Is the bible too symbolic for its own good?

[nobspeople]

There are those that say the bible is the literal word of god and what it says is literal (aka no symbolism). For those, this thread isn't likely for them (though, they're welcome to participate anyway).
Looking through some threads, there are many speaking to symbolism (and one even speaking to god being cryptic). It's been my experience, that symbolism is a... good(?) ... way to get an idea or concept across, but only to a point. The bible doesn't seem to deal with absolutes in many cases, so symbolism is expected. But does it rely too heavily on symbolism?

Symbolism, at least in the case of the bible, seems to require a good deal of knowledge (knowing what priests did where, who was in power then, what this object means in this culture, why this person said that, etc). Knowledge isn't something most of the public has on any one item (a person may be a great mathematician but have no knowledge of cultural things from another time, for example; some people don't know who their state governor is; some know more about their Youtube influencer than how their government works even on the most fundamental level; the list could continue but you get the point).

What's symbolistic to one, may not be to another, which is another reason one can claim the bible is too symbolic. How many arguments have we seen about the different meanings of the book of Revelations?!? Too many, I'd suspect - that books a hyper mess!

For discussion:
So, should the bible rely less on symbolism and more on 'black-n-white' facts? Is heavy symbolism a fault of the bible?
Or is the symbolism in the bible not necessary for eternal life (which, one could rightfully argue, is the point of the bible) and therefore, doesn't matter?

[historia]

So, should the bible rely less on symbolism and more on 'black-n-white' facts? Is heavy symbolism a fault of the bible?

No. N.T. Wright has an interesting article touching on this question How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?. He writes, in part:

Most of the Bible does not consist of rules and regulations -- lists of commands to be obeyed. Nor does it consist of creeds -- lists of things to be believed . . . [M]uch of what we call the Bible -- the Old and New Testaments -- is not a rule book; it is narrative . . . Throw a rule book at people's head, or offer them a list of doctrines, and they can duck or avoid it, or simply disagree and go away. Tell them a story, though, and you invite them to come into a different world; you invite them to share a world-view or better still a 'God-view'.

If you're looking for a text to define in black-and-white terms what should be believed, then Christians have creeds and catechisms for that. The Bible is a different kind of book.

[Hawkins]

[Replying to historia in post #2]

What people don't understand is how human testimonies work. They don't understand the whole process, however the author of the Bible seems to be an expert.

For example, the death tolls of covid-19 have been listed on a daily basis in the past 1.5 years. Which day's figure is ever evidenced to you. No, you don't have the evidence of any one day's figure. Nor do the majority of humankind. Only those responsible for counting and collecting the figures are supposed to have the real evidence. It simultaneously says humans don't rely on evidence to get to such a truth. They rather rely on putting trust/faith in the works of those counting and collecting the figures. This is fundamentally the process of human witnessing/testimony.

That said. The technicality is how to convey the truth from ancient humans to modern humans across thousands of years. Have you heard of the myths of flood in different culture? The point is, even when an impacting flood is truth, this truth will have to appear as a myth some 5000 years later due to the fact that ancient humans didn't have the right tool to record it down. They have to convey such a truth verbally to their children generation by generation till it is uncontrollably changed to a myth. What God did is to make use of the maximum human capability in a controllable manner. History = his story. By human capability a historical truth occurred long ago is better in story form for humans lacking tools to convey through generations. That reflects the maximum human capability going through the stages from lacking writing tools, lacking recording tools, using tablets, bamboos, animal skins, plant leaves, till finally they had paper. Only after the invention of paper (around 500 AD?) their writing and recording ability can be up to a level. Before that point, they didn't have the full capability to both write thing down and keep them. That's why the earliest Bible manuscripts available to us are around the 4th century.

That said. The book of Genesis in its story form contains a lot of crucial information on summarizing up what humans are and how they fall (happening right now and will continue to happen). It is in the story form for the sake of conveying by ancient humans. It's more or less like an encrypted document you need it decrypted in order to read out everything encoded. The book of Revelation is more like a book of index to put in some crucial definitions.

[nobspeople]

So, should the bible rely less on symbolism and more on 'black-n-white' facts? Is heavy symbolism a fault of the bible?

No. N.T. Wright has an interesting article touching on this question How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?. He writes, in part:

Most of the Bible does not consist of rules and regulations -- lists of commands to be obeyed. Nor does it consist of creeds -- lists of things to be believed . . . [M]uch of what we call the Bible -- the Old and New Testaments -- is not a rule book; it is narrative . . . Throw a rule book at people's head, or offer them a list of doctrines, and they can duck or avoid it, or simply disagree and go away. Tell them a story, though, and you invite them to come into a different world; you invite them to share a world-view or better still a 'God-view'.

If you're looking for a text to define in black-and-white terms what should be believed, then Christians have creeds and catechisms for that. The Bible is a different kind of book.

Do most christians have access to these creeds and catechisms?
IYO, is the bible a road map to eternal life or something different?

[JoeyKnothead]

What people don't understand is how human testimonies work. They don't understand the whole process, however the author of the Bible seems to be an expert.

If people don't understand, then you're either not a people, or you also don't understand.

Who do you think is the author of the Bible?

For example, the death tolls of covid-19 have been listed on a daily basis in the past 1.5 years. Which day's figure is ever evidenced to you. No, you don't have the evidence of any one day's figure. Nor do the majority of humankind. Only those responsible for counting and collecting the figures are supposed to have the real evidence. It simultaneously says humans don't rely on evidence to get to such a truth. They rather rely on putting trust/faith in the works of those counting and collecting the figures. This is fundamentally the process of human witnessing/testimony.

I note many Christians rejected covid as a hoax until the evidence was overwhelming. Then they rejected the advice of medical experts because "my freedoms". Now they're using horse medicine to combat it.

That said. The technicality is how to convey the truth from ancient humans to modern humans across thousands of years. Have you heard of the myths of flood in different culture?

Did you hear the science of how local rainfall patterns'll have periods of drought, and periods of flooding?

The point is, even when an impacting flood is truth, this truth will have to appear as a myth some 5000 years later due to the fact that ancient humans didn't have the right tool to record it down.

It's also possible they didn't have the right knowledge to understand meteorology.

They have to convey such a truth verbally to their children generation by generation till it is uncontrollably changed to a myth.

As anyone who's ever played the telephone game'll tell ya, oral history is a poor way to maintain a reliable record of events.

What God did is to make use of the maximum human capability in a controllable manner.

Where have you established a God's involvement in any of this?

History = his story.

Michael Jackson is God?

By human capability a historical truth occurred long ago is better in story form for humans lacking tools to convey through generations.

See 'telephone game' from above. There's a reason hearsay testimony is not usually admissible in court.

That reflects the maximum human capability going through the stages from lacking writing tools, lacking recording tools, using tablets, bamboos, animal skins, plant leaves, till finally they had paper.

It also reflects a "maximum" capability to understood complex meteorological concepts.

Only after the invention of paper (around 500 AD?) their writing and recording ability can be up to a level. Before that point, they didn't have the full capability to both write thing down and keep them. That's why the earliest Bible manuscripts available to us are around the 4th century.

300 and some odd years after the events they purport to record. No editor worth the title would accept such a late deadline.

That said. The book of Genesis in its story form contains a lot of crucial information on summarizing up what humans are and how they fall (happening right now and will continue to happen).

Your problem now becomes showing the book of Genesis is a reliable record.

It is in the story form for the sake of conveying by ancient humans. It's more or less like an encrypted document you need it decrypted in order to read out everything encoded.

Might as well try to find them golden plates Joe Smith carried on about.

The book of Revelation is more like a book of index to put in some crucial definitions.

So we should expect you to be able to show Revelation is a reliable take on things.


Conclusions?

People don't understand, so how proud're y'all I came along to explain it all?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #5]

Who do you think is the author of the Bible?

Wondered the same thing.

I note many Christians rejected covid as a hoax until the evidence was overwhelming. Then they rejected the advice of medical experts because "my freedoms". Now they're using horse medicine to combat it.

I'm good with that - more oxygen for me and less myth lies spread as truth

It's also possible they didn't have have the right knowledge to understand meteorology.

Possible? No. Likely guaranteed. As well as, potentially, a lot of other things they reported and are believed as 'true'. But hey, that put butts in the seats and money in the bank in today's world. So why not? A fool and their money are soon parted, as the saying goes.

As anyone who's ever played the telephone game'll tell ya, oral history is a poor way to maintain a reliable record of events.

Maybe that's why it's not a popular game in christian homes and schools?

Where have you established a God's involvement in any of this?

It's easy, really. Make a statement and there ya' go. Can't prove it's not correct. And if you can, well... fingers in ears.

Michael Jackson is God?

No. God can't dance that well.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Hawkins in post #3]

What people don't understand is how human testimonies work.

I think most do understand. But they expect more.

They don't understand the whole process, however the author of the Bible seems to be an expert.

As asked before, who is the author? Centuries of editing and translating sure didn't hurt, either, I'd suspect.

For example, the death tolls of covid-19 have been listed on a daily basis in the past 1.5 years. Which day's figure is ever evidenced to you. No, you don't have the evidence of any one day's figure. Nor do the majority...

Sure. This speaks to SMEs, as it were. But that still doesn't stop people from questioning, as we see many people ignoring the data, questioning it, disbelieving it even when it happens to them. I get the whole 'human testimony' thing, but if the bible is a road map on how to receive eternal life (which, granted, is debatable) shouldn't we expect more than flawed human testimony? I'd think we should.

The technicality is how to convey the truth from ancient humans to modern humans across thousands of years.

A technicality that a supreme being like god should be able to circumvent. No need to use 'testimony' when literally every other possibility is available.

The book of Genesis in its story form contains a lot of crucial information on summarizing up what humans are and how they fall (happening right now and will continue to happen).

Maybe. Or maybe it's a story told by one person to another to another to another about what they seen (or thought they saw) that was later edited multiple times to coincide more with the culture 'at the time' in order for it to make some sort of sense? Or maybe it's a literal telling of what actually happened?

[bluegreenearth]

That said. The technicality is how to convey the truth from ancient humans to modern humans across thousands of years. Have you heard of the myths of flood in different culture? The point is, even when an impacting flood is truth, this truth will have to appear as a myth some 5000 years later due to the fact that ancient humans didn't have the right tool to record it down. They have to convey such a truth verbally to their children generation by generation till it is uncontrollably changed to a myth. What God did is to make use of the maximum human capability in a controllable manner. History = his story. By human capability a historical truth occurred long ago is better in story form for humans lacking tools to convey through generations. That reflects the maximum human capability going through the stages from lacking writing tools, lacking recording tools, using tablets, bamboos, animal skins, plant leaves, till finally they had paper. Only after the invention of paper (around 500 AD?) their writing and recording ability can be up to a level. Before that point, they didn't have the full capability to both write thing down and keep them. That's why the earliest Bible manuscripts available to us are around the 4th century.

Is this a problem for humanity or a problem for God? I could understand how the Christian God would make use of the necessity for the truth of an ancient flood to be mythologized given humanity's limitations at the time. After all, according to the Bible, it wasn't as though God could have or should have postponed his cartoonishly absurd overreaction to the problem of human disobedience until the invention of the printing press. No, many apologists insist that those nasty rebellious humans and their little baby heathens-in-training needed to be dealt with immediately. However, as best as I can determine from reading and studying the Bible, the sacrificial role of Jesus as God's gift of salvation for humanity almost 2,500 years after he drowned most of everyone else was not an equivalently impulsive decision but carefully planned. So, why did God plan for Jesus to arrive on scene among a mostly illiterate and superstitious culture in 1st century Judea rather than at any other time and place? Does the Bible directly or indirectly (i.e. symbolically) provide a logically justifiable reason for why the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus had to occur during the 1st century as opposed to the 21st century when almost everyone across the world has immediate access to a functioning HD video camera-phone with internet access? I'm genuinely curious to know the logical justification for this.

I've tried to anticipate and steel-man (i.e. "steel-person" for the hyper-woke in the audience ) a potential apologetic response on my own by considering things like the need for the resurrection of Jesus to occur in accordance with the alleged messianic prophesies. However, that apologetic argument fails because God could have also easily arranged for the messianic prophesies to be written such that they would be interpreted later as having predicted the death and resurrection of Jesus during the 21st century instead of the 1st century. Of course, I'm willing to acknowledge that this amateur attempt at a theological analysis probably reveals more about my lack of qualifications and incompetence in the area of Christian apologetics than anything else.

(Note: If the content of this post is too off topic, I might consider rewriting it as the OP of a new thread.)

[historia]

If you're looking for a text to define in black-and-white terms what should be believed, then Christians have creeds and catechisms for that. The Bible is a different kind of book.

Do most christians have access to these creeds and catechisms?

Sure, they are all online. Local churches also often frame their educational programs around their community's creeds and catechism.

IYO, is the bible a road map to eternal life or something different?

I don't think of the Bible as a "road map" so much as a reservoir of stories from which Christians can draw. It sets out the mythos of Christianity.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to historia in post #9]

Sure, they are all online. Local churches also often frame their educational programs around their community's creeds and catechism.

That's fine and good for people, today, with access. But not everyone has internet access. Not everyone can read. And what about the people from 50+ years ago before Al Gore created the internet?

I don't think of the Bible as a "road map" so much as a reservoir of stories from which Christians can draw.

Sounds reasonable. IYO, should christians put as much emphasis on it as many do today? In other words, should they only see it as a collection of stories - nothing more?