Non-literal interpretations of the Bible

[OTPEuJill42]

Something is either literal or not right? Something can't be more literal than something else?

I suppose I didn't phrase it well enough. Certain parts of the Bible were meant to be taken literally, others were not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Based on your second sentence, it would seem then that you have no reasonable basis for claiming that the statement "all interpretations are possible" is "bankrupt." It's one thing to say it's not of primary interest to you, and another to imply that it shouldn't be of interest to anyone.

I think you show a serious lack of reading comprehension but, since it seems willful, I'll just leave you to think what you will ...

 

[robocop (actually)]

The problem with non-literalism is the introduction of a human perspective to a miraculous narrative in which a multitude is fed with 5 loaves and 2 fish. In accepting that we can also accept that 144,000 robes were washed clean in one half bucket of lambs blood.

Can we be open-minded to many ways to see these problems? I want to do this to show you what I mean - it was like you gave the perfect example.
I am assuming that lamb's blood was Christ's blood. What if the bucket of blood was highly purified after each use? Could the blood have been multiplied genetically in the last days with the 144,000? Could a drop of blood be given to everyone on the inside? Jesus didn't take people out of the slums but the slums out people right, so that would fit that? What if they just needed to believe? Blood got respected.

The bread could be astronaut food- very compact - could it be invented? Could Christ have that much power? That got respected when people ate.

What if these things were false or the amounts were simply low? Could a Christian take subconsciously that they were very unlikely to make it while still fully motivated? Wouldn't this be beneficial and highly respected so that Christianity would do well? These questions and comments are to try to get all of you to see your own views on non-literalism for what they are. What you look at is what you get.

Bread+Blood=sacrament. See sacrament prayers.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think it's likely that many, if not most, of these early narratives came from oral traditions and probably weren't exclusive "Breaking News!" put forth by the author(s). Tracing oral traditions back to their origins is undoubtedly in most cases all but impossible.

But tracing tracing an oral tradition back to some origin is not the task.

Let me first suggest a couple of worthwhile books:

1. How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel, by William M. Schniedewind, and
2. Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, by Karel van der Toom.

Textualization was a big deal, and Schniedewind begins by emphasizing that "[w]riting had a numinous power in the ancient world. Its secrets were guarded by scribal guilds within the closed circles of palaces and temples. Early Israel reflects these pre-literate attitudes toward writing."

The sliver of oral tradition that made the cut -- those pericopes that were refined and woven into meta-narratives that were, themselves, fashioned into works that would later be know of collectively as Torah -- were intentional. The task of the interpreter is to tease out that intent.

 

[Burl]

It isn't too far fetched for a non-literalist to accept the Walking on water as metaphorical, and the catching of a whole bunch of fish when the net is cast in a different direction; But the feeding of the multitude can be a bit problematic for me. Jesus said "Feed my children " more than once, so perhaps we can interpret that to mean that a multitude can be 'fed' (hold their attention)on very little, such as religion.

 

[Orbit]

I think you show a serious lack of reading comprehension but, since it seems willful, I'll just leave you to think what you will ...

What a passive-aggressive cop-out. You've been PWND and you respond......with this.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Jesus said "Feed my children " more than once, so perhaps we can interpret that to mean that a multitude can be 'fed' (hold their attention)on very little, such as religion.

I think that is a great interpretation and remember about the sacrament which is also a small piece of bread or wafer. Also, did anyone else notice that a lamb's (human) blood can supposedly wash robes pure instead of stain them. Perhaps Jesus was born with a "Godly" parent so that his blood was of a different consistency.

For answers to blood and bread I again refer you to sacramental prayers. Consider the Mormon prayers:

3 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

2 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

Seeing the intolerance and hate by Christians in my newsfeed every day, from anti-trans protests to this: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/geo...h-at-christian-gathering-let-his-days-be-few/ , I started thinking that a lot of intolerance could be eliminated by a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. This thread is for those of you who practice that to some extent.

Background:
Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that says the Bible is the one, literal, inerrant source of all religious truth, didn't exist in the early Christian church. It was a Protestant invention in the 1500s. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do not subscribe to this idea. I greatly admire the apophatic mystic theology of the early Eastern Orthodox church, which owes to mystic experience and not Biblical text.

Sola Scriptura is responsible for science denial, for example the refusal to see the Genesis account of creation as the creation myth that it is, replete with borrowings from Sumerian myth, and just like any other creation myth around the world. Sola Scriptura leads to intolerance against women, gays, and nonbelievers because it refuses to see the Bible as a collection of writings, quite literally written by men who were products of a violent, patriarchal culture, time, and place.

To fully appreciate the Bible, it needs to be contextualized as the mythologized history that it is, and understood anthropologically. When we do this, many of the negatives fall away. Some may say "If you do that, it's not Christianity any more!". No, it's not Christianity as YOU know it, but it is a Christianity. The idea that salvation depends on "correct" belief is a relatively modern one.

Question:
For those of you who do not interpret the Bible literally, how do you interpret it? What shifts in understanding does that produce? How does that change the religion and its message for you? How does the symbolism of the Bible reveal truths to you? Does your practice change the way you relate to others?

Please no preaching about the "only" true Christianity. Thanks.

My Response
Sola Scriptura simply means that the Christian adheres to, and takes his authority from the Bible only. There are various Churches, like the Catholic Church, which accept other writings and the traditions of the early Church Fathers, as authoritative. The Bible says clearly that when Revelation was finished, that was to be the end until Christ comes again. Cite:-
Revelation 22:18 (KJV)
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
You talk about should the Bible be taken literally? However if you employ all the principles of Biblical interpretation (Hermeneutics) then you will not go far wrong. That is where Christians have not interpreted Scripture correctly and ended heading off in a tangent and starting another church somewhere. For instance, here are but maybe six principles:-
1. Always interpret Scripture literally, unless you have a licence to do otherwise.
2. Examine the Author, who was he.
3. What were the circumstances under which he was writing?
4. What is the subject he was writing about?
5. To whom was he writing if it was a letter?
6. In what language was the Scripture written.
The main thing is that you never stop asking questions.
I hope this helps. Christ’s prophet. Certainty for eternity.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Seeing the intolerance and hate by Christians in my newsfeed every day, from anti-trans protests to this: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/geo...h-at-christian-gathering-let-his-days-be-few/ , I started thinking that a lot of intolerance could be eliminated by a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. This thread is for those of you who practice that to some extent.

Background:
Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that says the Bible is the one, literal, inerrant source of all religious truth, didn't exist in the early Christian church. It was a Protestant invention in the 1500s. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do not subscribe to this idea. I greatly admire the apophatic mystic theology of the early Eastern Orthodox church, which owes to mystic experience and not Biblical text.

Sola Scriptura is responsible for science denial, for example the refusal to see the Genesis account of creation as the creation myth that it is, replete with borrowings from Sumerian myth, and just like any other creation myth around the world. Sola Scriptura leads to intolerance against women, gays, and nonbelievers because it refuses to see the Bible as a collection of writings, quite literally written by men who were products of a violent, patriarchal culture, time, and place.

To fully appreciate the Bible, it needs to be contextualized as the mythologized history that it is, and understood anthropologically. When we do this, many of the negatives fall away. Some may say "If you do that, it's not Christianity any more!". No, it's not Christianity as YOU know it, but it is a Christianity. The idea that salvation depends on "correct" belief is a relatively modern one.

Question:
For those of you who do not interpret the Bible literally, how do you interpret it? What shifts in understanding does that produce? How does that change the religion and its message for you? How does the symbolism of the Bible reveal truths to you? Does your practice change the way you relate to others?

Please no preaching about the "only" true Christianity. Thanks.

You present some very good questions here!

I'll discuss, with anyone who's interested, this "symbolism vs. literalism" regarding the subject, the "New Heavens and New Earth". (Any other subjects will be fine, too.)

"New Heavens, New Earth"


There are a few verses in the Scriptures where it talks about "new heavens and new Earth", like at Isaiah 65:17, 2 Peter 3:13, & Revelation 21:1.

Revelation 21:1 adds, "for the former heavens and the former earth had passed away; and the sea is no more."

Could this be literal? Does this mean, according to the Scriptures, that this planet is going to be destroyed, a new one built, and the oceans will be gone?

If you take it literally, then the physical heavens are going to be destroyed, also. By fire! (2 Peter 3:7-10) That's a lot of destruction! If not literal, what could these 'heavens destroyed by fire' be?

There is much figurative language in the Bible, a lot that is symbolic.

At Ephesians 3:10, Paul likened the existing governments as being in "heavenly places" -- just as the physical heavens are above the Earth, so governments rule over, or are "above", society.

So, the "new heavens" are referring to a 'new' government? Yes. Daniel 2:44 says that God will set up "a kingdom" (i.e., the "new heavens), it will destroy "all these other kingdoms" (the former heavens), and it will rule forever. This Kingdom is the same one Jesus taught his followers to pray for: "let Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth." This Kingdom, of which Jesus is the Ruler (Isaiah 9:6-7; Daniel 7:13-14), is what will accomplish God's "will", or purpose, for the Earth.

Again, what about the Earth? Well, the Bible states in many places that the Earth will never be destroyed -- it is firmly established. Please read Psalms 78:69, and Psalms 104:5, and Ecclesiastes 1:4. Also, at Isaiah 45:18, God says the Earth is "firmly established", because He wants it inhabited, to fulfill His purpose with Adam's offspring. Revelation 21:1 has to be understood figuratively. Otherwise, it contradicts these other Scriptures.

So, what could be the correct understanding? At Genesis 11:1, it says "all the Earth continued to be of one language, and one set of words." What has a language -- the planet, or PEOPLE? So, the Earth here has to be understood as referring to people --Society, that is.

One last thing: how could the sea be no more? Life on Earth absolutely NEEDS the oceans! Again, the Bible explains what it means by sea. If you read Isaiah 57:20, it likens wicked people to the sea. Aren't the wicked the more turbulent part of society? You can understand the analogy.
If you apply this understanding to Revelation 21:1, "the sea is no more", it's actually telling us that wicked people will be "no more"!
See how this corresponds to God's promise at Psalms 37:9-11, Proverbs 2:21-22 and other Scriptures.

Of the MANY people I've spoken with over the years regarding this, all thought that this planet Earth would be destroyed. (It's not their fault, it is what they were taught.) But, really, WHY? There is no REASON to destroy it, it's a beautiful place! What does make sense is getting rid of the wicked on it, and those who oppose God's Kingdom ruling the Earth.

Plus, look at the context of 2 Peter 3...he likens the destruction of the world of Noah's day with the destruction of "the heavens and the Earth THAT NOW EXIST." (The American Standard version says, "But the heavens THAT NOW ARE, and the Earth....; Byington's renders it, "But the PRESENT heavens and earth...") Obviously, Peter is not talking about the physical heavens, because he's saying the heavens existing in Noah's pre-flood day were DIFFERENT than "the heavens that now are", "the present heavens (in Peter's day; i.e., post Flood)." What changed, or was destroyed, back then? It was the society of people and their forms of government, NOT the planet nor any physical heavens. Isnt that right?

The fire is symbolic of something, also. Discuss later, maybe?


I hope this doesn't sound 'disjointed', I actually pieced parts of threads together. Plus, there are more Scriptures I could've used.
This is just to show, when the Bible is misunderstood, then it seems to be contradictory. (If there are a LOT of misinterpretations, then it would seem to have MANY contradictions.) But when one is given the correct understanding, using its entire context to explain it, then it's harmony is beautiful, and makes sense.

This knowledge is nothing I came up with, on my own.... I was taught this.

 

[Burl]

Burgeoning humanity overflows into the space between planets where there is no sea of eat and be eaten in the warren of a space colony.

 

[metis]

My Response
Sola Scriptura simply means that the Christian adheres to, and takes his authority from the Bible only. There are various Churches, like the Catholic Church, which accept other writings and the traditions of the early Church Fathers, as authoritative. The Bible says clearly that when Revelation was finished, that was to be the end until Christ comes again.

The RCC believes that scripture trumps any other source, but you're correct in that both early tradition and on-going traditions can be used. Also, just a reminder that it was the church that chose the Bible and not the other way around.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Hello,

I wanted to read the Torah today and I was reading in Deuteronomy 7:5. It seems Jews cut down Asherah trees of those nations they were "uprooting." That makes the Asherah an enemy God, so how are YHWH and Asherah supposed to be a Godhead?

 

[Burl]

The use of the word "Elohim" suggests male and female gods, plural, which makes sense given the archaeological and textual evidence of the polytheism of the early Hebrews, with Asherah and Yahweh as the god and goddess.

I wanted to read the Torah today and I was reading in Deuteronomy 7:5. It seems Jews cut down Asherah trees of those nations they were "uprooting." That makes the Asherah an enemy God, so how are YHWH and Asherah supposed to be a Godhead?

Eagerly awaiting elucidation.

 

[Orbit]

Eagerly awaiting elucidation.

The rise of patriarchy and monotheism happened. They didn't start that way.

 

[robocop (actually)]

My former Raelian guide lived 37 years in Israel (I think Jerusalem) and said he had only heard of YHVH being the Hebrew God. He said either Asherah was a God to the Hebrews before they were converted or else it was a golden calf phenomenon. I will do some digging...

 

[robocop (actually)]

I looked up Asherah and Queen of Heaven in Wikipedia. It would appear that Asherah was a very ancient (G)goddess that persisted for some time. It seems though, that when they consolidated around Yahweh, they ditched her. Future references to her, I think according to the story most people know, were in a bad light. For instance the verse I just showed and the verse about getting rid of Asherah objects in Solomon's temple.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I looked up Asherah and Queen of Heaven in Wikipedia. It would appear that Asherah was a very ancient (G)goddess that persisted for some time. It seems though, that when they consolidated around Yahweh, they ditched her. Future references to her, I think according to the story most people know, were in a bad light. For instance the verse I just showed and the verse about getting rid of Asherah objects in Solomon's temple.

She was a goddess in fertility worship (as many were back then), no verifiable link to Yahweh has ever been made.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Yeah sorry... I meant to say if they ever associated with her they ditched her at the time of Yahweh. I didn't mean to suggest that they had her. Also, once again, that man I told you about spent 37 years in Jerusalem and never heard of her.

 

[oneeye]

Seeing the intolerance and hate by Christians in my newsfeed every day, from anti-trans protests to this: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/geo...h-at-christian-gathering-let-his-days-be-few/ , I started thinking that a lot of intolerance could be eliminated by a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. This thread is for those of you who practice that to some extent.

Background:
Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that says the Bible is the one, literal, inerrant source of all religious truth, didn't exist in the early Christian church. It was a Protestant invention in the 1500s. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do not subscribe to this idea. I greatly admire the apophatic mystic theology of the early Eastern Orthodox church, which owes to mystic experience and not Biblical text.

Sola Scriptura is responsible for science denial, for example the refusal to see the Genesis account of creation as the creation myth that it is, replete with borrowings from Sumerian myth, and just like any other creation myth around the world. Sola Scriptura leads to intolerance against women, gays, and nonbelievers because it refuses to see the Bible as a collection of writings, quite literally written by men who were products of a violent, patriarchal culture, time, and place.

To fully appreciate the Bible, it needs to be contextualized as the mythologized history that it is, and understood anthropologically. When we do this, many of the negatives fall away. Some may say "If you do that, it's not Christianity any more!". No, it's not Christianity as YOU know it, but it is a Christianity. The idea that salvation depends on "correct" belief is a relatively modern one.

Question:
For those of you who do not interpret the Bible literally, how do you interpret it? What shifts in understanding does that produce? How does that change the religion and its message for you? How does the symbolism of the Bible reveal truths to you? Does your practice change the way you relate to others?

Please no preaching about the "only" true Christianity. Thanks.

As for all of those who read this and think I am a fool. You are probably correct, but please don’t try to reason with me. After all, it would be quite foolish to think you can reason with a fool.
I love your question almost as much as I love honey from the right kind of bees and there is nothing I love more than the right kind of honey.

How do you interpret it?

I don’t think my interpretation is correct enough to be worth mentioning. All I can say is that for the last 20 years I tried to read everything I can find about allegories, parables, metaphors, mythology, symbolism, fables, fairy tales, the occult, and more. The reason is because I think all of these can improve your “skills of interpretation”. However, I must add that I’m not very clever so I had to choose materials that discuss these matters in a simple way.

What shift in understanding did that produce?

The most major shift was the realization that I know nothing. That was easy for me because I did not think I knew a lot to start with. This might make me one of the biggest losers of the human race, but there is always the possibility that the majority of mankind is running in the wrong direction.

As for all the clever people with their clever answers, I will use a quote from a book written by one of my favorite philosophers to explain what I think of them.

“Rabbit's clever," said Pooh thoughtfully.
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit's clever."
"And he has Brain."
"Yes," said Piglet, "Rabbit has Brain."
There was a long silence.
"I suppose," said Pooh, "that that's why he never understands anything.”
― A.A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh

To put it in my own words, I don’t know what the truth is, but I do think that the greatest mysteries in the universe have the simplest solutions in the universe. If you think you know the truth, explain it to a child. If they don’t understand, you are probably wrong. I think a selective few realized this and that is why they used fables, fairy tales and other forms of fiction to conceal the greatest treasures of thoughts and ideas of the wisest of the wise in the past.

That is why my next shift was from the bible to all forms of fiction from the past and present, especially those meant for children.

Mayor of Hamelin: You have an invention?

Pied Piper: I attract attention/ Chiefly with a secret charm/ On creatures that do people harm;/ The mole, the toad, the newt and viper./

[Chuckles]

Pied Piper: Who doesn't know of the Pied Piper?


My favorite position for exploring the unknown and trying to understand is somewhere in the middle.

“Halfway down the stairs, is a stair, where I sit. There isn't any, other stair, quite like, it. I'm not at the bottom, I'm not at the top; So this is the stair, where, I always, stop. Halfway up the stairs, isn't up, and isn't down. It isn't in the nursery, it isn't in the town. And all sorts of funny thoughts, run round my head: It isn't really anywhere! It's somewhere else instead!”
― A.A. Milne

I know you asked more questions, but I don’t really know the answers.

As for those who read this and think I am a fool. You are probably correct, but please don’t try to reason with me. After all, it would be quite foolish to think you can reason with a fool.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Seeing the intolerance and hate by Christians in my newsfeed every day, from anti-trans protests to this: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/geo...h-at-christian-gathering-let-his-days-be-few/ , I started thinking that a lot of intolerance could be eliminated by a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. This thread is for those of you who practice that to some extent.

Background:
Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that says the Bible is the one, literal, inerrant source of all religious truth, didn't exist in the early Christian church. It was a Protestant invention in the 1500s. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy do not subscribe to this idea. I greatly admire the apophatic mystic theology of the early Eastern Orthodox church, which owes to mystic experience and not Biblical text.

Sola Scriptura is responsible for science denial, for example the refusal to see the Genesis account of creation as the creation myth that it is, replete with borrowings from Sumerian myth, and just like any other creation myth around the world. Sola Scriptura leads to intolerance against women, gays, and nonbelievers because it refuses to see the Bible as a collection of writings, quite literally written by men who were products of a violent, patriarchal culture, time, and place.

To fully appreciate the Bible, it needs to be contextualized as the mythologized history that it is, and understood anthropologically. When we do this, many of the negatives fall away. Some may say "If you do that, it's not Christianity any more!". No, it's not Christianity as YOU know it, but it is a Christianity. The idea that salvation depends on "correct" belief is a relatively modern one.

Question:
For those of you who do not interpret the Bible literally, how do you interpret it? What shifts in understanding does that produce? How does that change the religion and its message for you? How does the symbolism of the Bible reveal truths to you? Does your practice change the way you relate to others?

Please no preaching about the "only" true Christianity. Thanks.

Hello. I believe in all the Scriptures of all religions and find that without completely literal interpretations it's easy to accept each religion and be united with all religionists.

Some passages are clearly literal. While other passages are clearly symbolic. The problem is when there is a grey area and instead of it being interpreted in a way that unites it is interpreted in a way that breeds superiority which I believe comes from the ego.

If one look at all the religions, humility is perhaps the greatest of all virtues. To be humble. Interpretations which divide us and go against the law of love and humility are most definitely wrong because they defeat the purpose of say Christ Who taught love.

For me to cling to a verse maintaining I am superior or my religion is superior and I am saved and others are not is not the way of love but the way of the ego.

The verses that claim uniqueness are in all Faiths and only a very small part of their Holy Books so why make them a cause of conflict? There may be another meaning we are not seeing that is not harmful.

For instance Christ is the way. Yes He is. And That was important for Him to say that He was from God. But the verse doesn't say Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna, Zoroaster or Baha'u'llah are not also the way. So why should these meanings be 'added' to the Book? If we are peace lovers we can find that all religions were the 'way' in their time. This need for exclusiveness and superiority ruins the purpose of religion which is brotherhood and love and comes from the ego. We should only listen to our heart when it speaks of love and unity not dissension and estrangement.