Is the Bible Allegorical or Literal?

[Audie]

You cannot date a rock by a star and vice versa. Where’s the tangible evidence and not the optical in the distant sky, that’s an illusion.

I don't doubt you are sincere.
But I can't educate you.
Good luck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All methods of dating don’t agree, there’s a clue. A cataclysmic world wide flood will render them useless.

No, that is no evidence for a flood. You cannot even have evidence until you have a testable hypothesis.

Why some dates vary is well understood. You need to do better.

Once again, what is your model? All I can tell you right now is that every model formed by Flood believers has been refuted.

 

[Audie]

Doesn't Bahai present the same kind of questions? It seems to me that most revealed religions would.



In my opinion (which won't be shared by many Christians or Muslims) the early parts of Genesis are clearly myths. By 'myth' I mean stories that help people make sense of things. 'Myths' in this sense provide a broader plot narrative into which the events of life can be fitted to give them meaning.

I see the creation stories as intended to show that reality (as it was conceived then) was entirely the work of God, that it was purposeful, and perhaps to say something about the relative relationships of its parts.



I don't believe that, because 'proof' only applies in mathematics and logic. Science has discovered evidence that the Earth may be approximately that old, but it's far from apodeictic proof.

Science can only make conclusions more likely, not logically necessary. I personally accept the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth as a rough working assumption, not as something that has to be true.

In that sense, I perceive science as playing a role very akin to myth in our day and age: a body of commonly accepted stories that help us make sense of experience by giving individual events a broader context.

How does a total,falsehood like " flood"help anyone's understanding of anything?

Such beliefs, as flood, and 6 day creation
greatly hindered and still do great harm to understanding of our world.
Look at some of the stone age beliefs in this thread!

" flood"
Or
" reality is purposeful", say.

 

[Apostle John]

No, that is no evidence for a flood. You cannot even have evidence until you have a testable hypothesis.

Why some dates vary is well understood. You need to do better.

Once again, what is your model? All I can tell you right now is that every model formed by Flood believers has been refuted.

Once again more asserted babble. Atheists believe untestable hypotheses quite freely. Chow I’m tired of babble.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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.

Well said!

A slight, friendly disagreement: I think, to some extent, modern fiction that has mythological qualities or elements may function in the same way. Lots of folks find inspiration in Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, and may even find them easier to relate to than older mythology.

 

[lukethethird]

How does a total,falsehood like " flood"
help anyone's understanding of anything?

Such beliefs, as flood, and 6 day creation
greatly hindered and still do great harm
to understanding of our world.
Look at some of the stone age beliefs in this
thread!

It's going to get worse. The public education system in the US is virtually non existent, or soon will be. Many Americans can't house themselves and many can't feed themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again more asserted babble. Atheists believe untestable hypotheses quite freely. Chow I’m tired of babble.

Name one hypothesis of geology that is not testable.

You are the one with the "babble". Oh wait, when challenged you ran away.

 

[Audie]

It's going to get worse. The public education system in the US is virtually non existent, or soon will be. Many Americans can't house themselves and many can't feed themselves.

The choice Americans make to neither
house nor feed themselves is not a problem caused by public schooling.

 

[lukethethird]

The choice Americans make to neither
house nor feed themselves is not a problem caused by public schooling.

You call it a choice?

 

[Alien826]

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.

A pastor I knew some time ago used to quote a Native American (no idea who) in saying "This story never happened but it is true".

 

[Audie]

You call it a choice?

Yep

 

[Apostle John]

Name one hypothesis of geology that is not testable.

You are the one with the "babble". Oh wait, when challenged you ran away.

I already answered you on this. How have you calibrated your chosen method of ageing the rocks based on your assumption there was no catastrophic world flood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already answered you on this. How have you calibrated your chosen method of ageing the rocks based on your assumption there was no catastrophic world flood?

Your question is poorly formed. There was no "assumption". that there was no flood. And you would need to show why the dates were not valid. I can explain radiometric dating to you..

For example many dates now are done with single crystals. The crystalline structure is still intact. You would need to explain how excess daughter product got in. As I pointed out, you do not understand evidence, science, or even the burden of proof.

Tell me, what is there no sign of a global flood at all? Geologists would have noticed. I promise.

 

[syo]

Christian unity to be split into thousands of sects

Hehe!

 

[Alien826]

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.

That's odd, I hadn't read that passage before.

How does that fit with the idea of the virginity of Mary? The passage seems to state very clearly that Joseph was Jesus' father. Just to set out the possibilities, Joseph was either 1) the natural father of Jesus 2) a cuckold, by another human man 3) not biologically related to Jesus.

Possibility #1 denies the virgin birth. Possibility #2 also, but I just included it for completeness. Possibility #3 raises the question of why did Luke feel it was worth setting out the genealogy if the first relationship (Jesus to Joseph) was false? Incidentally the phrase "as was supposed" suggests either a nod to possibility #2 or a later redaction by someone who saw the same problem I do.

 

[Nimos]

That's odd, I hadn't read that passage before.

How does that fit with the idea of the virginity of Mary? The passage seems to state very clearly that Joseph was Jesus' father. Just to set out the possibilities, Joseph was either 1) the natural father of Jesus 2) a cuckold, by another human man 3) not biologically related to Jesus.

Possibility #1 denies the virgin birth. Possibility #2 also, but I just included it for completeness. Possibility #3 raises the question of why did Luke feel it was worth setting out the genealogy if the first relationship (Jesus to Joseph) was false? Incidentally the phrase "as was supposed" suggests either a nod to possibility #2 or a later redaction by someone who saw the same problem I do.

Not sure, but my guess is that it was somehow important for them to show that Jesus had the "potential" correct genealogy leading back to God, Abraham and so forth.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Isn't it kind of ironic that the only two groups of people who take the Bible in the literal sense are either fundamentalists or atheists?

Taking the Bible literally would be like taking Parable of the Sower literally. Both have empowering messages and great ideas, but both of them are obviously meant to be allegorical in structure.

How seriously we take those allegories, however, is up for debate...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Isn't it kind of ironic that the only two groups of people who take the Bible in the literal sense are either fundamentalists or atheists?

Taking the Bible literally would be like taking Parable of the Sower literally. Both have empowering messages and great ideas, but both of them are obviously meant to be allegorical in structure.

How seriously we take those allegories, however, is up for debate...

You are lacking in understanding here. Atheists can see that the fundamentalists are a much greater threat to everyone than moderates. In fact many moderates are pretty decent people. As a result atheists mainly debate the literalists. That does not mean that atheists take the Bible literally at all.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

You are lacking in understanding here. Atheists can see that the fundamentalists are a much greater threat to everyone than moderates. In fact many moderates are pretty decent people. As a result atheists mainly debate the literalists. That does not mean that atheists take the Bible literally at all.

I know this. I think it is you who lacks understanding. When I said that what I meant was, fundamentalists think the Bible is correct because they take it literally, whereas, atheists think the Bible is incorrect because they take it literally. I already knew everything you just stated from this post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know this. I think it is you who lacks understanding. When I said that what I meant was, fundamentalists think the Bible is correct because they take it literally, whereas, atheists think the Bible is incorrect because they take it literally. I already knew everything you just stated from this post.

And no, you are still wrong. The literal interpretation is very easy to refute, but that does not leave the rest of it safe. Not by a long shot. The problem is that there are so many different varieties of Christianity that it is impossible to show that they are all wrong in a lifetime. But in general another huge failure in Christianity is the concept of substitutionary atonement. And of course the bodily resurrection is also a large problem for the religion. There are so many topics and some may be in your version of Christianity and some may not be. You are making a hasty generalization because you only see atheists going after the fundies.