This is a debate that really picked up steam in the 17th and 19th centuries, highlighted by events such as the trial of Galileo and the Scopes Monkey Trial.

The question can basically be summed up as which is the correct way to interpret the bible, literally or non-literally?

For nearly a millenium, people only read the bible(which ever version it may have been) literally. However, as man's knowledge grew, many people began to question whether that was the correct way to read the bible. For example, most people assumed, from the bible, that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the solar system/universe. However, as our scientific and technological capabilities grew, we realized that these assumptions were false(or didn't realize as seen by Galileo).

I'm going to cut to the chase now and give my reasons for why the bible SHOULD be interpreted in a non-literal fashion.

1. My first reason is that even though the bible was inspired by God, it was dictated by man, and man is fallible. This isn't saying that when the bible was first written that it contained flaws, but as it was translated and copied, flaws did pop up and were picked up in the bible(see why many pictures of Moses had him with horns in the middle ages). It isn't God's fault, it's mans. We're imperfect beings who makes mistakes, and this shows itself in copies and translations of the bible. One must remember that the bible is a human interpretation of a divine revelation. While the revelation may indeed be supremely perfect, the interpretation could very well and very likely did contain flaws. History is a series of mistakes, and there is no reason to think that the bible is immune. On top of this, the books of the bible were written by different men during different periods of time. These men had different writing styles, vocabularies, and intellectual limits. God could have revealed something to them that they did not have the capability to express coherently, thus requiring them to resort to stories and simpler means of expression.

2. My second reason for why the bible SHOULD be taken in a non-literal fashion is that the bible wasn't written for theologians and intellectuals; it was largely written for the uneducated and illiterate masses. This means that complex ideas, such as creation of the earth, origin of man, and the dual divinity and humanity of Jesus HAD to have been explained through the use of metaphors and stories. If someone tried to explain to an illiterate and uneducated person evolution(even in its barest and most non-scientific sense), one would be faced with incredibly difficulties and blank stares. However, the important part of Genesis isn't how the earth or humans were created or came to be, it's that God had a part in this creation in some form or another. That's why it's essential that the creation story be taken in a non-literal way. It was a story crafted by learned men to teach simple men complex ideas. Now that most of the world is educated(aside from Kansas http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) I kid, I kid), we should look at the intricacies of these biblical stories(the creation story in particular). Now, I think everyone would agree that if the only thing you get from the creation story, you should get that God created us, and the method by which he created us is unimportant(and it is). However, I also think that it's important that people realize that religion and faith does not rise and fall with science. The two are separate and shall remain as such. God will have still created man(by some way or another) whether it be through evolution or creation, or whether he did it in 6 days or 50 million years. It's all irrelevant to the point, and I don't think any biblical scholar would disagree with that.

3. Another reason for why the bible should be read non-literally is that society and the times are so radically different nowadays than they were when the bible was first written and collected. There is a HUGE difference between Jerusalem at the turn of the century and Britain in 1700 or Beijing in 1900 or New York in 2006. It'd be crazy to think that something that applied to the people living in that region at that time should be applied literally to all people in all regions. Non-literal interpretation is the ONLY way to account for important differences in culture and language that God forsaw.

4. My final reason for why the bible should be taken non-literally is that it's impossible for their to be agreement even if the bible were to be taken literally. The bible is too vague to warrant literal interpretation. The chronology and stories are so clouded in mystery, that to think that two individuals could reach the same literal interpretation of the entire bible is ridiculous. There are simply too many areas where the reader needs to make their own interpretation, and there is nothing wrong with that, as God evidently intended for the bible to be read that way. If he wanted the bible to be read literally, then he would have made it capable of being read literally. Even if there could be agreement on the interpretation, there is no guarantee that your interpretation is correct. Literal interpretation is still an interpretation. Inferences must be made even when reading the bible literally, because God doesn't have the good graces to spell every detail out for us clearly. This means that humans, even if trying to read the bible exactly as it is written, can still make mistakes. This isn't so much a deterrant of literal interpretation so much as I view it as a valid reason for why literal interpretation isn't the end all be all of biblical interpretation.

I just want to stress the point that how one reads the bible is largely irrelevant(though the parts that are relevant tend to be biggies, like th genesis story) as long as the reader understands the message being presented. However, I think it needs to be emphasized that the bible is a tool for presenting ideas, not historical or scientific fact. The bible is something that is meant to teach and enlighten people about their faith, not something meant to be the basis of scientific theories or historical research. I don't think enough people understand this point.

Its interesting because i believe the same way except im atheist. i think the bible was written using metaphors that most believers confuse with actual occurances. take Lots wife for example. when she looked back on the city (forgive me for forgeting which one it was) as it was being destroyed when she specifically told not to god turned her in to a pilar of salt. salt is a substance that doesnt easily change. it doesnt bond well and is extremely hard to get it to undergo any physical changes. lots wife didnt want to accept that her city/home was being destroyed. she was stubborn and in this case is compared to salt as disinclined to change.

I agree the bible has good moral values that should not be thrown away because parts of it may not be true.

Also I've noticed that literal believers often ignore the moral aspects and focus on the supernatural aspects, often violating many of their own moral doctrines trying to prove the literal view.

quote:By Albert Einstein:

Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment — an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections.



quote:By Albert Einstein:



A conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I'm going to cut to the chase now and give my reasons for why the bible SHOULD be interpreted in a non-literal fashion.



Good points made http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Any logical analysis of the new testament will show it's main character to speak in metaphors. Who would question that a 'houses built on sand or rock' analogy was ever meant to be taken literally? Or that the sufferers in hell could actually see those in heaven, let alone beg them for a drink?

Is not Jesus spoken of as 'THE WORD'? If the 'WORD' of god spoke in parables/metaphors(many xians believe he was the origin of the written word known as the bible)why would the bible be different? The parables obviously were not actual 'real' stories, there's at least some of the bible that nobody would take as literal http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

On the other hand, took some time to read the life story of King James, 'the' King James' the one who commissioned the King James Bible. Google it, read about his life and struggles for power and the way in which he(a recognised scholar) oversaw the formation of the KJV. Perhaps one should add political intrigue to the list of reasons not to take the bible literally?

Good thread all, enjoyed all thoughts expressed thus far! So refresshing http://www.totse.com/bbs/cool.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/cool.gif)

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

From where do you draw the conclusion the bible was written for the uneducated masses. By the time the bible became readily available to the masses they were beginning to become educated.

quote:Originally posted by Boblong:

From where do you draw the conclusion the bible was written for the uneducated masses. By the time the bible became readily available to the masses they were beginning to become educated.

Printing Press time? I think NC was talking about the Old Testament mostly as he kept reffering to Genesis and talking about the uneducated masses of the times back then who often, like some do today, depended on a religious leader of the community for the answers to such questions.

I agree with what NC said, I like how he said it, and I enjoyed reading it: I don't know why he's a Christian though.

Yes the Original Torah inspired in Moses long ago has since, probably even soon after its creation (and the death of Moses), been re written, edited, deleted from, hidden from people, and basically cut cropped and added to over the centuries until what you have is a large compilation of Hebrew Oral Tradition collected and re collected over time.

The New Testament on the other hand has a somewhat shorter gap perhaps but is still largely a book written using metaphor and parable to teach people easily. Jesus did not author the New Testament, that is not the book by Jesus.

Moses is said to have authored (by the will of God) the Torah but I don't believe the modern Torah is anything like the original but perhaps only small fragments of the original can be found through a majority of retranslations, lost messages, and additions and subtractions to the text: For many reasons, sometimes even deliberate political reasons. To top it off communities which had Torah's were constantly attacked by various forces which often ended up burning many ancient texts over the centuries.

Anyway I want NC to talk to me on MSN or AIM and I want to know why NC is a Christian and not another religion instead.

quote:Originally posted by Boblong:

From where do you draw the conclusion the bible was written for the uneducated masses. By the time the bible became readily available to the masses they were beginning to become educated.

Look up theliteracy rates for 400 AD, 1000 AD, 1250 AD, 1500 AD(which is after the introduction of the printing press in Europe), and 1800 AD. This alone should show you that most people in Christendom were uneducated, but I'm also not asking you to consider the point that even if someone can read, that doesn't mean they could understand exactly what they're reading.

I could give a fully literate man a book explaining christian beliefs in technical terms, and he could very likely not understand a word in it.

I never knew that the historicity of the Torah was in question ?

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

I never knew that the historicity of the Torah was in question ?

I wouldn't put it fully into question, but I'd be hard pressed to use that as a main historical text, or even a supporting historical text.

Look, you can interpret the bible anyway you want but for thousands of years it has been taken quite literally. To change it now would be like losing faith. Once you start changing it to something thet suits you better you're not really being faithful.

that's not true at all. the catholic church has always had many doctrines that are not supported by the bible at all.

besides, the basis of the protestant reformation was that each man can interpret the bible on his own without help from a priest.

quote:Originally posted by NextFix:

Look, you can interpret the bible anyway you want but for thousands of years it has been taken quite literally. To change it now would be like losing faith. Once you start changing it to something thet suits you better you're not really being faithful.

So it's impossible for those people to be wrong?

Besides, those people didn't have near the historical or scientific knowledge that we have today(or at least their access was severely limited to it), and I think that if they knew what we now know, then they'd read the bible metaphorically.

Napoleon, your view on the bible (whatever one might consider that to be) is not wrong HOWEVER fails to do justice to the historiscity(sp?) of the documents concerned and to be brutally frank misses the most important consideration in any understanding of scripture.

Please don't get me wrong, what you said was good and true.Only the worst sort of Evangelicals now understand the bible to be 'literal truth' (hence scholars speak of 'bibliography' as opposed to 'theology').

BUT

And it's a big 'but'! The single most important consideration when trying to understand biblical texts is to attempt to read it as the author intended.

Not necessarily in the original langauge but with the understanding and mindset of the original target audience.

One quick classic example:

"thy rod and thy staff comfort me"

A literal understanding demands that Lord habitually carries a rod and a staff around with him!

Yet, as any scholar here will confirm, this is infact a case of 'double affirmative', which was a common linguistic tool back then and that any reader back then would have understood.(ie "thy rod, yea thy staff, doth comfort me").

A variant of this device appears in many places in the OT and a few in the NT.

Sorry if this post reads a little disjointed, it's been a while since i have podted here /considered any theological point.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Look up theliteracy rates for 400 AD, 1000 AD, 1250 AD, 1500 AD(which is after the introduction of the printing press in Europe), and 1800 AD. This alone should show you that most people in Christendom were uneducated, but I'm also not asking you to consider the point that even if someone can read, that doesn't mean they could understand exactly what they're reading.



This is exactly my point for the majority of the bible's existence it was read almost exclusively by scholars and the wealthy. The uneducated masses rarely read it. So why would you believe it was written for them?

elvis never did no drugs!

penn and teller on a literal bible (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8463073960287313294&q=penn+teller)

quote:Originally posted by Boblong:



This is exactly my point for the majority of the bible's existence it was read almost exclusively by scholars and the wealthy. The uneducated masses rarely read it. So why would you believe it was written for them?

Just because the uneducated masses didn't have the ability to read it for themselves, doesn't mean it wasn't written for them. It was often read to them in church, or by members of the clergy, who although they were literate, weren’t always the most educated.

Wasn’t it the masses that the church wanted to rope in the most? In those days you couldn’t have the peasants revolting against the word of God, so you had to make it easier to understand.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

I never knew that the historicity of the Torah was in question ?

I fully question the historicity of the Modern Old Testament and do not really believe in the timelines given within.

Napoleon do I have you on MSN or AIM yet?

quote:Originally posted by Boblong:

This is exactly my point for the majority of the bible's existence it was read almost exclusively by scholars and the wealthy. The uneducated masses rarely read it. So why would you believe it was written for them?

It was read by them, but who was it read to? Do you think on sunday, the priest just kept quiet about the bible? It was naturally read to the townspeople and parishoners, who wouldn't have been the most intelligent beings, thur requiring metaphors and stories to illustrate complex ideas.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:Napoleon, your view on the bible (whatever one might consider that to be) is not wrong HOWEVER fails to do justice to the historiscity(sp?) of the documents concerned and to be brutally frank misses the most important consideration in any understanding of scripture.

Please don't get me wrong, what you said was good and true.Only the worst sort of Evangelicals now understand the bible to be 'literal truth' (hence scholars speak of 'bibliography' as opposed to 'theology').

BUT

And it's a big 'but'! The single most important consideration when trying to understand biblical texts is to attempt to read it as the author intended.

Not necessarily in the original langauge but with the understanding and mindset of the original target audience.

One quick classic example:

"thy rod and thy staff comfort me"

A literal understanding demands that Lord habitually carries a rod and a staff around with him!

Yet, as any scholar here will confirm, this is infact a case of 'double affirmative', which was a common linguistic tool back then and that any reader back then would have understood.(ie "thy rod, yea thy staff, doth comfort me").

A variant of this device appears in many places in the OT and a few in the NT.

Sorry if this post reads a little disjointed, it's been a while since i have podted here /considered any theological point.

I guess I fail to see what your example has to do with the historicity of the bible. Could perhaps explain some more?

Abrahim, I don't like AIM or MSN, sorry. I have one(AIM that it), I just hate talking on it.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I guess I fail to see what your example has to do with the historicity of the bible. Could perhaps explain some more?

Abrahim, I don't like AIM or MSN, sorry. I have one(AIM that it), I just hate talking on it.

Could I please add you to my AIM? I won't harass you religiously if you don't want to discuss religion but I'd like to have you on my list at least, even if we talk rarely.

If you take the bible literally I suppose you believe the earth was created before the stars, with 1 man, a woman made from a rib, a bunch of animals so the man wouldn't be lonely, only to be "punished" to die because they listened to a talking snake who told them to eat an magic apple.

The bible has some good moral lessons in it, but is otherwise pretty absurd.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

It was read by them, but who was it read to? Do you think on sunday, the priest just kept quiet about the bible? It was naturally read to the townspeople and parishoners, who wouldn't have been the most intelligent beings, thur requiring metaphors and stories to illustrate complex ideas.

Being uneducated/illiterate is not the same thing as being unintelligent, napoleon. The two are not the same.

Metaphors and stories are the best way to illustrate complex ideas, imo.

quote:Originally posted by Jackketchs Muse:

Being uneducated/illiterate is not the same thing as being unintelligent, napoleon. The two are not the same.

Metaphors and stories are the best way to illustrate complex ideas, imo.



Of course they're not the same, but you can't deny that there is a definite and real link between the two.

I mean, you could be one of the most intelligent people on the planet, but without proper education, it would mean nothing(close to at least). This is really all irrelevant though, as the point I'm trying to make is that most people, from the time of Jesus to the present, would be incapable of understanding the complex ideas in the bible if they weren't presented as metahpors. That's all I'm really trying to do.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Of course they're not the same, but you can't deny that there is a definite and real link between the two.

I mean, you could be one of the most intelligent people on the planet, but without proper education, it would mean nothing(close to at least). This is really all irrelevant though, as the point I'm trying to make is that most people, from the time of Jesus to the present, would be incapable of understanding the complex ideas in the bible if they weren't presented as metahpors. That's all I'm really trying to do.





I agree, it is very difficult to wrap your mind around certain things without being given a reference point.

The thing that they did badly, was the withholding of certain scripture to the masses, and teaching only what certain leaders thought was most important.

Once it was in print, and people became more literate, they were at least given the opportunity to read what is written. However, how many people actually do that...even today?

quote:Originally posted by Jackketchs Muse:



However, how many people actually do that...even today?

So true! My wife and I have the Jehovah's Witness's calling by from time to time, one old gentleman shared that he had been a JW since 17years of age -- he is now in his late seventies. JW's do not believe Jesus is God, they believe he is a seperate being. In the process of questioninig his belief we put it to him that two verses from the JW bible are not compatible with their teaching(regardless of my own belief on that point I have found that, like the majority of proselitisers[sp?], the most effective defence is to pose logical questions).

There is a verse in the JW version of Isaih that says something like "I am Jehovah the first and the last and besides me there is no other God". We then showed him the verse from revelations where Jesus is quoted as declaring that he is the first and the last(the JW bible has an annotation that references another text making it clear they believe it was jesus speaking).

The old JW fella was gobsmacked, he said in all his years as a JW he had never considered or read these two verses together. He muttered and stammered trying to think of an explanation and left promising to discuss it with other JW's and return with an answer. Has not happened, he has been back and spoken with the wife, but no answer!

Point is that not only do many people not actually read their bible, but the ones who do often study it in a piecemeal fashion designed by their religion to prove themselves right.

Namaste http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I guess I fail to see what your example has to do with the historicity of the bible. Could perhaps explain some more?



I apologise if i was unclear.

Ok i'll try and explain a bit more.

When you try and interpret a biblical text in a non-literal way there is a major problem and that is that you are a (and i am guessing here) maybe mid to late 20's,intelligent, very well educated man, raised in a liberal western democracy, who speaks maybe 2 or 3 langauges and has a good grounding in 21st technology/science? That about right?

And there's the problem.

You are not trying to interpret or understand the text the way the author intended. This leads automatically to misunderstandings and misconceptions.

It leads you to perhaps see an allegory or parable where none was intended.

I'll try another example.

The story of job is (according to many experts) the oldest story in the bible...so old it goes back to sumeria and even perhaps beyond in one form or another (see further the so-called 'Babylonian Job).

When you as Homo -21st century -sapien read this verse:

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

7: And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

You will immediately assume that this meeting of god and satan never took place in a literal sense. You will assume it is to be understood figuratively...a homily...a way of explaining something to a bunch of camel riding bedsheet wearing peasants. Or maybe even just as a thumping good story.

The evangelical christian who holds the bible to literally true will contend that it did so take place. However, blinded by doctrine, he will assume this 'meeting' between god and satan took place in heaven...because it says something about 'being before the Lord'.

Both views are wrong. You have to remember that this story might be up to 3000 years old and maybe older. The listener who lived around 1000 BC would have had no problem understanding the account!



The scholar asks himself the questions:

1. What was meant by the phrase 'sons of god', in circa 1000 BC. Or rather to whom did it refer to?

2. What was understood by the phrase 'before the Lord'in 1000BC ?

3.Who was the Satan here ? (there is a reason for the article)

4. Who wrote it/ for whom was it written?

etc etc etc blah, blah

Do you see what i mean about respecting the historicity?

(BTW just so you know, it actually describes a literal factual meeting, here on Earth with no supernatural crap, no horned satanic beings and no angels! And the original intended audience would have understood it so.)





[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 08-10-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

I apologise if i was unclear.

Ok i'll try and explain a bit more.

When you try and interpret a biblical text in a non-literal way there is a major problem and that is that you are a (and i am guessing here) maybe mid to late 20's,intelligent, very well educated man, raised in a liberal western democracy, who speaks maybe 2 or 3 langauges and has a good grounding in 21st technology/science? That about right?

18, I speak broken french, and I'm fairly dim witted technology wise. Other than that you're spot on! http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) I get you're point though.

quote:And there's the problem.

You are not trying to interpret or understand the text the way the author intended. This leads automatically to misunderstandings and misconceptions.

It leads you to perhaps see an allegory or parable where none was intended.

I'll try another example.

The story of job is (according to many experts) the oldest story in the bible...so old it goes back to sumeria and even perhaps beyond in one form or another (see further the so-called 'Babylonian Job).

When you as Homo -21st century -sapien read this verse:

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

7: And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

You will immediately assume that this meeting of god and satan never took place in a literal sense. You will assume it is to be understood figuratively...a homily...a way of explaining something to a bunch of camel riding bedsheet wearing peasants. Or maybe even just as a thumping good story.

The evangelical christian who holds the bible to literally true will contend that it did so take place. However, blinded by doctrine, he will assume this 'meeting' between god and satan took place in heaven...because it says something about 'being before the Lord'.

Both views are wrong. You have to remember that this story might be up to 3000 years old and maybe older. The listener who lived around 1000 BC would have had no problem understanding the account!



The scholar asks himself the questions:

1. What was meant by the phrase 'sons of god', in circa 1000 BC. Or rather to whom did it refer to?

2. What was understood by the phrase 'before the Lord'in 1000BC ?

3.Who was the Satan here ? (there is a reason for the article)

4. Who wrote it/ for whom was it written?

etc etc etc blah, blah

Do you see what i mean about respecting the historicity?

(BTW just so you know, it actually describes a literal factual meeting, here on Earth with no supernatural crap, no horned satanic beings and no angels! And the original intended audience would have understood it so.)

Ok, I understand you entirely now, and I agree fullheartedly. This is part of the reason that I wish I had more time, so I could maybe take bible classes if just so I could better make sense of things from a historical perspective.

However, I contend that the non-literal interpretation would still be correct in thi instance, both because you get the main idea from the story and because it(unlike literal interpretation) would allow for leniancy with regards to each individual passage.

That's another component I probably should have stressed in my original post(now that I think about it, I can't believe I didn't mention it). I think we all need to read the bible in context, particularly individual quotes, and especially with regards to time period and intended audience. I don't advocate interpreting every single verse in the bible as a metaphor or something that didn't actually happen, but rather, reading in context and being able to decide which is a story and which is real.