Interpreting the Bible

[Bugmaster]

(I'm probably pushing the limits of this subforum with this topic, sorry if that's the case)

When a Christian reads the Bible, how does he know which parts are metaphor, and which parts are literally true ?

One possible answer to this question is, "everything is literally true", but I think most of us here will agree that the Earth is not covered by a crystalline dome, and thus most people probably wouldn't choose this route.

Another possible answer is, "everything that does not contradict common sense and our knowledge of the world is literally true". The problem with this approach is that the authority of the Bible shrinks as our knowledge grows; in fact, this relegates the Bible to a secondary position. The Bible becomes inferior to science.

A variation of the above is, "the Bible is only an authority on moral issues, not epistemological ones". Unfortunately, it suffers from similar problems. Our moral have changed significantly since Jesus's days -- on the one hand, slavery is no longer seen as acceptable; on the other hand, we now have to deal with brand-new issues such as cloning, pollution control, and free speech on the Internet, which were unheard of in Jesus's days. Additionally, this answer still begs the question: why is it that the Bible is only an authority on moral issues ? What's the basis for this decision ?

Another answer I've heard before is, "only through meticulous analysis and cross-referencing of Greek, Hebrew, Arameic, and other texts, can we arrive at the true meaning of the Bible". However, this renders the Bible completely inaccessible to most people, and it doesn't really answer the question. How do you know which Arameic passages are metaphorical ?

Finally, a perfectly viable answer is, "my faith tells me which parts of the Bible are literally true, through divine revelation". The only problem with this answer is that faith cannot be communicated, so there's no way for two people with different faiths (Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Mormon, etc.) to ever agree on one Biblical interpretation.

So... is there a more satisfactory solution to this problem ? Or, as Jose puts it:

Some denominations interpret the Bible more as a literal text, while others interpret it more metaphorically. How do you make the distinction between literal and metaphorical interpretation?

[youngborean]

I think you would start with texts that are obviously metaphors or symbolic.

Ok, but which passages are obviously symbolic ? What may be symbolic to one person may be literal to another. For example, consider that whole
"though shalt not boil the kid in its mother's milk" thing. Jews interpret that as, "don't eat meat with milk". Christians interpret it as a metaphor for something or other. Who is right ?

I stated Prophetic or poetic passages to begin with. The example you gave is a Jewish fence law. The rabbis made laws so that they would ensure they never disobeyed a precept in the OT. I really don't see a conflict in the example you cited. An obvious example to me is the Woman Babylon in Revelation who "sits on seven hills". I have never seen a woman that big so I would say that was symbolic.

[Bugmaster]

I stated Prophetic or poetic passages to begin with. The example you gave is a Jewish fence law. The rabbis made laws so that they would ensure they never disobeyed a precept in the OT.

I'm sure the rabbis would have a different story to tell if we asked them about this law.

An obvious example to me is the Woman Babylon in Revelation who "sits on seven hills". I have never seen a woman that big so I would say that was symbolic.

Well, it's just as obvious to me that people can't walk on water, or part the seas, or transform water to wine, or rise from the dead. It's also obvious to me that bats are mammals, that our world is billions of years old, that there are tons of things (living things, even) smaller than the mustard seed, and that disobedient children should not be stoned to death -- etc., etc.

Does this mean that pretty much all of the Bible is symbolic ? That can't be right

[Jose]

Am I correct, then, in thinking that "literal" for a loose-literalist would, in this case, be "metaphor" for a strict-literalist?

The "strict literalist" would not see it as a metaphor, hence the "unimaginative" portion of the definition. The "loose literalist" would see it as a metaphor, and their ensuing interpretation of it would be a "literalist" interpretation.

So...the strict literalist sees "real beast" but perhaps applies it metaphorically, while the loose literalist sees "metaphorical beast" and applies that literally. This seems to become sort of a metaphorical literalism, does it not?

Wordplay aside, the question still remains how one is to decide which bits to interpret metaphorically.

But doesn't this invoke the notion of the bible having been written in this historical/cultural context?

Yes.

The problem here is that a subset of literalists seem to insist that the bible is god's word, not written for a specific audience with their specific scientific understanding built in. How do we reconcile this flavor of literalism with the actual text?

For example, my "standard puzzle" of the Flood destroying "every living thing" but then having living olive trees after the Flood, is often justified by saying that at that time, the cultural tradition was that only animals were alive. This is fine if we consider either (1) the bible was actually written by the people of that time, or (2) god presented it in the language that people of the time could understand.

It could well be (1) and (2). Both can fit into the mold of a "loose literalist."

What about the strict literalists--the ones who insist that the bible says what it says and it's plainly True? Hmm...#1 is the Work-of-Man model, in which the bible is the collected tribal wisdom of the people whose oral history it is. As such, it is not handed down by god, but a story about being handed down by god. There are those who accept this as being the most plausible explanation, but these tend not to be literalists so far as I know. #2 is more acceptable to those who consider it to be god's word.

Even the most conservative fundamentalist often accept some degree of loose literalism, whether they say so or not. They do tend to be inconsistent in their application though.

How does one justify this stance?

It gets at the heart of the Opening Post: how do we know what's supposed to be "strictly literal" vs ... somewhat more fuzzy? From my own viewpoint--the interest of which is decreasing the intensity of the science vs religion debate--this is a Big Issue. From the science side, I'm on solid ground, and know what's going on. From the biblical side, I'm rather less knowledgeable...which kinda decreases my credibility when the discussion turns to the matter of biblical interpretation.

It can be a difficult task. This is why literary genres are so important to the interpretational task. And the complexity of the task is why those who work in the field are still refining and expanding our knowledge regarding the meanings of texts....

You speak of the biblical scholars who are open to discussing nuances of interpretation. They tend not to be the ones who speak the loudest in the science vs religion debates. Rather, the ones who argue most strongly tend to be those who adhere religiously (shall we say) to a particular, dogmatic viewpoint. As you have said, theirs is a strict literalism that isn't quite strictly literal, and is unevenly applied. What rules do they apply in deciding what's "literal" and what's not?

[theleftone]

Am I correct, then, in thinking that "literal" for a loose-literalist would, in this case, be "metaphor" for a strict-literalist?

The "strict literalist" would not see it as a metaphor, hence the "unimaginative" portion of the definition. The "loose literalist" would see it as a metaphor, and their ensuing interpretation of it would be a "literalist" interpretation.

So...the strict literalist sees "real beast" but perhaps applies it metaphorically, while the loose literalist sees "metaphorical beast" and applies that literally. This seems to become sort of a metaphorical literalism, does it not?

I have done a poor job in communicating the differences, so I'll try a different approach.

The entry on literalism I provided, coming from the Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, provides two distinct definitions of what literalism means. The first -- called by myself, "strict literalist" -- approach the interpretation of the Bible in a grammatical manner. This means they take the words used, put them together, and come to an understanding of the the words in the sentence mean. If the strict literalist were to hear the phrase, "Sue has cold feet," they would think Sue actually has feet which a cold. The second -- called "loose literalist" -- approach interpretation using historical context, grammar, literary genre, etc. This means they can understand things by taking into consideration "outside" things. For them, the phrase, "Sue has cold feet," would mean Sue is unsure about something.

Thus, in the case of the beast in apocalyptic literature, the strict literalist would understand it to mean an actual physical beast, while the loose literalist could see it as a metaphor or symbol for say a particular nation or collection of nations.

Wordplay aside, the question still remains how one is to decide which bits to interpret metaphorically.

The primary method would be to understand literary genres. We don't read poetry the same way we read narrative. We don't read personal letters the same way we read apocalyptic literature. By read here, I mean using specific interpretational principles. This is obviously easy to do with some passages/books, and not so much with others. Are Jesus' parables actual literal stories, or are they simply fictional stories designed to make a point? Even the opening chapters of Genesis fall into this debate. Some call it poetry, others narrative, still others some kind of quasi-narrative/poetry.

The secondary method would be understanding the historical/cultural/geographical context of the work. What were the living conditions like for the writer and/or recipients/readers? What was the political situation? What was the geography of the land? What were common word-plays used in the Hebrew language? What were common idioms? Was "this" statement similar to our "Sue has cold feet?" And so on.

But doesn't this invoke the notion of the bible having been written in this historical/cultural context?

Yes.

The problem here is that a subset of literalists seem to insist that the bible is god's word, not written for a specific audience with their specific scientific understanding built in. How do we reconcile this flavor of literalism with the actual text?

To be honest, I have no idea. I have never actually met anyone who believes the Bible was not written for a specific audience. I have met those who realize it was written to a specific audience(s), but can be accepted, understand, and applied to others outside the specific audiences. Thus, I would have no idea how they or we could reconcile it with the text.

For example, my "standard puzzle" of the Flood destroying "every living thing" but then having living olive trees after the Flood, is often justified by saying that at that time, the cultural tradition was that only animals were alive. This is fine if we consider either (1) the bible was actually written by the people of that time, or (2) god presented it in the language that people of the time could understand.

It could well be (1) and (2). Both can fit into the mold of a "loose literalist."

What about the strict literalists--the ones who insist that the bible says what it says and it's plainly True? Hmm...#1 is the Work-of-Man model, in which the bible is the collected tribal wisdom of the people whose oral history it is. As such, it is not handed down by god, but a story about being handed down by god. There are those who accept this as being the most plausible explanation, but these tend not to be literalists so far as I know. #2 is more acceptable to those who consider it to be god's word.[/quote]
I don't think I understand what you're getting at here. Perhaps you can restate it in another manner.

Even the most conservative fundamentalist often accept some degree of loose literalism, whether they say so or not. They do tend to be inconsistent in their application though.

How does one justify this stance?

How does one justify that conservative fundamentalist take such an approach? Or does the conservative fundamentalist justify such an approach? To the latter, I would argue ignorance. They declare they take the "plain meaning," but in reality don't realize they are not always taking the plain meaning of every passage. To the former, I would appeal to my experience in dealing with KJV Onlyist.

You speak of the biblical scholars who are open to discussing nuances of interpretation. They tend not to be the ones who speak the loudest in the science vs religion debates. Rather, the ones who argue most strongly tend to be those who adhere religiously (shall we say) to a particular, dogmatic viewpoint. As you have said, theirs is a strict literalism that isn't quite strictly literal, and is unevenly applied. What rules do they apply in deciding what's "literal" and what's not?

I would say the latter are "pragmatic" in their approach. They use a plain understanding when it suits their argument, and a metaphorical one when it does not. I would argue their approach is not based on any established set of principles, but rather sets of revolving principles. Again, this is based on my experience with the KJV Only crowd. They are the closest to strict literalist I have met within the Christian community.

I realize my explanation of "loose literalism" sucks. So, I thought it might be good to recommend some links.

1. J. I. Packer provides a brief summation.
2. Kenneth Boa makes a few comments on principles.
3. J. Hampton Keathley, III also comments on a few principles of the methodology.

[Jose]

tselem--

I am puzzling over this in an effort to understand the folks who are probably the KJV-Only crowd, with the overall question of whether it is possible to discuss the literal/metaphorical issue without hitting a brick wall. It helps to see how other groups grapple with the meanings of the text. It would really help to get inside the mind of someone, but alas (or fortunately), we haven't the technology to do that.

You've done a great job of communicating your explanations, but perhaps I haven't done such a great job of asking my questions. Maybe part of the difficulty is that the decision of what to consider "literal" is made at the level of individual opinion, and is often based on emotion rather than well-articulated logic. Certainly, different denominations have different overall rules about the extent to which it is appropriate to read the bible in a poetic sense rather than a literal one. Personally, I'd come down on the highly-poetic end of the scale. The KJV-Only's come down on the literal end, apparently.

I don't think I understand what you're getting at here. Perhaps you can restate it in another manner.

If we look at all of the world's origin stories, from Genesis to the ones we call "myths and legends" because they aren't our story, we see some common features. Most have some flavor of powerful being, whether god or Ant or Elephant or Raven. Most tend to be situated in a setting that is much like that of the people whose story it tells. Ant and Elephant are African; Raven is Arctic; Genesis speaks of wandering in the desert. Most tend to describe First Man and First Woman in one or another context, with the initial population increase being the result of incestuous relations that are later forbidden. Most tend to expand into recommendations or commandments for how to comport oneself in life, identifying that which is good and that which is bad, etc. But, again, this is contextual: Ant teaches us how to weave; others tell us how to build granaries; some tell us not to eat pork, how to tell clean animals from unclean, and not to wear cloth woven of different fibers.

The general consensus about these stories is that they are the local tribe's oral history. We generally think of this as being true for everyone else's story, and consider our own story to be the true history of the world. According to this logic, the bible, like other such stories, has its origins in the myths and legends of a particular tribe, and is entirely a human construct. According to this logic, the concept of god is a human construct.

Needless to say, this doesn't sit well with the KJV-Only's. It doesn't sit too well with anyone who considers the bible to be the actual word of god, and to be fundamentally different from other people's religious texts (re-named myths). But, it is not only likely from a sociological perspective (people do things like this), but it offers obvious explanations for the scientific inaccuracies expressed in the bible (such as olive trees not being "living things").

We can wiggle out of this explanation by saying that the material was presented to mankind in a context that would be understood by the people of the time. They didn't think of olive trees as being alive, so why bother confusing them about it? In future years, people will figure it out--and they will recognize the allegorical nature of the original story as presented to their ancestors. This is fine if we treat the text poetically. It's not so easy if we treat it strictly literally, especially if we say that only the KJV is real. Then, we have to deny obvious facts in order to accept our literal interpretation of the text.

As you said before, strict literalism kinda gets one into trouble. It seems to require accepting a variety of passages that are at odds with each other, and it requires accepting both biblical and worldly facts that are contradictory (like olive trees being not being living things and being living things). This would give me a headache.

On the other hand, it could be that I'm abnormal, and that my brain is wired sloppily. Different ideas tend to bump into each other in there. This doesn't seem to be the case for many people. Rather, the norm seems to be to compartmentalilze information--sort of pigeonhole information in different places, and keep the ideas entirely separate. I've had a couple of students, for example, who have actually written that the reason we have seasons is that "the earth spins on its axis; when the US is facing the sun, we have summer; when the US is facing away from the sun, we have winter." These students are able to hold this view at the same time as they hold the view that the spinning of the earth accounts for day and night. They see no conflict between these.

So, strict literalism seems to require accepting certain things as True, without actually considering whether everything adds up. It's OK if there are Mysteries.

Loose literalism, as you've called it, makes more sense--we figure out where the metaphors are, and then interpret the text accordingly.

In the end, I think my puzzle is with the strict literalists, and how they decide which bits to insist are strictly literal, and which bits are not. As other threads here have illustrated, this allows them to accept Copernicus, but insist Darwin must be wrong. How do they decide?

[Truth101]

For an answer to these questions we can turn to the scriptures. Jesus said "the words I speak are spirit". We are told that Jesus spoke in parables and without parables He did not speak. All the parables are a metaphorical language including the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man was not in hell and Lazarus was not in heaven. Most Christians view this parable as a lesson on heaven and hell yet that is truly not what this parable is about. If this is the way you interpret this parable than you are missing out on the spiritual signifigance of what is being shown here. The rich man represents Judah and his 5 brothers while Lazarus represents the gentiles. I will not get into this in detail as not to get off the thread topic but consider all the details which are described concerning this man. He has 5 brothers He wishes to warn of His torment. Judah had eleven borthers altogether but 5 of those brothers were of the same mother. There are many otherdetails that can be traced back to Judah and describe his tribe to be the one in focus. The parable is revealing that Judah will lose their rightful place in the bosom of Abraham while the Gentiles will recieve that conforting. If you take this parable literally you lose out on this understanding and you are left with a useless carnal explaination of it.
If you understand that all the words of God in the old testament and Jesus in the new testament are all spiritual and are not to be interpreted as literal then you will grow in understanding of the things pertaining to kingdom.
The books of the prophets and the book of revelation are no different it is all symbolic.
Another way of interpreting the scriptures is to rightly divide the relative from the absolute. The relative is God relating to us in certian ways that appear to deny His omniscience while the absolute is God declaring the truth in his omniscience. For example...
God says "choose today whom you will serve" yet He also says "you have not chosen me but I have chosen you". From first glance it would appear to be a contradiction. The truth is that most Christians give precidence of the relative over the absolute by believing we have a freewill which can ultimately choose God but all along it was He who chose us from the beginning before the foundation of the world.
I understand this just opens up a can of worms but that is the exact point.
Salvation comes by God and it is not of ourselves lest any man should boast. Let us rightly divide the word of truth but let us first learn how to do that.

God bless, Dave

[jjg]

The Holy Writ of God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do) but also by things in themselves.

So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, theology has the property, that things signified by words have themselves also a signification.

Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal.

That signification whereby things signified by the words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense which is based on the literal and presupposes it.

The spiritual sense has a threefold distinction. The allegorical, moral and anagogical sense.

[Truth101]

The Holy Writ of God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do) but also by things in themselves.

So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, theology has the property, that things signified by words have themselves also a signification.

Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal.

That signification whereby things signified by the words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense which is based on the literal and presupposes it.

The spiritual sense has a threefold distinction. The allegorical, moral and anagogical sense.

I agree totally. I did make a mistake in my above post by stating that none of it is literal. I should have stated that they all have their literal sence but their is also a spiritual significance as well and most cannot get past the literal no matter how hard they try to see. This is the difference when God said "let him who hath ears". MOst do not have these ears and they hear the literal and that is it. Hence, the many different denominations of Christianity. Certain denominations see some sipritual meaning and some see a little more and some see none at all. These factors instigate christianity seperating into different factions. Even within one organized church building very few are in doctrinal fellowship. God teaches us to walk in one spirit one baptism one Lord yet this is never seen on a theological standpoint. It is a house divided against itself.

Now, take the spiritual significance and also apply our need to rightly divide the scriptures concerning the relative statments vs the absolute and our growth in understanding will explode. It is by these things that God has drawn me to see His plan for universal reconciliation.

I sudgest studying the words "death", "destroyed", "parish" etc, etc. These words never mean absolute destruction. Whether these words are applied to physical death or spiritual death they never imply absolute destruction and certainly not eternal torment. This in istelf is a study so I will not post this here but just something to mull over while meditation on this threads topic.

God bless, Dave