Is the Bible Allegorical or Literal?

[loverofhumanity]

Another question disputed for ages causing Christian unity to be split into thousands of sects over interpretations of the Bible.

Some examples - you may wish to add more.

The seven days of creation - allegorical or literal truth?
Science has proven the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Adam and Eve - Allegorical or literal?

The Second Coming - Riding on a cloud with angels - literal or allegorical?

Christ said ‘let the dead bury the dead - literal or allegorical? (Luke 9:60)

 

[Sand Dancer]

Yes.

 

[F1fan]

Well apart from a few facts in the Bible most all of it isn't. The stories make more sense as symbolisms rather than interpreted literally.

 

[Nimos]

Another question disputed for ages causing Christian unity to be split into thousands of sects over interpretations of the Bible.

Some examples - you may wish to add more.

The seven days of creation - allegorical or literal truth?
Science has proven the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Adam and Eve - Allegorical or literal?

The Second Coming - Riding on a cloud with angels - literal or allegorical?

Christ said ‘let the dead bury the dead - literal or allegorical? (Luke 9:60)

It depends on who you ask.

Also, I think it depends on whether you are talking about what the ancient Jews believed as well as I think there is a huge difference.
A lot of people will argue that Adam and Eve for instance are allegorical figures. But if you actually read the bible, it doesn't really seem to fit with it.

Luke 3:23-38
23 - Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24 - the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, 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 Josech, 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 Melchi, 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 Sala, the son of Nahshon,
33 - the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, 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 Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38 - the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Why would they add a whole lineage from Joseph to Adam, if they didn't believe that Adam was a real person, to me that doesn't seem to make any logical sense, that the Jews given the fact that they believed the bible to be the truth would just add this for no apparent reason.

 

[Brian2]

Another question disputed for ages causing Christian unity to be split into thousands of sects over interpretations of the Bible.

Some examples - you may wish to add more.

The seven days of creation - allegorical or literal truth?
Science has proven the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Adam and Eve - Allegorical or literal?

The Second Coming - Riding on a cloud with angels - literal or allegorical?

Christ said ‘let the dead bury the dead - literal or allegorical? (Luke 9:60)

It is not that much of a big deal amongst Christians, or it shouldn't be.
The problems get bigger when heretical sects, calling themselves Christians, start spouting their beliefs about allegory and literal parts as if they are Christian beliefs, and when false prophets do a similar thing. All this just adds to any minor confusions that Christians have among themselves, so in the end people scratch their collective head and throw their arms up and say people can understand the Bible any way we like and there aren't any rules to interpretation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It depends on who you ask.

Also, I think it depends on whether you are talking about what the ancient Jews believed as well as I think there is a huge difference.
A lot of people will argue that Adam and Eve for instance are allegorical figures. But if you actually read the bible, it doesn't really seem to fit with it.

Luke 3:23-38
23 - Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24 - the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, 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 Josech, 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 Melchi, 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 Sala, the son of Nahshon,
33 - the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, 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 Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan,
38 - the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Why would they add a whole lineage from Joseph to Adam, if they didn't believe that Adam was a real person, to me that doesn't seem to make any logical sense, that the Jews given the fact that they believed the bible to be the truth would just add this for no apparent reason.

People make up things all of the time. When it comes to the lineages there are two, that in Luke and the one in Matthew. They are different. Yet both claim to be of Joseph. There are several different weak explanations when the real one is obvious. Both lines are fiction.

 

[rational experiences]

It's both. Why it's not science as science by terms what I'm aware of is just stories.

Numbers might add up when you don't own mass. Then you minus to intentionally remove mass.

Your claim I removed one. Any one natural mass in law a substance.

Science as man's applications is minus thoughts only...not present and not now thoughts...completeness.

 

[Misunderstood]

I feel it is both, some is literal some allegory ( the parables for sure). But, no matter whether literal or allegory, I think a large amount of it is misunderstood.

 

[CG Didymus]

People make up things all of the time. When it comes to the lineages there are two, that in Luke and the one in Matthew. They are different. Yet both claim to be of Joseph. There are several different weak explanations when the real one is obvious. Both lines are fiction.

Even Baha'is do it. I think they trace their guy's linage back to King David's father. Now who kept those records over the centuries, who knows?

 

[sun rise]

Matthew 5:29 says that if your right eye offends you, pluck it out. Should we be asking if our eyes offend us and be read to "pluck them out" if we take the Bible literally?

 

[CG Didymus]

Another question disputed for ages causing Christian unity to be split into thousands of sects over interpretations of the Bible.

Some examples - you may wish to add more.

The seven days of creation - allegorical or literal truth?
Science has proven the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Adam and Eve - Allegorical or literal?

The Second Coming - Riding on a cloud with angels - literal or allegorical?

Christ said ‘let the dead bury the dead - literal or allegorical? (Luke 9:60)

With a lot of those things, I think they were meant to be believed and were believed because it was part of the mythological story line. But still, the empty tomb and Jesus saying "touch me and see that I have flesh and bone" literal or symbolic or myth? I think it was myth, especially with some of the Bible stories. Of course, for Baha'is, symbolic fits your beliefs the best. That way Baha'is can say it is "symbolically" true, just not "literally" true. Which gives Baha'is a way around things that contradict Baha'i beliefs.

 

[exchemist]

Another question disputed for ages causing Christian unity to be split into thousands of sects over interpretations of the Bible.

Some examples - you may wish to add more.

The seven days of creation - allegorical or literal truth?
Science has proven the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

Adam and Eve - Allegorical or literal?

The Second Coming - Riding on a cloud with angels - literal or allegorical?

Christ said ‘let the dead bury the dead - literal or allegorical? (Luke 9:60)

I think you pose something of a false binary choice here. The bible is a literary work and as such contains all manner of literary and rhetorical usages and devices within it. "Let the dead bury the dead" is not allegorical. It is obvious hyperbole, though. There are many more examples of rhetorical hyperbole in the reported words of Christ and others. There is also metaphor, poetry, allegory and myth (e.g. the Exodus story, which archaeology tells us almost certainly didn't happen, or not in the way it is portrayed and the story of the Flood, which is an ancient Fertile Crescent legend.)

This is not surprising in a work compiled long ago, from many authors, over many centuries. What Christians believe is that these authors had divine inspiration and that, between them, they are one means (not, please note, necessarily the only one) by which God conveys His message to his people. (In point of fact, it was clearly not sufficient, or the Word would not have been made flesh and would not have dwelt among us.) Opinions differ between religious denominations as to how perfectly or imperfectly it achieves this. Most mainstream Christians recognise it is not always clear and has to be read as a whole, and the various internal contradictions intelligently reconciled, in order to discern what some passages should be taken to mean. Sometimes, as with other literature, there is no unique interpretation and there are different schools of thought, i.e. passages can have multiple meanings, perhaps intentionally.

I'll leave you with some thoughts of the current pope on the issue of the bible and the Word of God:


"Sacred Scripture is the written testimony of the divine Word, the canonical memory that attests to the event of Revelation. However, the Word of God precedes the Bible and surpasses it. That is why the centre of our faith isn't just a book, but a salvation history and above all a person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.

The relationship between Christ, the Word Made Flesh, and the Scriptures, the written Word of God, lies at the heart of what the Church calls Sacred Tradition:


It is precisely because the Word of God embraces and extends beyond Scripture that, in order to properly understand it, the Holy Spirit's constant presence, who guides us "to all truth," is necessary. It is necessary to place ourselves within the great Tradition that has, with the Holy Spirit's assistance and the Magisterium's guidance, recognized the canonical writings as the Word that God addresses to his people, who have never ceased meditating upon it and discovering inexhaustible riches from it.

The Bible is a form of God's revelation to man, but the most complete form of that revelation is found in the person of Jesus Christ. The Scriptures arose out of the life of the Church—that is, out of the life of those believers who encountered Christ, both personally and through their fellow believers. They were written within the context of that relationship with Christ, and the selection of the canon—of the books that would become the Bible—occurred within that context. But even after the canon of Scripture is determined, Scripture remains only a portion of the Word of God, because the fullness of the Word is found in the life of the Church and her relationship to Christ........

Taken from: Pope Francis Says the Word of God Precedes the Bible

That seems fairly reasonable to me.

 

[Nimos]

People make up things all of the time. When it comes to the lineages there are two, that in Luke and the one in Matthew. They are different. Yet both claim to be of Joseph. There are several different weak explanations when the real one is obvious. Both lines are fiction.

I agree with you that both are fictional as I don't think there is any way that they would have been able to keep track of this for so many generations. But at the same time that is kind of irrelevant in regard to the question asked. Whether the story or the persons were/are meant to be understood as allegorical figures or as literal figures.

And at least in my opinion, I think the ancient Jews and Christians would have looked at these people as literal figures, based on both the verse I linked and I think that you, pointing out that it is also found in Matthew support that idea, even if it is slightly different.

If they thought that this was just a story sort of the way we could look at let's say, Lord of the Rings, then I don't think people would have bought into it in the first place.

 

[exchemist]

I agree with you that both are fictional as I don't think there is any way that they would have been able to keep track of this for so many generations. But at the same time that is kind of irrelevant in regard to the question asked. Whether the story or the persons were/are meant to be understood as allegorical figures or as literal figures.

And at least in my opinion, I think the ancient Jews and Christians would have looked at these people as literal figures, based on both the verse I linked and I think that you, pointing out that it is also found in Matthew support that idea, even if it is slightly different.

If they thought that this was just a story sort of the way we could look at let's say, Lord of the Rings, then I don't think people would have bought into it in the first place.

That may have been true in the pre-Christian era but by the time of Origen and his contemporaries, steeped in Homer, they already viewed some of the early stuff as allegorical.

 

[Nimos]

That may have been true in the pre-Christian era but by the time of Origen and his contemporaries, steeped in Homer, they already viewed some of the early stuff as allegorical.

Probably, as I said in my original reply, it depends on who you ask

 

[exchemist]

Probably, as I said in my original reply, it depends on who you ask

Or rather, when.

 

[Nimos]

Or rather, when.

What? elaborate on that

 

[exchemist]

What? elaborate on that

I just mean that how the bible is interpreted varies in history. As you say, n the pre-Christina era it may have been taken literally. From 200AD onward it was seen by many theologians at least as partly allegorical. And then after the Reformation, with its emphasis on sola scriptura and interpretation of the vernacular bible by lay people, there was a new drive in Protestantism to treat it as literal, culminating in the full biblical literalism of the Seventh Day Adventists etc towards the end of the c.19th.

 

[Nimos]

I just mean that how the bible is interpreted varies in history. As you say, n the pre-Christina era it may have been taken literally. From 200AD onward it was seen by many theologians at least as partly allegorical. And then after the Reformation, with its emphasis on sola scriptura and interpretation of the vernacular bible by lay people, there was a new drive in Protestantism to treat it as literal, culminating in the full biblical literalism of the Seventh Day Adventists etc towards the end of the c.19th.

Ahh ok yeah sure

 

[Rival]

If they thought that this was just a story sort of the way we could look at let's say, Lord of the Rings, then I don't think people would have bought into it in the first place.

This is where the genre of Myth is misunderstood by most moderns, I think. Myth isn't a story like LOTR, it is a way of explaining human nature and the past in "God time". The stories aren't literal in the sense we understand, but they explain what we would essentially call human psychology, archetypes, economic systems etc. The Adam and Eve Myth carries many such understandings, such as departure from a nomadic to a settled lifestyle, human suffering, human inequality, evil desires etc.

These Myths remain useful to draw on, which we still do. We still draw on Greek Myth, Roman Myth and fairy tales to illustrate concepts. I used Sisyphus as an example the other day. One may talk about the Battle between Set and Horus, etc.