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?

[Jose]

An interesting question, Bugmaster. I'm thinking that it could be very helpful to learn how various of us make the distinction between "literal" and "metaphor." I suspect that this distinction underlies the variations among different denominations, and is therefore an important question. However, rather than pose the question as a selection of pre-phrased choices, I'll suggest we might have more fun if we phrase it this way:

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?

[Bugmaster]

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?

Of course, you're right. I never meant my topic to become a multiple-choice test; I've merely listed all the replies I've personally heard so far.

[Jose]

I never meant my topic to become a multiple-choice test; I've merely listed all the replies I've personally heard so far.

One does tend to get various replies...but that's part of what makes it such an interesting question. Along the lines of multiple choice tests, I apologized to my students for giving one several years ago, and one of them pointed out that Life is multiple choice:

What kind of car do you buy? It's multiple choice--you don't write an essay.
Who should you marry? It's multiple choice--you don't write an essay.
Who to vote for? It's multiple choice--you don't write an essay.
Where to go for vacation? It's multiple choice--you don't write an essay.
What movies to watch? It's multiple choice--you don't write an essay.
What restaurant to go to? It's multiple choice--you don't write an essay.

It seems that places like DC&R are among the few where you actually get to write an essay!

[Hmmm...if you like my way of phrasing the question, would it be helpful to edit the Opening Post, to include it at the bottom? That way, it would show up at the top of each page. Just a thought...]

[Bugmaster]

[Hmmm...if you like my way of phrasing the question, would it be helpful to edit the Opening Post, to include it at the bottom? That way, it would show up at the top of each page. Just a thought...]

Done.

[McCulloch]

There are some passages which just about all Christians take as metaphoric. "And all the trees of the field will clap their hands" from Isaiah is rather obvious. And others which just about all Christians take as literal. Paul's escape from Damascus, for example.

So one is left with those passages of which there may be some dispute. There are fewer of those than some would like to claim. Almost all prophesy cannot be interpreted literally. "He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked." from Isaiah. No one I know takes that literally.

One principle is

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

[youngborean]

I think you would start with texts that are obviously metaphors or symbolic. Visions and parables are 2 examples I can think of. Therefore, prophetic and poetic texts are the major areas where metaphor would seem to be the likely explanation of the text. Beyond that, if there is no specific allusion to symbolism, I would be compelled to believe that the author was intending a literal meaning. If I want to go ahead and disagree with the author's account, I am free to do so. This often happens in the study of modern poetry, where instructors will tell students to ignore what the author says the poem is about.

[Jose]

If the text is poetic or symbolic, it would seem that this is good advice--the textual clues seem to ask us to go beyond strict literalism. But what about bits that sound sensible when interpreted literally, but don't add up when put together? I'll mention one that has puzzled me quite a bit lately (and which you may recall I've mentioned before):

Gen. 7 [23] And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

This seems straightforward enough. Everything is dead but that which is in the Ark.

Gen. 8 [11] And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

This, too, seems straightforward enough. There were living olive trees out there. In the Revised Standard Version, the leaf is "freshly plucked."

Uh oh. Where did those trees come from? They weren't in the Ark, so they must have been destroyed, but they were alive later. Doesn't there have to be something metaphorical here? Is this one of the clues that we should read this chapter in a poetic, rather than literal sense?

[McCulloch]

Uh oh. Where did those trees come from? They weren't in the Ark, so they must have been destroyed, but they were alive later.

Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark.

It seems as if the destruction only refers to animal life not plants.

[Jose]

I thought about that, but they all tend to say "every living thing." Where I come from, that includes olive trees. Indeed, there is a short list of different types of animals, but isn't that for poetic emphasis? We're talking about wiping out everything, including even birds! That sounds kinda all-encompassing. Maybe it's only metaphorically all-encompassing?