Is the Bible Allegorical or Literal?

[1213]

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

I think Bible should be understood as it is written. It explains itself what it means. If something is allegorical, it is shown in the text.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Yeah, I think that is correct or at least part of the explanation, but I still think that in ancient days, these people would have been seen as very real. At least to me, if we look at the Roman gods, I find it weird if the Romans didn't believe that they were real, and extending that idea to the Jews, it seems unlikely that they would believe that these figures interacted with God, If Adam and Eve weren't understood as being real people, then why would they believe that Moses spoke to God or Noah built an ark.

 

[Audie]

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.

Maybe it makes more sense to say that
in the day everyone took it all literally.
An awful lot do now.

 

[Audie]

I think Bible should be understood as it is written. It explains itself what it means. If something is allegorical, it is shown in the text.

That is so wide open to a free for all.
Which actually is how it works.
40,000 sects.

Where does Genesis say not to believe
every word?

 

[Audie]

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.

If Christianity is just a myth genre then
it's very little.
There's way better myths and better written.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Is the Bible ... ?"

Such questions are frustratingly ignorant and broken at their inception. The Bible is, first and foremost, a multifaceted ensemble of different tests, composed and redacted at different times, by different people reflecting different cultural influences and, often, different primary intent.

It's not Moses. It's mosaic.

 

[Audie]

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

I asked our Filipina maid ( Catholic)

She is pretty simple about it. Holy book, Gods
word. All of it. Don't question it.

She's a nice smart person but grew up in
an ill educated superstitious place.

To her, an eclipse is the lizard eating the
moon, and one must make a lot of
noise to chase it away.
The night is haunted by evil spirits.

God flooded the world.

I doubt she is less sophisticated than
average for millions of today's Christians,
let alone for the past.

 

[Audie]

"Is the Bible ... ?"

Such questions are frustratingly ignorant and broken at their inception. The Bible is, first and foremost, a multifaceted ensemble of different tests, composed and redacted at different times, by different people reflecting different cultural influences and, often, different primary intent.

It's not Moses. It's mosaic.

As if we do t all know that.

The question is basically, " true or false"

 

[wellwisher]

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 tend to believe that there is a combination of both. Jesus often spoke in parables, since this was an easier way to create understanding in common people.

Mathew 13:31-32
He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

The Kingdom of God is not tiny like a mustard seed. But this parable shows something that seems to start small, and not too impressive, becoming the larger than the rest in the garden of knowledge.

As far as the age of the universe, the science estimate of 13 billion years is based on earth time, which is used for practical convenience. This is a parable, since earth time is not the universal standard of time, due to the earth being the center of the universe. Aliens, if they exist, may not use earth time as the universal standard.

The Earth was not even around for the first 7-8 billion years of the universe, to be a valid universal standard for all time, since the BB. In terms of Genesis, it is not clear what time reference the writer of Genesis was using. But it was not earth time. He never said earth days, which would have been false, since this is not the universal standard, like the science parable; mustard time seed.

If we apply Einstein's theory of relativity; relative reference, to the 13 billion earth year parable, we would need to be in a reference very close to the speed of light, for those13 billion earth years to time dilate into one day. At the speed of light, time stops.

In Genesis, God says let there be called light! Light travels at the speed of light, which is needed to make the Genesis claim of one day to form the universe valid; God reference was very close to the speed of light.. How would the ancients stumble onto this modern reference time conversion, that is also consistent with God and the light claim; speed of light? Is it coincidence or inspired?

In terms of the science parable, of earth time being universal, and the earth reference for telescopes the center of the universe, each day of creation takes less and less earth years. Life only takes about a billion years. The sequence of diminishing time, would suggest God was slowing his reference from the speed of light; let there be light, to less and less than the speed of light, until God becomes man; Jesus. Then God and earth time references match. Although some miracles, which speed up healing, may have been time dilated; time potential added.

I would be more comfortable if science would use actual space-time references, for the formation of the universe, instead of dumb it down with universal earth time, even if this is a useful parable.

 

[Jainarayan]

While there is some historicity as there is in all mythologies, I believe it's overwhelmingly allegorical and mythological. Six days of creation is certainly allegorical. I don't believe in the literal death and resurrection of Jesus. I believe it's a metaphor for his enlightenment. His death on the cross, resurrection and ascension represent his mahāsamādhi: enlightenment as a boddhisattva or buddha.

 

[Fool]

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 would suspect both. But when dealing with allegory the spirit, the mental would have to change before a physical correspondence would be seen by others observing

 

[Rival]

Yeah, I think that is correct or at least part of the explanation, but I still think that in ancient days, these people would have been seen as very real. At least to me, if we look at the Roman gods, I find it weird if the Romans didn't believe that they were real, and extending that idea to the Jews, it seems unlikely that they would believe that these figures interacted with God, If Adam and Eve weren't understood as being real people, then why would they believe that Moses spoke to God or Noah built an ark.

History in the Bible as we would broadly understand it starts with Abraham, even if the stories are clearly embellished or retold more dramatically to make a point. Everything before this fits the genre of Primordial Myth. You'll notice these stories are short and more based on local Near Eastern mythology just generally, whereas everything after the Babel Tower is unique or mostly unique to the Hebrews. It's like the British starting with mythical King Arthur and ultimately ending up to William the Conqueror. Many histories do this. You have to be able to recognise the genre.

When it comes to Greco-Roman Gods, many of the elite and philosophical classes didn't take them as real and mocked folks who did. There were many who believed in them literally but quire a few who didn't. Beliefs evolved closer to the Common Era, and monotheism was already emergent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think Bible should be understood as it is written. It explains itself what it means. If something is allegorical, it is shown in the text.

OK, and how do you do that? For example we know that the flood story is a myth, what in the text tells us to read it that way?

 

[Nimos]

History in the Bible as we would broadly understand it starts with Abraham, even if the stories are clearly embellished or retold more dramatically to make a point.

That might be, but I think the crucial question, depending on whom perspective we look at it from, is whether they believed that Adam and Eve were real people or not or if they were just some made-up people, I think they would hold the belief that they were actual people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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)

There's at least one other option for interpreting Biblical passages: meant to be taken literally, but is just factually wrong.

 

[Audie]

I tend to believe that there is a combination of both. Jesus often spoke in parables, since this was an easier way to create understanding in common people.

Mathew 13:31-32
He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

The Kingdom of God is not tiny like a mustard seed. But this parable shows something that seems to start small, and not too impressive, becoming the larger than the rest in the garden of knowledge.

As far as the age of the universe, the science estimate of 13 billion years is based on earth time, which is used for practical convenience. This is a parable, since earth time is not the universal standard of time, due to the earth being the center of the universe. Aliens, if they exist, may not use earth time as the universal standard.

The Earth was not even around for the first 7-8 billion years of the universe, to be a valid universal standard for all time, since the BB. In terms of Genesis, it is not clear what time reference the writer of Genesis was using. But it was not earth time. He never said earth days, which would have been false, since this is not the universal standard, like the science parable; mustard time seed.

If we apply Einstein's theory of relativity; relative reference, to the 13 billion earth year parable, we would need to be in a reference very close to the speed of light, for those13 billion earth years to time dilate into one day. At the speed of light, time stops.

In Genesis, God says let there be called light! Light travels at the speed of light, which is needed to make the Genesis claim of one day to form the universe valid; God reference was very close to the speed of light.. How would the ancients stumble onto this modern reference time conversion, that is also consistent with God and the light claim; speed of light? Is it coincidence or inspired?

In terms of the science parable, of earth time being universal, and the earth reference for telescopes the center of the universe, each day of creation takes less and less earth years. Life only takes about a billion years. The sequence of diminishing time, would suggest God was slowing his reference from the speed of light; let there be light, to less and less than the speed of light, until God becomes man; Jesus. Then God and earth time references match. Although some miracles, which speed up healing, may have been time dilated; time potential added.

I would be more comfortable if science would use actual space-time references, for the formation of the universe, instead of dumb it down with universal earth time, even if this is a useful parable.

Hint: dont try to talk science

 

[Audie]

There's at least one other option for interpreting Biblical passages: meant to be taken literally, but is just factually wrong.

Hey! That is what I said with way more words!

 

[Muffled]

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 believe literal.

I believe part fact and part fantasy.

I believe allegorical. The dead can't bury anyone so the meaning of dead here does not refer to physical death but is an allegory for spiritual death.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe man is more into nonsense than God is.

 

[F1fan]

I believe man is more into nonsense than God is.

Imaginary characters can't be into nonsense, so you are correct.

Of course we see many humans use God as a central character in their nonsense.