The Bible: Literal or Figurative

[Nickman]

Was the Bible originally literal or figurative? Or a mixture of both?

If you claim one way or the other, what is your reasoning behind your conclusion?

I think that it was literal, but today we have changed that idea in the face of obvious discrepancies with a literal interpretation vs reality. As we go back into history, we see that superstition rises. There is no reason to think that the authors of these ancient texts considered them to be anything but literal. Or I could be wrong. What say you?

[Nickman]

It matters because it was originally written with a specific intent. Was that literal or otherwise? This is a valuable question. How does one decide? And if we say it doesn't matter, we dismiss the author's intent and miss the entire meaning.

How is the intent lost and how do you miss the entire meaning if you decide its literal instead of figurative or vice-versa?

For instance whether I understand the story literally or figuratively I can still gather the following things from Genesis:

God is the creator of the universe
God is a God of order and not chaos
Human beings are distinct from other creatures on earth, in particular as we carry the image of God
Work is intrinsically valuable
Rest is important
The created world is intrinsically good
Human beings have a special responsibility to be stewards of this planet
Human beings have made a decision to rebel from their Creator and try and become autonomous agents

I would agree with you that you will draw out different nuances if you understand the text allegorically rather than literally, but the essentials will be the same.

For most of Jewish and Christian thought, the account of Genesis has been understood allegorically see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorica ... of_Genesis

But if Adam and Eve are figurative and not literal, this would diminish the Gospel message because sin entered by one man, according to Paul's gospel. So understanding the intent of the author is tantamount.

[The Me's]

But if Adam and Eve are figurative and not literal, this would diminish the Gospel message because sin entered by one man, according to Paul's gospel. So understanding the intent of the author is tantamount.

Adam and Eve can easily be figurative in Genesis 2-3 and literal in Genesis 4-5.

Jesus once told a parable about Lazarus and the Rich man, obviously figurative. He then sat down to dinner with Lazarus and his two sisters, Mary and Martha.

(Genesis 5 is not a genealogy, it's a legal document. It does not contain the names of all the children but only one per generation with a birthright. We may therefore assume that the writer intended Adam and Eve to be someone's grandsires. Genesis 10 is an attempt at genealogy.)

[Nickman]

But if Adam and Eve are figurative and not literal, this would diminish the Gospel message because sin entered by one man, according to Paul's gospel. So understanding the intent of the author is tantamount.

Adam and Eve can easily be figurative in Genesis 2-3 and literal in Genesis 4-5.

Jesus once told a parable about Lazarus and the Rich man, obviously figurative. He then sat down to dinner with Lazarus and his two sisters, Mary and Martha.

(Genesis 5 is not a genealogy, it's a legal document. It does not contain the names of all the children but only one per generation with a birthright. We may therefore assume that the writer intended Adam and Eve to be someone's grandsires. Genesis 10 is an attempt at genealogy.)

You will have to explain this;
Luke 3:
23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josek, the son of Joda,

27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,

33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

We also have Paul speaking about Adam and how sin entered through him and was past on to all men.

[bluethread]

But if Adam and Eve are figurative and not literal, this would diminish the Gospel message because sin entered by one man, according to Paul's gospel. So understanding the intent of the author is tantamount.

Paul is not making a scientific or mathematical argument, he is making an argument based on a common understanding. As are the Apostolic genealogies. A poster stated that literalism is a relatively modern practice. I concur to a degree, not because it is a fundamentalist construct, but because it is a modern construct.

Prior to the scientific age, the lines between myth(explanation without empirical evidence) and one's world view were not so clearly defined. In fact, in practice, those lines are not as clearly defined today as some people propose. Most of the things in our lives are not verified empirically, but are accepted without empirical evidence, even if someone somewhere may have verified them empirically. We generally work off of generally accepted social constructs, as the people did in the times that the Scriptures were written. We just more often presume empirical constructs, while their constructs tended to be centered more around social structure and continuity.

[Nickman]

But if Adam and Eve are figurative and not literal, this would diminish the Gospel message because sin entered by one man, according to Paul's gospel. So understanding the intent of the author is tantamount.

Paul is not making a scientific or mathematical argument, he is making an argument based on a common understanding. As are the Apostolic genealogies. A poster stated that literalism is a relatively modern practice. I concur to a degree, not because it is a fundamentalist construct, but because it is a modern construct.

Prior to the scientific age, the lines between myth(explanation without empirical evidence) and one's world view were not so clearly defined. In fact, in practice, those lines are not as clearly defined today as some people propose. Most of the things in our lives are not verified empirically, but are accepted without empirical evidence, even if someone somewhere may have verified them empirically. We generally work off of generally accepted social constructs, as the people did in the times that the Scriptures were written. We just more often presume empirical constructs, while their constructs tended to be centered more around social structure and continuity.

But you don't make a genealogy about someone you are speaking figuratively about. That is pointless. Luke made a genealogy to trace Jesus back to a supposed real life human being, did he not? Or was he wrong? Paul follows the same logic and both Luke and Paul are in agreement.

[Zzyzx]

whether I understand the story literally or figuratively I can still gather the following things from Genesis:

God is the creator of the universe
God is a God of order and not chaos
Human beings are distinct from other creatures on earth, in particular as we carry the image of God
Work is intrinsically valuable
Rest is important
The created world is intrinsically good
Human beings have a special responsibility to be stewards of this planet
Human beings have made a decision to rebel from their Creator and try and become autonomous agents

I would agree with you that you will draw out different nuances if you understand the text allegorically rather than literally, but the essentials will be the same.

Even if the words were literal, what poor and limited (nearly useless) advice attributed to an omniscient being addressing his supposed creation. Far more useful would be, "wash your hands, cook food thoroughly, boil questionable drinking water" (thereby helping prevent untold needless suffering and death).

If the words are figurative (defined as: departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical), they can be taken to mean a wide range of things depending on the intent of the speaker / writer.

Who wrote Genesis? Tradition says it was Moses. Scholars and theologians say it was several different people at different times over centuries.

If (since) the identity of writers is unknown or disputed, their intent can only be guessed.

[The Me's]

[Replying to Nickman]

You will have to explain this

Explain what?

I think I can provide both physical and scriptural evidence that we are the direct (genetic) offspring of God, and I think I can also prove with physical and scriptural evidence that we're all sinners.

Was that what you wanted?

(Or do you want me to show you through literary evidence how Genesis 2-3 was very likely intended to be taken as figurative by the original writer?)

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 27:

[quote="The Me's"]
I think I can provide both physical and scriptural evidence that we are the direct (genetic) offspring of God, and I think I can also prove with physical and scriptural evidence that we're all sinners.

Here ya go:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24879

[Zzyzx]

I think I can provide both physical and scriptural evidence that we are the direct (genetic) offspring of God

Kindly present physical evidence that "that we are the direct (genetic) offspring of God" in the thread Joey opened.

[Nickman]

[Replying to Nickman]

You will have to explain this

Explain what?

I think I can provide both physical and scriptural evidence that we are the direct (genetic) offspring of God, and I think I can also prove with physical and scriptural evidence that we're all sinners.

Was that what you wanted?

(Or do you want me to show you through literary evidence how Genesis 2-3 was very likely intended to be taken as figurative by the original writer?)

Please show me how Genesis was intended to be figurative when the author made genealogies by listing children, parents, and cousins. Please explain how Genesis is figurative when the author applies an age to Adam (930) in chapter 5. Please explain how Genesis is figurative when the author lists his children, then their children, their their children.

That is not how figurative works. Figu active language uses simile, personification, metaphor, onomatopia, idiom, and pun. Please provide one example of this in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve.