Biblical Literalism: Can it be true yet symbolic?

Can the Bible be true in an absolute sense while still remaining symbolic and allegorical? I DO believe that Jesus is alive today and that He is more than a historical construct. I DON't believe in a 6000 year old earth, a global flood, or a literal Methuselah who lived 969 years. (Well, Methuselah may have been a literal person but he did not live 969 years.)This message has been edited by Phat, 10-08-2005 01:47 PM

---

A youth is a person who is going to carry on what you have started. He will assume control of your cities, states, and nations. He is going to take over your churches, schools, and corporations. You may adopt all the policies you please, but how they are carried out depends on him. So it might be well to pay him some attention. In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death, In years that bring the philosophic mind.--- Wordsworth

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Yes, it can.
I often see references to "The adventures of Sherlock Holmes" and to "Alice in Wonderland", because of the great truths they contain. Although both are fictions, I don't recall hearing anybody claim that either book is false.I don't see any reason that the Bible could not equally contain great truths, even though parts are allegorical.

quote:

---

I often see references to "The adventures of Sherlock Holmes" and to "Alice in Wonderland", because of the great truths they contain.

---

IMO there is a difference between a book being true and a book containing truths.

quote:

---

Although both are fictions, I don't recall hearing anybody claim that either book is false.

---

I don't recall anyone claiming they were actual events either.No one that I know of denies that myths, parables, fairytales, nursery rhymes, stories, etc. contain truths (being in agreement with reality or facts). They are the entertaining ways we teach our children values, culture, etc.Even though all the stories in the Bible are not necessarily true, there are many truths in the stories of the Bible.

---

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

quote:

---

Can the Bible be true in an absolute sense

---

What do you mean by true in an absolute sense?

---

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

I'll get back to you on this one....it may take me awhile to define the definition myself! For now, though I'll ask this question: Which came first? The One whom made us? Who created us? Who defined our parameters?Or did we come first and invent the stories...the myths...the fables....and the parables?Were we chosen and created? (Think outside of the book for these answers...do not let the book limit its own philosophy through legalistic trickery.)This message has been edited by Phat, 10-09-2005 07:25 AM

---

A youth is a person who is going to carry on what you have started. He will assume control of your cities, states, and nations. He is going to take over your churches, schools, and corporations. You may adopt all the policies you please, but how they are carried out depends on him. So it might be well to pay him some attention. In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death, In years that bring the philosophic mind.--- Wordsworth

Assumming there was a creator... well, we came first I mean, if there was a creator he kicked it off back at the primordial soup, so that means we humans got our smarts some 1.5-1 million years ago. If that's the case, then we made it up.That is, if this assumed creator didn't have any sort of devine input along the way.

Assuming that there was not a Creator, Life=soup=simmer=millions of years=evolution=you and me here and now. Where do we go from here?My input:Biblical Literalism can be limiting to human understanding. Now...philosophically, this gets back to Origins.Assuming God DOES exist,(which I do! )
does this mean that the Bible should be taken literally(in a symbolic sense), or do we just junk the Bible and approach God through prayer, meditation, and communion in His name with other people? In other words, Parables are a symbol of Gods interaction with humanity.Literal means real. That the idea really happened. That the story you are about to read is true. The events and the names were changed to protect the innocent.Contrast with the definition of Fable vs Parable. Lets ask ourselves another question:Is truth by definition always a human construct?The alternative belief would assert that truth is alive, personal, and independant of human wisdom and imagination.Biblical Symbolism would be a better way to define the direction of this thread.This message has been edited by Phat, 10-09-2005 08:16 AM

Assuming God Existis...His presence would be self evident and pervasive. This means not only the bible will have truth, but all works in contemplation of him and his nature. In other words, truths would resound thrughout the world in every text and faccet of nature.Why not? I don't think God is the type of guy to give exclusive rights to a tribe of dirty nomads. I would imagine the true God (I'm still open to the possibility) would be so far beyond human conceptions that we are lucky to have even the littlest smidge of an inkling concerning his nature.

Good points! I can't argue with you there! The only way that we can ever hope to understand God is for God to inform us of what is versus what we think is.

Are those the only alternatives you can think of? That's a very loose definition of "literal".I wouldn't say that a story is literally true if only the idea of it really happenened. I would say it is literally true only if the events and names were presented exactly.A literal story can have symbolic content. But if a story is not literally true, then it is not literally true.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

The OP started with a quote, that began: I take that as indicating that the source was anonymous. It is my intention, in this post, to question that opening quote. It begins: To me, this seems incorrect. Surely there is some literalism, but it does not seem pervasive. Literalism is perhaps most pronounced in the creationist literalism of some fundamentalist religious groups. But that kind of literalism appears to be a relatively modern invention.There is some literalism elsewhere, judicial literalism being one example. But even there, I don't see a lot of it. Courts mainly seem to emphasize intentions of the law makers over a literalist rendering of the wording of the statutes. There is some literalism in bureaucracies, but that was always so. It is of the nature of bureaucracy. Yet even there, I do not find it a pronounced problem. This statement surprises me, for it is far from my experience. By its nature, mathematics is pedantic with respect to formal expression. But most mathematicians are informal and far from pedantic in non-mathematical ordinary life. Scientists overall, are mostly pragmatic, and that makes them far from pedantic. They are fussy about methodology, not about linguistic expression. To be sure, they are careful when discussing methodology, and perhaps that can seem pedantic. But I don't see any carry over to pedantry in their ordinary lives. Now there's a switch. After attributing the problem to science, the anonymous author seems to say that it is to be found mainly in the humanities.I don't spend a lot of time in the humanities classroom, so it is hard to comment on this. I do sometimes wonder if the humanities are trying too hard to emulate the rigorous standards of the sciences, when they attempt to evaluate scholarly work in their own fields. But I have never thought the problem serious enough to be considered pervasive. It has always been so. But why not say it as "Students have difficulty in thinking, feeling and expressing themselves." What does that word "symbolically" add? These are, after all, students. They are still learning. We should not expect them to be professionals at self-expression. That might be our aim for them by the time they graduate, but it is not our expectation of them as students.

Yaro, does this mean that you have a preference towards believing in Deism? I would assert that God came first, assuming again that He created the Universe and the planets and the elements necessary to allow for the existance of the primordial "soup".Of course, a Deist can "kick back" and discuss God philosophically...musing about how He is a result of human wisdom and understanding. Its all symbolic of the evolutionary advance in human comprehension, right? (

Hmmmm...Well, I don't belive in a god. But that's because I don't see any evidence for any of the gods man has proposed. I belive there could be a god, but that none of us has posited a god that actualy exists 100% as described.I would think a real god would be more Pantheistic than Deistic. I think the universe itself would be god in a sense. I don't think a god would "bring things into being" or "make things" or "create", I think a god would be being itself.In other words, everything in existance is a manifestation of that god. We, in a sense, are an aspect of god.

Hi, Yaro! Its a bit early in the day for me, so at this point all I can do is to google you a link or two.
Based on your response, this link from the University of Pheonix seems to open up the concept of Pantheism a bit. It is easy for me to discuss monotheism with "believers" because we all think and assume fairly much alike. This link explains a bit how we may think, although I dunno if any link can describe my own personal weirdness! This message has been edited by Phat, 11-11-2005 08:25 AM

---

A youth is a person who is going to carry on what you have started. He will assume control of your cities, states, and nations. He is going to take over your churches, schools, and corporations. You may adopt all the policies you please, but how they are carried out depends on him. So it might be well to pay him some attention. A road is a flattened-out wheel, rolled up in the belly of an airplane