check Phatboy's thread where this was talked about... bad memory? Just as a note... this sounds a lot like how to approach science.