Metaphor vs. Literal

It says "signs will FOLLOW them that believe," it doesn't say ALL believers will perform these signs, and the context is obviously the moving out of the gospel into the world, by evangelists who took the message out to the pagans. There are missionary reports from remote parts of the world in recent times of similar things happening in the service of explaining the gospel to people who have never heard it before, which demonstrates that the signs were intended as confirmation of the source of the gospel to new hearers. I don't know how hard it would be to find such reports but none of this is on topic here and this is the last thing I'm going to say about it on this thread.

So Faith, where in the bible does it say this? Or are you just assuming/infering?Because if you are doing that, you are birnging your own pre-conceptions to the text.

I think I'm finally starting to see the light!
Thank you for the clarification.From your postings here and in the links you provided, I feel we differ in the usage of the word "literal" when it comes to the Bible. I think that is why most of these "literal" discussions run amuck.You don't actually read the Bible literally (taking the words in their natural meaning), but you take or believe the Bible literally (believe the stories to be actual happenings).This article seems to address the way I feel you and some others are using the word literal. (I'm not saying the article is in line with your own personal beliefs) If you truly read the Bible literally, then you would not be recognizing any figurative language. Metaphors in the BibleYou would understand the people as actually being made of salt. You would probably believe in Transubstantiation if you read this passage literally. So obviously you do not read the Bible literally. Now I have a better understanding of what you mean by literal.Now on one of the links you provided, what I assume to be your thoughts, shows why Genesis can't be anything other than history for you. It is foundational to your system of belief. Accepting Genesis as history is part of your belief system, which is fine, that's your belief; but trying to justify it by its supposed literary style doesn't really hold water, as we can see in your discussion with Arach.**************************************************************Now that the fog has lifted, let's look back at Message 55 where Yaro brought up ancient cosmology. In Message 70 she provides a link and some examples of Biblical descriptions of ancient cosmology.I have already shown they these passages are not metaphors or a form of figurative language. Also, whether or not the Hebrews considered the world to be flat or immovable is not foundational to your belief system that I am aware of.So do Bible Literalists accept these as descriptions of ancient cosmology in the photo, an immovable earth?

---

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

The Bible very clearly says that believers, specifically people who spread the word (evangelists or preachers) should be able to do these things.It says that belief is the only requirement.It doesn't say anything more than that.It doesn't say "only back in the day will we see these things".It doesn't say "only people in remote places will be able to do these things".It doesn't say that "we will only see such things occasionally. and they shall be rare events."YOU are putting all of that extra, non-biblical stuff on what is a very simple statement.But what about the following statement by Jesus: A straightforward, simple, nothing-added reading of this passage (and the whole chapter in which it is found) clearly states that Jesus expected to physically return before some of the people listening to him that day grew old and died.

Where does it say what?

Just to answer in general terms, rather than your whole post, the way people misuse the idea of a "literal" reading is why I usually say that I dislike the term "literal" and prefer the idea of reading it "normally" or "straightforwardly" or "the way it is written" etc. It is NOT right to require the idea of a "literal" reading to deny figurative readings where appropriate, but people do wrongly impose that idea on the word so I'd rather not use it.

It dosn't specify a limit to who the "beleivers" are. It says beleivers in general. Where are you getting that it ment beleivers back then?

What happens when you read "The Wizard of Oz" normally or straighforwardly? Or "Doctor Doolittle"?

I read it as interesting fiction. You can read fiction normally or straightforwardly too. It remains fiction when you do so. Just as history remains history when you read it normally or straightforwardly.

The context was Jesus' Great Commission, to take the gospel into all the world.This is not about literal vs metaphoric writing. It is a literal statement. I take it literally. I believe it was fulfilled. That is another kind of discussion, not for this thread.

wait, wait no. you're not getting off that easy. let's COMPARE the two.

quote:

---

Gilgamesh
"For one day and then a second day, Mount Nisir held the ship fast.
A third day and a fourth -- still the ship couldn't move.
A fifth day and a sixth passed by with no motion.

​

Genesis
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

---

quote:

---

Gilgamesh
"On the seventh day I set a dove free in the air.
The dove flew away but then came back.
She couldn't see a perch, so she turned around.

​

Genesis
And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

---

quote:

---

Gilgamesh
Then I set a swallow free in the air.
The swallow flew away but then came back.
She couldn't see a perch, so she turned around

​

Genesis
Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters [were] on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

---

quote:

---

Gilgamesh
Next I set a raven free in the air.
The raven flew away and saw that the waters were going down.
He ate, he circled, he cawed, but he never returned to me.

​

Genesis
And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth [was] an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

​

And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

---

judging from the direct comparison above, genesis has a good deal more fat on it that utnapishtim's tale in gilgamesh, doesn't it? where's the fourth bird in gilgamesh? where are the descriptions of specific actions, like sticking his hand forth to catch the dove?

---

אָרַח

i think this is the difference, really. i've seen a good many literalists compromise the literal meaning of the bible for it to be literally true. personally, i'm more of a literalist than that. i believe the stories should be read literally, as a basis for founding the more complex symbolic meanings.but not over-literally of course. i'm not saying extended metaphors, parables, idioms, and whatnot don't exist within the bible -- they most certainly do. for instance, the entire book of jonah is probably a parable, but we can and should still read it in a literal manner to understand its symbolism. the problem is people getting caught up in whether or not it happened.the other problems are idioms, cultural context, and some of jesus's mystical speak, like in your example. obviously there are some things that are not strictly literal. we are not physically salt of the earth. the trick comes in how to recognize these things. and we recognize them the same way we would in english: practice. it's a bit harder here because we're not part of the culture.i guess what i mean by literal is that if it appears to be a story of a flood, it's probably a story abotu a flood. the bible is generally not coded. reading the bible literally myself, i completely accept that the bible describes a flat (as opposed spherical) earth, with a solid dome of the heavens overhead that holds the stars and the sun/moon, and keeps out the water. that's pretty much what genesis describes in the first chapter, and is consistent with every other culture of the area at the time.i don't have a fascination with making the bible RIGHT -- i accept that it says what it says, even if we know better now.

---

אָרַח

i actually agree with you here, faith.my problem is that the literalists are actually apologists. they're not for reading it in a straightforward way, they're for it being true in every respect, even if they have the change the meaning of a few words and bastardize all of modern science to do so.

---

אָרַח

sure, but. back on topic.suppose we're given a text and not told whether it's history, fiction, a collection of traditional narratives, parody, satire, or completely symbolic. how do we identify what kind of writing it is?

---

אָרַח

I would like an answer to my last question in Message 153.Do you, as a Bible Literalists (for lack of a better term), accept the examples in Message 70 as descriptions of the immovable earth of ancient cosmology (photo in link).This message has been edited by purpledawn, 10-02-2005 06:08 PM

---

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