Is the Bible Allegorical or Literal?

[Audie]

Call8ng " rhetoric " is justva cheap m tr

I'm just going by what the NT says. I don't necessarily believe it's true or right, but I do agree with the born-again Christians that the NT teaches that sin and death entered the world through one man's disobedience, Adam, and is saved by one man's sacrifice, Jesus.

For all the people that want to soften that and find an alternative interpretation, I don't mind. After all, who wants to believe the whole of the Bible and the NT too literally. But... if it is the Word of God, then it should be. And even Baha'is have called it that. I don't. I think it is made-up religious myth. I don't believe it is literally true, but it might be. And I understand why those born-again Christians insist on taking it literally.

Baha'is seem to be saying is that the "truth" of the Bible and the NT is that it definitely should not be taken literally but to find the "true" allegorical meanings behind the things it says. And those allegorical meanings and interpretations given in the Baha'i writing is presented here as being the real truth. And that's the problem... there is no other "truth". Baha'is seem to be just as stuck on their interpretations of the Bible and NT as any Fundy Christian is for theirs. Which causes nothing but division. With neither side given in, because they both "know" they are right.

Then add the Atheists... All they ask for is tangible proof. Baha'is say that without science, religion can fall into be superstition. Which kind of implies that a true religion should have some objective evidence as being true. But those debates go nowhere. Baha'is say the "evidence" is the messengers, his character, his mission and his writings, or something like that. Atheists says that is not good enough. And Baha'is say that is all they are going to get, take it or leave it. Atheists have left it. Lots of Atheists have been posting anymore in the Baha'i threads. There gone. More division.

Then there is the Hindus and Buddhists... Same thing a unifying connection is not being made. They have their beliefs, and in many ways Baha'is are essentially telling them that those beliefs are wrong. More division.

Can the Baha'i Faith solve this problem? Or is it better to be true to your beliefs that your Baha'i teachings are the truth from God, and they can't be compromised? Yet, it seems as though, the others are expected to compromise theirs. Since, to Baha'is, they are not true... at best, only bits and pieces of their beliefs are true.

A. You can't just go by what the NT says.
Nobody can agree on what it says.

B. show me an atheists who asks for
"Tangible proof" ( as if there were
other kind of proof )
Proof of what? God? The supernatural? Only a fool thinks that can happen. Don't be maligning all atheists as suchfools.

It would be nice to see some evidence
that the Bible is more than a collection
of this and that, full of fiction and contraditions.
But we are not going to see such evidence.

Anyway, staring " I believe the bible"
or, " just go by what it says" really mean
" what I choose to think"

It's very naive or disingenuous to claim otherwise.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is no good reason to think it is a myth.

Sorry, it sounds like myth to me too. A cane turning into a snake? A sea parting, then it closes in and drowns the Egyptian army? Elijah taken up in a fiery chariot. A man being born of a virgin? Then walking on water and coming back to life then ascending into the clouds?

I think those things are plenty good reasons to doubt the Bible and the NT as being literally true. But not for believers. I think for believers it is important for you to believe it is 100% true. Where you going to stop if you start taking some of the things as mythical? And for some of us, we don't stop. We look at the Bible and other ancient religious stories as religious myth with some moral teachings and laws mixed in... and maybe even some historical event and people thrown in.

Christianity, to me, could only be a way to get people to follow moral rules and to practice ethical living by promising them heaven and eternal happiness if they believe in Jesus and obey his commands. Then, of course, if they don't, and follow their own way and follow some evil spirit-being called, Satan, they will be cast into a fiery abyss. Sounds mythical, but can people take that chance?

Lots of people don't and go through the motions of being a "true" believer. They do the minimum that is required to be considered a Christian. And that is say they believe Jesus is their Savior. But then we all see their hypocrisy which then adds to the feeling that Christianity is all make-believe. Plus, all the Christian leaders that have had their sex scandals and lavish lifestyles. Oh, and then the Christian leaders in times gone by that have had people tortured and killed for not believing correctly or not converting.

 

[CG Didymus]

Call8ng " rhetoric " is justva cheap m tr

A. You can't just go by what the NT says.
Nobody can agree on what it says.

B. show me an atheists who asks for
"Tangible proof" ( as if there were
other kind of proof )
Proof of what? God? The supernatural? Only a fool thinks that can happen. Don't be maligning all atheists as suchfools.

It would be nice to see some evidence
that the Bible is more than a collection
of this and that, full of fiction and contraditions.
But we are not going to see such evidence.

Anyway, staring " I believe the bible"
or, " just go by what it says" really mean
" what I choose to think"

It's very naive or disingenuous to claim otherwise.

I agree with this statement for born-again Christians...

I think there is no need for interpretations. It is enough to let the Bible explain what it says.

I don't agree with how Baha'is make so much of the Bible and NT allegorical. For me call it false, a hoax, a myth, whatever. but to try and make it "true" by saying it is "symbolically" true, just not "literally" true, makes it easy for Baha'is to make the Bible and the NT into anything they want it to be.

I think the born-again Christians are justified in believing as they do, because they are taking their interpretations from the Bible and NT. Things that they believe are literally true and the Word of God. If it's not the Word of God, if it's just a bunch of fictional stories, then they are basing their beliefs on fiction. Which, to me, there is a very good possibility that is what is happening.

I don't know where you were in the many threads started by Baha'is about evidence for God, but many of them asked for "objective" proof... not just the Baha'is prophet saying that God is real.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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)

We tend to forget that the Bible is a collection of numerous texts, not a single book. I think story arcs within a single book may also have been separate at one time. Thus, we have to take each arc as its own thing.

 

[loverofhumanity]

That may well be true. However it was actually you yourself that started this thread with a question intended to highlight differences.

The disunity in religion has turned people away from it so it’s important to explore why there is this split amongst people who follow the same Bible and the same Jesus. And I think it comes down to conflicting interpretations.

 

[loverofhumanity]

No I cannot accept that, it’s highly speculative, total guesswork. I believe God made a young Earth which is 6000 years old.

But the Bible is about God and man’s relation to Him not evolution so don’t you think that Genesis may be speaking about spiritual and not worldly events?

 

[loverofhumanity]

But God already knows the hearts of sincere and insincere, no?

Yes of course. It is to test those who claim to believe.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Everything in the Bible can be read allegorically but the original meaning and intent is not always allegorical.

For example ancient stories about prehistoric times were certainly myths and they were believed to be literally true. I don't think it was meant to be allegorical. They are a reflection of information and knowledge at the time. Modern archeological knowledge shows a more accurate picture of the past.

On the other hand some parts are clearly meant to be allegorical, for example the parables.

Christians differ on which parts so it has caused sects and divisions to occur. The fact is they couldn’t live peacefully together accepting diversity of thought but expected humanity to accept the law of love which they have failed to do.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think there is no need for interpretations. It is enough to let the Bible explain what it says. And I believe the conflicts don't really come from the Bible. They come from people who don't like the truth and instead develop own doctrines to rule others.

I agree that Christianity would be one religion today if they did not take interpretations so seriously. Once they put theology over love one another their message of love one another meant nothing to the world anymore. You cannot preach love to others and at the same time be split into thousands of sects.

 

[loverofhumanity]

For Christians that should be easy to verify, since they all claim to have a personal relationship with Him.

So, why is it still debated?

The answer to that is left as a simple exercise for the reader.

Ciao

- viole

The problem is I think it’s not God that their relationship is with but their priest, pastor or minister which explains the disagreements among them.

 

[Brian2]

Funny. Leaving it to the reader is misleading.

But you tell us how "God" could give so many different answers to so many earnest seekers.

There's only one answer evident to me.

No that is what you tell us.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We tend to forget that the Bible is a collection of numerous texts, not a single book. I think story arcs within a single book may also have been separate at one time. Thus, we have to take each arc as its own thing.

I believe that the Bible consists of two Revelations from God. That of Moses, the other Christ. The rest is commentary and recorded sayings.

 

[Brian2]

Then it becomes unrealistically historical instead of teaching us about human nature. Useless.

"Unrealistically" historical. Is that when it is hard to believe the history is real?
But you do seem to realise that much of the Bible is written as historical narrative and not as fictional narrative which we are supposed to twist around to mean whatever we want it to mean by making it allegorical.
History does teach us about human nature and in the case of the Bible, it teaches us more importantly about God.

 

[Brian2]

Could be, but if me and my friend had a personal relationship with the same expert in geography, we would never come to differing conclusions. Like me concluding that the distance from NY to LA is several thousands miles, and not just a few yards, like my friend maintains.

And what rhetoric? If I had a personal relationship with expert X, I would simply ask Him. How old is the Universe? Easy.

Otherwise, what does "personal relationship" mean? Mono-directional talking? Well, in that case I claim to have a personal relationship with the wind.

So, I think the conclusions concerning the claims about a personal relationship with the almighty are quite obvious.

Ciao

- viole

And are those obvious conclusions that not everyone who claims a personal relationship with God actually has that relationship or that not all those people with personal relationships actually ask God or listen to what God is saying, or is the only obvious conclusion that the idea of a personal relationship with God is rubbish?????????? or ?

 

[Apostle John]

But the Bible is about God and man’s relation to Him not evolution so don’t you think that Genesis may be speaking about spiritual and not worldly events?

God made the world, it was an event described in Genesis. I don’t believe the evolution theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God made the world, it was an event described in Genesis. I don’t believe the evolution theory.

Evolution is a fact whether you believe in it or not. If you stand on a freeway and say "I do not believe in semi-trucks" do you think that would make you safe?

The theory of evolution explains the fact of gravity just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The theory of evolution explains the fact of gravity just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.

Huh?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh?

You may have the person that I responded to on ignore.

 

[Sand Dancer]

"Unrealistically" historical. Is that when it is hard to believe the history is real?
But you do seem to realise that much of the Bible is written as historical narrative and not as fictional narrative which we are supposed to twist around to mean whatever we want it to mean by making it allegorical.
History does teach us about human nature and in the case of the Bible, it teaches us more importantly about God.

I guess I mostly mean the first few chapters of Genesis, as well as a global flood and exodus. Those things don't teach us much. Now I do like the Prophets.

 

[Audie]

I guess I mostly mean the first few chapters of Genesis, as well as a global flood and exodus. Those things don't teach us much. Now I do like the Prophets.

They help teach about human nature, as in what it takes for a person to actually believe in the Bible as the word of god.