Who decides – literal vs. non-literal in the Bible

[Zzyzx]

.
Who decides – literal vs. non-literal in the Bible

From a current thread:

Of course perhaps you are turning to the utterly absurd - and attempting to present the words as if they were meant to be literal.

Okay, I agree.

Let’s not take the words of the Bible literally – including those that describe supernatural entities and events.

I doubt that many Christians would agree – but would insist that SOME words of the Bible should be taken literally and some NOT taken literally. And, THEY get to decide which is which.

Does membership in the Christian Club grant people great powers of discernment? Literary and linguistic ability? Wisdom? Of course not. So why pretend to have special understanding of which words of the Bible are literal and which are not?



Questions for debate:

1) Identify the parts of the Bible that are literally true and those that are not literally true.

2) Is there any method of making the ‘literal / non-literal’ determination regarding Bible words that anyone can apply that is not a matter of opinion?

[Divine Insight]

Anyone with critical thinking skills can decide for themselves if what they are reading should be taken literally or figuratively.

Fine, if anyone can decide for themselves, then Christian apologists are in no position to be dictating to others which is which.

The whole literal versus non-literal issue in apologetics is nothing more than apologists refusing to acknowledge what actually written in the Bible because they know full well it makes absolutely no sense at all.

Plus, there an additional problem for the theists. Even if we allow that many of the things written in the Bible are nothing more than metaphors or false parables they still provide ample reasons to reject the Bible has having anything to do with a supposedly intelligent God.

The story of Adam and Eve - was it literally true? Or was it just a non-literal fable?

Well, it doesn't matter. Either way it still shows how ignorant the Bible is. Also, if it was just a non-literal fable then what would be the point of it? Did humans "really" fall from grace or was that just a fictional parable?

If you refuse to take it literally you end up with a theology that makes no sense.

The story of the Canaanites? - was it literally true? Or was it just a non-literal fable?

It makes no difference. Either way it still represents an extremely logical contradiction. So pretending that it could just be a metaphorical fable doesn't help.

The story of the Great Flood? Was it literally true? Or was it just a metaphorical fable?

It doesn't matter. Either way the same problems contained within the stoory still exist.

Was every thought of man evil? If this was only a metaphor then what's the point of the metaphor if the thing the metaphor is referring to never happened?

Was God truly upset that he had ever created man and repented that he had ever done it? Reality, or metaphor doesn't seem to make much difference here. Either way the story is highly problematic.

Was there really an old man who God instructed to build an Ark, and was the entire world flooded to where even pairs of animals needed to be saved to replenish the world later?

If it didn't happen in reality, then what exactly is the point of this ridiculous fable? What would be the point of the fable if it never happened?

All the theist would be suggesting at this point is that the Bible is a collection of myths that never happened and therefore have no meaningful value.

What about the Virgin Birth of Jesus? Was this true? Or just another lying metaphor?

How can we trust the "Holy Bible" if it's filled with nothing ore than false fables?

What about God speaking from the clouds to proclaim that Jesus is his Son? Did that really happen? Or just another lying metaphor?

If it's just a metaphor then exactly what is it supposed to be trying to say. What's the analogy? If God didn't speak from the clouds to proclaim that Jesus is his son, then exactly what is this metaphor supposed to be telling us?

The Resurrection of Jesus? Did it really happen? Or was it just a metaphor?

Clearly this is one place where the Christian theists are going to demand a literal Bible. They can't afford to allow this to become just a metaphor.

The Ascension of Jesus to sit at the Right-hand of God? Did it really happen? Or was it just a metaphor?

If it really happened then Christianity is necessarily a polytheistic religion since a single monotheistic God could hardly be sitting beside himself.

And if it's yet another silly metaphor then what's the point to it.

The apologetics excuse that the Bible must be dismissed as mere metaphors in some places yet must be taken literally in others is nothing more than an apologetic crutch designed by theists to try to hide the fact that their Bible makes no sense.

But it doesn't work. Even if we allow that many of these tales are nothing more than false metaphors it doesn't help anything. Even as metaphors they end up being utterly absurd and meaningless.

If you are a theist and you are buying into these apologetic excuses for this religion you really need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. You'll soon discover that you are being taken for a ride.

[Clownboat]

I'm pretty sure no one actually thinks that Christ was referring to literal wolves wearing sheep's clothing.

Do you think it was possible that he was referring to those that claim to hear and speak on his behalf (proclaim) as the wolves leading the sheep astray?

Perhaps he knew there would be future Joseph Smiths and countless others (even here on this site). Perhaps some of these people actually aren't even aware they are the wolves Jesus was referring to that are leading the sheep astray?

If for some reason someone was uncertain, Christ specifically refers to false prophets as wolves in sheep's clothing:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

proph·et
/ˈpräfət/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.

Those I refer to that claim to hear from God could be the false proclaimers (prophets) that Jesus was referring to.

Perhaps the kingdom of heaven (whatever that actually means) is really within us like claimed in the Bible and all those proclaimers of a gods will are the wolves?

[tam]

May you have peace,

[Replying to post 6 by Zzyzx]

[Replying to post 12 by Clownboat]




I find it somewhat ironic that the two of you are accusing me (lets not play games) of being a false anything. Considering the fact that the OP took a quote of mine out of context, and then falsely implied that I meant we should take nothing in the bible literally.





Peace again to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

1) Identify the parts of the Bible that are literally true and those that are not literally true.

2) Is there any method of making the ‘literal / non-literal’ determination regarding Bible words that anyone can apply that is not a matter of opinion?

Bits, like Matthew's infamous claim that holy corpses walked to Jerusalem are of course figurative. The rule is possibly when something leads us to laugh uproariously, then that is not a literal account. The genealogy of Jesus being an absurdity is an example of the use of poetry to laud Jesus. Voices from heaven screaming; "That's my boy!" are of course background music.

The method adopted in RC circles, having the Pope ask Jesus for guidance, is the only known way to get round disputes. Jesus said: "When you ask me, I'll tell you exactly how it should be," or words to that effect involving the gates of hell never prevailing. Sadly in real life Jesus never stated exactly how it should be: instead he spoke of mustard seeds, foolish virgins, mansions, camels, sheep and shepherds, making us none the wiser.

It might be reasonable to regard everything from page one to the final amen as figurative. That would figure.

[Tcg]

Bits, like Matthew's infamous claim that holy corpses walked to Jerusalem are of course figurative. The rule is possibly when something leads us to laugh uproariously, then that is not a literal account.

By literal account, do you mean something that actually happened or something the author intended to be taken as something that actually happened.

In other words, would the author of Matthew have laughed uproariously as he penned these words, or did he think it was a factual account of an actual event?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

Questions for debate:

1) Identify the parts of the Bible that are literally true and those that are not literally true.

The whole literal versus non-literal issue in apologetics is nothing more than apologists refusing to acknowledge what actually written in the Bible ......

Are you suggesting the is absolutely nothing, not one sentence or word in the bible that should be taken literally*? Everything, Jerusalem, the river Tigress, Cesar Augustus, is all figurative? Or conversely If you hold everything is literal does that not mean Ceasar Augustus (mentioned in the bible) is a made up fictional character, the figment of Luke's imagination? If neither of the above, do not yourself as a reader, make a decision about what is literal* and what is not? If it is permissible for you to do that, why not a believer?

You may draw the line in different places but you still draw the line.

* I cannot be bothered with a discussion as to whether literally is being used in the OP (a) "the ordinary or primary meaning" or as in (b) "acturally" /"in a completely accurate way" . I am taking it to be (a) ie in contrast to figurative, allegorical or symbolic

[SallyF]

I think we need a good, solid, Bible class example to work with right here …

Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.�

9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. (We ALL know where that is from.)

So …

How do we determine what is literal and what is not in this tale …?

I'm going to start the ball rolling with a picture of coins mentioning Herod the Great:



From Bible History Online, no less https://www.bible-history.com/herod_the ... DCoins.htm

I have a high level of confidence in a literal Herod the Great, based on independently verifiable evidence.

We can take Herod literally.

But what about the star that was scurrying around the Middle East …?




Coupla thousand years ago we certainly WOULD have taken the guiding star literally.

I suggest it was WRITTEN so that the everyday folks would take it literally.

Coupla generations ago, most Christians believed they were literally dealing with the "Word of God".

Quite a dilemma here.

We now know there cannot have been a literal star guiding oriental kings to the manger of the future Human Sacrifice for the Sins of All Mankind.

But we can't just admit that that part of the "Word of God" was written by Judean hillbillies PRETENDING they were writing the word of their local deity, and they didn't know any better when it came to astronomy.

We cling on to literal until it becomes an embarrassment ...

And then we toss it over the side of the belief balloon ...

And call it figurative.

There not much "literal" left in a lot of belief balloons these days.

And a lack of literal means a whole lot more of PRETEND has taken its place.

[Difflugia]

Bits, like Matthew's infamous claim that holy corpses walked to Jerusalem are of course figurative.

This is the stuff that keeps leading me toward full-blown Jesus mythicism.

Matthew's whole infancy was written to make Jesus into Moses. It's so transparent that I have to believe that Matthew intended it to be. But if so, at least one important detail of Matthew's Gospel was meant by the author to be read as allegory by the audience. Is that how Mark intended his Gospel, as well? Did Matthew know that and that's why he felt so free to change details to the point of conflicting with Mark?

A related, weird detail of Matthew that has occupied me for a few years is the wording of 27:62, right after the crucifixion:

The next day, that is, after the Preparation...

The day after the Preparation is the Sabbath. Why didn't Matthew just say "the day of the Sabbath"? This wording comes from Mark 15:42, which is the only verse in Mark that anchors the crucifixion to a day of the week:

And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honorable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.

Matthew removed the bolded phrase from his corresponding verse 27:57 and moved it a paragraph down and a day later, apparently adding the word "after". I think what happened is that Matthew actually moved the day of the crucifixion from Friday to Thursday by moving the Preparation day forward a paragraph, but a later scribe added "after" to bring it back in line with Mark and Luke. The reason Matthew did this is that it gives him his three days and three nights from 12:40 (Mark and Luke just say "on the third day" which matches Friday-Sunday).

Why that's important for this conversation is that if that's what happened, Matthew feels justified in changing the day that the crucifixion happened. I don't think Matthew would have done that to a narrative that he knew was historical. I think the details of the crucifixion were already allegorical in Mark (as midrash on Psalm 22) and Christians of the day, Matthew included, knew that.

Now, I'll admit that's speculative, but it leaves me wondering if there's any history there at all.

There are days that I think that the only Jesus that wasn't fully allegorical was Paul's, but Paul was crazy.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

CONTEXT

- is does the writer speaker introduce the words as a parable, illustration?
- does the passage contain the structural patterns of poetry?
- is information presented within a historical context (date, literal location, ect)
- are the characters presented as real (parentage)

CONTENT

- does the passage make sense if taken literally ie does it harmonize with proven science, historical fact,
- does it harmonize with the rest of scripture if take literally/figuratively

That’s a promising list of criteria to work with, so thanks for offering it. Just for interest, where did you find it?

Some of my thoughts and opinions:

First considering context, especially the first two criteria, I would suggest that one could run into difficulties when taking into account different translations. A modern translation might (hypothetically) have a different ‘tone’ that misses the original poetic intent of the original Greek, for example. I have no specialist knowledge in this area, but can easily imagine an expert could likely determine whether a particular passage met either criteria.

For ‘historical’ context and parentage, I see that as being somewhat clearer to determine, as a reasonable proportion of the bible deals specifically with historical events and lineages. Whether the historical facts are accurate or not is not being debated here. I’m comfortable with the idea that books like Exodus are generally to be taken literally.

A separate issue: writings of a ‘legal/custom’ context run into the problem of whether biblical commands to keep certain laws should remain unaltered (the literal view) in modern society, or be adapted or ignored. Much of Leviticus, for example. Papal infallibility would seem to address these matters quite satisfactorily, but only for the Roman Catholic denomination. Other Christian groups might ‘decide’ on different modern meanings of the same laws.

On content, “does it harmonize with proven science, historical fact� seems to be both the easiest and the hardest aspect to judge. The reluctance of the church to accept proven science when it contradicts scripture is well-documented (Galileo, Darwin), plus there are enough phenomena in the bible that science would judge as metaphysical or pure myth and so technically unfalsifiable (e.g. heaven and hell, souls) to allow some slight ‘wiggle room’ for a literal interpretation to remain.

For the ‘diehard’ Christian literalist, of course just about anything that science proves impossible can be countered with an appeal to divine omnipotence.

Where does this leave us? Short of the Pope taking a pair of coloured highlighters and going through the bible, marking each literal passage in green, and each figurative passage in orange, I support the view that we do not have a reliable (agreed upon) method of determining literal from figurative.

That’s why I did really like this comment by SallyF, which to me encapsulates the reality:

We cling on to literal until it becomes an embarrassment ...

And then we toss it over the side of the belief balloon ...

And call it figurative.

[Divine Insight]

Are you suggesting the is absolutely nothing, not one sentence or word in the bible that should be taken literally*?

Please go back and actually read my post before making up strawman accusations.

My position is that it doesn't matter whether things are taking literally or not the Bible still makes no sense and is filled with contradictions.

And besides, it's the theists who want to claim that things shouldn't be taken literally. And they only do that regarding stuff they don't like. If they like what the Bible says then they argue that those parts should be taken literally.

And by the way JW, you aren't the one who created this kind of apologetic scam. Instead you are defending this type of nonsense.

I suggest that you should call out those people who convinced you to accept this nonsense. You keep posting links to the JW Watchtower. But that magazine is nothing but religious propaganda. Very poorly written propaganda as well. The vast majority of things they claim in their magazine have already been well debunked. They continue to remain an active religion (barely) precisely because they are able to find people who will fall for this stuff and not challenge it.

As I said in my previous post. Even if we allow that large sections of the Bible are nothing more than false fables it doesn't help. Even as false fables they make no sense. How can you not see that?

If the story of Adam and Eve is just a false fable, then who fell from grace?

If it's just a "metaphor" that "the wages of sin is death" then why did Jesus need to die to pay for the sin of men? Or is that just yet another silly metaphor? Where does it end?

And what about the story of Jesus? How much of that story is just metaphorical and how much is real? Did Jesus actually heal anyone? Or were stories all just metaphors not to be taken literally?

Did Jesus really cast evil spirits out of humans and into pigs? Of was this just another mythical fable?

And even if it was a mythical fable why cast the demons into pigs? What would be the point of that story?

If you need to rely on things being non-literal in order for the Bible to make any sense then you already have an indefensible theology.