Metaphorically or literally?

[outhouse]

I said that real places and such can be used as backdrop to such stories. Just because the setting or surrounding events to a mythical story has roots in reality doesn't mean the central story is accurate. We use literary tactics such as this all the time. It is done to make something feel more "real", to make it something we can identify with easier. It's a good story telling tactic and it is seen everywhere.

while in that context does apply for many legends it doesnt apply to all, is my only point.

All the different stories have different amounts of historicity and I find it hard to generalize them all together

 

[Corkscrew]

Bud its only because you dont understand the cultures that wrote and collected the different books.

Ive said the same thing in the past BUT upom gaining further knowledge in the ancient hebrews social aspects and cultural details one picks up on how the ancients thought.


They used to have self proclaimed deities on street corners lol and people of power would be called deities. they lived and surrounded themsleves in mythology. Were talking about a time when darkness was percieved as evil and frightening and they believed people could rise from the dead and a deity was used for everything they couldnt explain.

With no real education they had no reason to believe any different, many of the legends were not even questioned.

repeating legends handed down through oral transmission is not fiction.



Now with all that said im sure some parts were ment as fiction later adopted a literal translation but in general the bible is not fiction

It is quite plausible that many of the stories in the Bible were originally written as an explanation for phenomena the authors didn’t understand, but given our current understanding of the universe, I am happy with the fiction characterization.

 

[thebigpicture]

i can appreciate that you feel that way about the bible, i never realised it was book of history until i studied it myself, so i know where you are coming from on that. But i would just encourage you to keep an open mind about it because there have been many historical events that support the bible accounts.

Is there anything in the bible you feel is not historical?

 

[ChristineES]

The Bible is a lot of books. Some of them are literal, others are metaphoric, and some are a bit of both. It doesn't really matter now, after all, if the ones I believe to be literal really are literal, it was too long ago to prove and to really make any difference anyway.

 

[Corkscrew]

It’s just strange to me that Christians base their faith on this book, but apparently view it different ways. There are some Christians that believe the Bible should be taken literally, and some do not. It just seems that this would be a crucial component of one’s religion. Would it not cause someone to question their faith when they can’t even agree on how their religious blueprint should be interpreted?

 

[Willamena]

It’s just strange to me that Christians base their faith on this book, but apparently view it different ways. There are some Christians that believe the Bible should be taken literally, and some do not. It just seems that this would be a crucial component of one’s religion. Would it not cause someone to question their faith when they can’t even agree on how their religious blueprint should be interpreted?

Metaphor doesn't preclude the literal narrative --if it did, there would be no poetry (well, good poetry anyway).

If it be your will
If there is a choice
Let the rivers fill
Let the hills rejoice
Let your mercy spill
On all these burning hearts in hell
If it be your will
To make us well

And draw us near
And bind us tight
All your children here
In their rags of light
In our rags of light
All dressed to kill
And end this night
If it be your will

 

[Storm]

Metaphorically. Like any other mythology. One simply can't look at the entirety of the bible and honestly take every word literally, unless there is something seriously wrong with their cognitive abilities that is. So once that is realized one must deal with the idea that if all of it is not actual and literal fact, what makes is reasonable to believe that any of it is? And then, what parts are to be literal and which aren't? And who decides which is which?

The problem so many seem to come up against is that they don't seem to think that metaphor and allegory can have great meaning and that things must be literal to have meaning. That simply isn't true. In fact, a story can have much greater meaning as allegory and metaphor than as a literal occurrence. There is nothing wrong with myth, it's what you take from it that is important, and sometimes the importance is greater that you take it as what it means or personally says to you rather than that it actually happened.

QFT! :clap

 

[idav]

For people who take the bible as fact, a verse that is "metaphorical" is still taken literally.

 

[Pegg]

Is there anything in the bible you feel is not historical?

there are some parables given by Jesus which were teaching aids... many of them were not based on real literal events, but rather on situations that could be easily imagined by Jesus listeners.

basically any account in the scriptures which is presented as history, I accept as real history...ie the flood of Noah, the mixing up of the languages, Adam and Eve, the exodus for example are all written as history and I believe it 110%

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I would say they should be taken with a grain rather than a pillar of salt.

 

[Draka]

there are some parables given by Jesus which were teaching aids... many of them were not based on real literal events, but rather on situations that could be easily imagined by Jesus listeners.

basically any account in the scriptures which is presented as history, I accept as real history...ie the flood of Noah, the mixing up of the languages, Adam and Eve, the exodus for example are all written as history and I believe it 110%

Even though those things have been proven over and over not to have happened? The only exception I can think of there is if you take the flood to be maybe a local flood and not a worldwide one. Otherwise, none of that is historically proven, in fact, just the opposite, they have been discredited entirely.

 

[Willamena]

Even though those things have been proven over and over not to have happened? The only exception I can think of there is if you take the flood to be maybe a local flood and not a worldwide one. Otherwise, none of that is historically proven, in fact, just the opposite, they have been discredited entirely.

As non-literal myth, they can happen everyday --but that's an equally unpalatable position for the Bible literalist.

 

[Thief]

Maybe we are given rope.

By note of your restriction....you've been there.

 

[Draka]

As non-literal myth, they can happen everyday --but that's an equally unpalatable position for the Bible literalist.

Oh, I know, if you've noticed I've been trying to make the point that things can be myth and still have meaning. They are ways to communicate meaning or messages beyond just physically. They can actually, and most often do, mean so much more as myth than when taken as literal history. However, as you say, that is not an acceptable position for a literalist.

I just don't understand how one can stubbornly claim to believe that something is actual history when it's been proven that it's not.

 

[Thief]

Yesterdays fiction ....today's reality.
Yesterday's prophecy...today's newsprint.

Long standing scripture not understood?...even today?...not surprising.

 

[Thief]

Oh, I know, if you've noticed I've been trying to make the point that things can be myth and still have meaning. They are ways to communicate meaning or messages beyond just physically. They can actually, and most often do, mean so much more as myth than when taken as literal history. However, as you say, that is not a acceptable position for a literalist.

I just don't understand how one can stubbornly claim to believe that something is actual history when it's been proven that it's not.

I say a lot of things no one wants to hear.

The literalist hesitates as I make room for the scientist.
The scientist hesitates as I make room for God.

(rogue theologian)

 

[Willamena]

Oh, I know, if you've noticed I've been trying to make the point that things can be myth and still have meaning. They are ways to communicate meaning or messages beyond just physically. They can actually, and most often do, mean so much more as myth than when taken as literal history. However, as you say, that is not an acceptable position for a literalist.

I just don't understand how one can stubbornly claim to believe that something is actual history when it's been proven that it's not.

I kind of agree with Thief. I suspect it's the nature of "history" itself, which is a narrative that we (today) are writing and re-writing, and telling ourselves, and re-telling ourselves, based on limited information about the past. As new information comes along, the narrative changes. An assertion about the unreliability of the information is ultimately a statement about the uncertainty invested in our own abilities to piece together a narrative.

 

[Pegg]

Even though those things have been proven over and over not to have happened? The only exception I can think of there is if you take the flood to be maybe a local flood and not a worldwide one. Otherwise, none of that is historically proven, in fact, just the opposite, they have been discredited entirely.

of course anything can be discredited... some people even managed to discredit the moon landing and many people dont believe it actually happened. So anything can be discredited... it doesnt mean squat.

The earth covered by 70% water...that could be evidence of a flood...the water could still be here.

there are river channels deep under the sea bed...that is evidence that at one time, there was far less water on earth then what is currently here which really does indicate flooding... so it really depends on how you view the evidence around us.

 

[outhouse]

of course anything can be discredited... some people even managed to discredit the moon landing and many people dont believe it actually happened. So anything can be discredited... it doesnt mean squat.

The earth covered by 70% water...that could be evidence of a flood...the water could still be here.

there are river channels deep under the sea bed...that is evidence that at one time, there was far less water on earth then what is currently here which really does indicate flooding... so it really depends on how you view the evidence around us.

Regional flooding that wiped out early civilizations that had no knowledge not to build to close to rivers after the last ice age as man quit being nomadic, would also be written about as global floods.

 

[thebigpicture]

there are some parables given by Jesus which were teaching aids... many of them were not based on real literal events, but rather on situations that could be easily imagined by Jesus listeners.

basically any account in the scriptures which is presented as history, I accept as real history...ie the flood of Noah, the mixing up of the languages, Adam and Eve, the exodus for example are all written as history and I believe it 110%

I noticed you only mentioned the New Testament regarding parables. Is is because you feel the Old Testament in its entirety is historical, or you just simply didn't mention it regarding parables?