Is the Bible Allegorical or Literal?

[CG Didymus]

Yes the same here with regards to 4.5 billion years being just an approximate estimate.

As to Genesis being mythical though. I suggest another possible meaning.

As the Bible is concerned with spiritual matters, I believe the seven days of creation refer to divine days in which a major spiritual event occurs.

With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (2 Peter 3:8)

So a Day of God is about 1,000 years. Now I believe just as in a normal day the sun rises and sets so too in the Day of God the Sun of Truth rises and sets. That is, a new Prophet, Teacher or Messenger is sent to guide men in each Day. So at one time it was the Day of Moses, at another the Day of Jesus and so on, altogether about Seven in this week or cycle of approximately 7,000 years.

I think They are Krishna, Moses, Buddha, Christ, Zoroaster, Muhammad and the Bab since Adam.

So the religious history of the last 7,000 years is contained in a few verses of Genesis. Nothing to do at all with the age of the earth but the age of this spiritual cycle. It is also known as the ‘Prophetic Cycle’ due to warnings and prophecies about the Last Day, the end of the cycle. And that a new cycle of fulfilment is beginning when all the promises made by God will gradually eventuate such as world peace etc.

As the Bible is mainly about spiritual events, this explanation makes far more sense to me than trying to Intrepid, it literally or just calling the Bible a myth. This way we can see it relates a profound truth that God sends many Messengers to humanity and history backs up Genesis here.

So the people or the person that wrote Genesis thought that was a good idea? I'll go with they made up a myth.

 

[CG Didymus]

Christianity could have united humanity if it did not become divided itself.

Before the Protestant Reformation, how many major sects of Christianity do you think there were? And the largest Christian group, the Roman Church, did keep its followers relatively unified and under control. Kind of like there are small, minor sects of the Baha'i Faith. But the dominant group has declared them heretical and doesn't allow its followers to have anything to do with them.

 

[CG Didymus]

I fully agree with you there. But when you get to things like Christ coming on a cloud with angels and trumpet it doesn’t sound like plain common words but more allegorical as He says He will come like a ‘thief in the night’ and who sees a thief in the night? Certainly not many indicating He will appear at night when people are spiritually asleep and not expecting Him so its possible then to easily miss Him.

I think the "thief" part of it is saying that he will come when no is expecting him. If a person knew when the thief was coming, he could be prepared for him. But of course, my interpretation can't be right, because it doesn't match the Baha'i interpretation.

 

[CG Didymus]

Always happy to share understandings with my Christian brothers and sisters.

Suppose if one wrongfully interprets an allegorical as literal or literally when it should be allegorical one can be led astray but thinking one has the truth! So how does one ‘know’ their interpretation is the correct one?

Take just one event, the resurrection. It is written as if those things actually happened. Mary and the other went to the tomb and it was empty. Is that when the allegory starts? Because before that Jesus was getting crucified, which, I assume, you believe really happened. But wait, in one account people came out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem, so that must be allegorical, right? So, then what? The allegory is mixed in with true events? Or the gospel writers embellished the story with myths and legends?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

I agree. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit into the Baha'i scheme of things. They don't want certain things to be literally true, so they invent a symbolic meaning. To think that the writers would really make things that complicated that no one would know the true interpretation of the Bible until the Baha'is came around.

 

[CG Didymus]

From a Baha'i and Islamic perspective, Adam was a real person and a Prophet. He is the first known Prophet. That would account for the genealogy. However the story of His life in relation to Eve, God, the snake and tree of life appear allegorical to me and make little sense if taken as literal history. Each one of us needs to find a theology and narrative that makes sense and fits with what we know.

But the NT supports the Genesis story and says that it is Adam's fault sin and death entered the world.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But the NT supports the Genesis story and says that it is Adam's fault sin and death entered the world.

That is the conservative or evangelical Christian narrative. However there are many ways of looking at the NT within Christianity including those who are more closely aligned with a Baha'i approach.

 

[1213]

That is so wide open to a free for all.

Sorry, I disagree with that. If everyone would take it as it is written, there would be only one version.

 

[1213]

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?

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

 

[1213]

If it was that easy then Christianity would be one religion but it is divided into conflicting sects over the meaning of the Bible. Which sect has the correct interpretation? I believe in the Bible but do not accept the divisive interpretations.

I believe there to be an interpretation which can bring the world together.

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.

 

[viole]

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)

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

 

[Audie]

Sorry, I disagree with that. If everyone would take it as it is written, there would be only one version.

The one where Jesus is a sheep

 

[Brian2]

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

Different readers will come up with different answers if they think for themselves and are not led to a conclusion based on your misleading rhetoric.

 

[Audie]

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

That would easily rank with "no good reason
to think people in Australia don't walk upside down."

You "believe" there is no good reason
to see the flood as myth.
And it would probably shatter your whole
concept of reality to face facts- which you,
with stunning clarity, have not done.

You probably are an honest person, but
an educated honest person could not make
such a silly claim as "No reason".

 

[Audie]

Different readers will come up with different answers if they think for themselves and are not led to a conclusion based on your misleading rhetoric.

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.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

That is incorrect. You may not know or understand why quite a bit of it is myth. That does not mean that everyone has that limitation.

 

[Audie]

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

You just have to have divine guidance to
see what's clear. Then it's eze- peezy.

 

[viole]

Different readers will come up with different answers if they think for themselves and are not led to a conclusion based on your misleading rhetoric.

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

 

[CG Didymus]

That is the conservative or evangelical Christian narrative. However there are many ways of looking at the NT within Christianity including those who are more closely aligned with a Baha'i approach.

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.