What parts of the bible do you perceive to be literally true?

magma69

Hey all.

It's a question probably asked already but I do not frequent this forum too often. But what particular parts of the bible do you consider to be true and what parts do you consider to be metaphorical.

As an agnostic/atheist myself, I just find it strange how some Christians can see parts of it to be undoubtedly true but perceive other parts to be taken in the metaphorical sense. This to me is flawed because if they can accept parts of it did not literally happen, then how come they can't perceive it all in the metaphorical sense. What reason is there to believe parts are literal truth whilst others are not?

Thanks to those who reply.

KamiKazi

None.

magma69

KamiKazi wrote: »

None.

Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

Fanny Cradock

No, he considers himself to be a troll. Give that this is your second attempt to cause trouble in the last couple of hours, I suggest that you lay off the quips.

KamiKazi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, he considers himself to be a troll. Give that this is your second attempt to cause trouble in the last couple of hours, I suggest that you lay off the quips.

He asked a question, I answered.

thierrym

Personally I think the bible is a legend or a fairy tale and none of it is true. I hope i am not upsetting anyone in saying that. it is my opinion.

Fanny Cradock

I'm going to try a different approach. Listen, given you past history here the intent of your post is clear.

So I'm going to ask you nicely to be nice. OK?

Max Power1

KamiKazi wrote: »

None.

+1

also how can one part of a document be "totally and factually accurate" and others not?

tuxy

How can any record of something that has happened in the past be totally factual? History is written by men and then it's only that persons perception of events.

Fanny Cradock

magma69, are you looking for the opinions of Christians or atheists? If it's the latter might I suggest the A&A forum (though I suspect there wont be much variation in the opinions expressed).

magma69

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

magma69, are you looking for the opinions of Christians or atheists? If it's the latter might I suggest the A&A forum (though I suspect there wont be much variation in the opinions expressed).

From Christians, that is why I posted in here. I'm not trying to stir **** or be disrespectful.

I would imagine most Christians on here are not creationists and I'd just like to discuss how they interpret the bible? If atheists jump in with snide comments. That is surely not my fault.

Fanny Cradock

magma69 wrote: »

From Christians, that is why I posted in here. I'm not trying to stir **** or be disrespectful.

I would imagine most Christians on here are not creationists and I'd just like to discuss how they interpret the bible? If atheists jump in with snide comments. That is surely not my fault.

No, it's not your fault. Didn't mean to imply that it was.

OK, folks, we now have the grounds for the discussion. Let's stick to it.

krudler

For me its always been the main reason I'm a non believer, how some are the absolute truth, the resurrection, virgin birth, all that stuff. But the noahs ark, talking snake stuff, ask a lot of christians and they'll tell you thats only a moral story and not to be taken literally. well why is all the other stuff supposed to? it was written sometimes hundreds of years after the fact (in the loosest sense of the word) so why is outrageous tale #1 true and outrageous tale #2 just a story?

JimiTime

magma69 wrote: »

Hey all.

It's a question probably asked already but I do not frequent this forum too often. But what particular parts of the bible do you consider to be true and what parts do you consider to be metaphorical.

The 'Bible' is not one continuous book. It is a collection of books and letters from a multitude of authors. Some of the accounts are clearly intented to be historical narrative (Twelve tribes of Israel etc), and others are clearly methephor (Revelation).

Sometimes, its not so clear. Our duty as Christians in such rare circumstances is to be honest in our analysis and use our discernment.

As an agnostic/atheist myself, I just find it strange how some Christians can see parts of it to be undoubtedly true but perceive other parts to be taken in the metaphorical sense.

Compare the account of Jacob, to the book of Revelation. Is it still confusing that one is historical narrative, and the other metephorical prophetic language?

Its confusing that anyone would think that the bible has to be either one or the other.

This to me is flawed because if they can accept parts of it did not literally happen, then how come they can't perceive it all in the metaphorical sense. What reason is there to believe parts are literal truth whilst others are not?

Simple answer is, some of the books use methephor, and some use simple narrative. Its self explainitory in most cases. A simple rule of thumb is, 'What was the writer communicating?'.

This whole idea of it should be one or the other is a faulty premise. Even books that have only one author with only one story can use narrative and metephor.

antiskeptic

magma69 wrote: »

Hey all.

It's a question probably asked already but I do not frequent this forum too often. But what particular parts of the bible do you consider to be true and what parts do you consider to be metaphorical.

As an agnostic/atheist myself, I just find it strange how some Christians can see parts of it to be undoubtedly true but perceive other parts to be taken in the metaphorical sense. This to me is flawed because if they can accept parts of it did not literally happen, then how come they can't perceive it all in the metaphorical sense. What reason is there to believe parts are literal truth whilst others are not?

Thanks to those who reply.

Supposing I were to give you account of a recent visit to my sisters during which time I told my niece and nephew a bedtime story. You would, no doubt be able to tell the bits of the account that were literal ("I arrived up at my sisters at 3 o'clock in the afternoon") and which parts were not ("...once upon a time...")

The way in which you decide which bits are literal and which not are derived from the context of the account. And so we can tell that Jesus doesn't mean he is a literal lightbulb when he says "I am the light".

For myself, the Bible takes on the format of a jigsaw puzzle - with certain segments assembled and clear and joined in places to other segments which too as assembled and clear. What is literal/methaphorical can be decided upon (at least provisionally) by examining how well this new piece fits into the existing puzzle. If, for example, one finds a literal Flood fits the overall scheme better than a metaphorical one then a literal take is to be preferred - quite aside from what the current view of science might be.

krudler

antiskeptic wrote: »

Supposing I were to give you account of a recent visit to my sisters during which time I told my niece and nephew a bedtime story. You would, no doubt be able to tell the bits of the account that were literal ("I arrived up at my sisters at 3 o'clock in the afternoon") and which parts were not ("...once upon a time...")

The way in which you decide which bits are literal and which not are derived from the context of the account. And so we can tell that Jesus doesn't mean he is a literal lightbulb when he says "I am the light".

so when it says the world was created in a week, thats literally what happened? if not then why not write "over the course of a few billlion years the world was created into what we know now" not "god worked for 6 days then rested, union regulations"

antiskeptic

krudler wrote: »

so when it says the world was created in a week, thats literally what happened?

Why not? I see no particular requirement to harmonise the Bible with what science says is the case. If that were so, I'd have to suppose all the trouble in the world a result of all the reasons the sciences say there is so much trouble in the world - rather than why the Bible says there is so much trouble in the world (sin).

Fanny Cradock

Magma69, there isn't an easy answer to your question. You have to remember that as a series of text (texts of text even) any analysis of the intention of the may not be immediately apparent to a contemporary audience. 3000 years is a long time and meaning (even in what would have been rather self evident colloquial terms) can often not obvious to us here and now.

By way of answering your overall question, you might find this talk from Revd Dr Ernest Lucas interesting as to why many Christians view an often contentious part of the Bible - Genesis creation accounts (Gen 1 - 3) - as a metaphorical account rather than a scientific explanation.

You can tease this analysis out over other areas of the bible to try and determine what where the author's intentions. The disciplines of exegesis and hermeneutics are useful in trying to address these questions.

mdebets

antiskeptic wrote: »

The way in which you decide which bits are literal and which not are derived from the context of the account.

Not only that, but also in the context of who wrote it and for whom.
That's always important to keep in mind when trying to decide what is a historic narrative and what is not. The Bible wasn't written for 21st century Western European people, but for Bronze/Iron Age people in the Middle East. So you cant really apply modern standards to these texts.

dlofnep

I'm an atheist, but I believe that alot of what was written occured, and alot of it was total nonsense. I believe a man called Jesus existed, and that he was a good man - and that many of the tales of his travels were probably true. But as an atheist, I obviously cannot take some of the more extravagant stories to be true.

antiskeptic

mdebets wrote: »

Not only that, but also in the context of who wrote it and for whom.
That's always important to keep in mind when trying to decide what is a historic narrative and what is not. The Bible wasn't written for 21st century Western European people, but for Bronze/Iron Age people in the Middle East. So you cant really apply modern standards to these texts.

This needn't be strictly true (although I take your point).

If it is the case that the Bible is God's word and intended to be understood primarily by God's people at all times then those in the modern era who are of God's people would be in a better position to discern than those in the era in which a particular book of the Bible was written.

For example: many folk 2000 years ago would have as much trouble accepting as true the (then contemporary) accounts of Jesus' miracles, as many people would today.

antiskeptic

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm an atheist, but I believe that alot of what was written occured, and alot of it was total nonsense. I believe a man called Jesus existed, and that he was a good man - and that many of the tales of his travels were probably true. But as an atheist, I obviously cannot take some of the more extravagant stories to be true.

What's extravagant about God turning water into wine?

mdebets

krudler wrote: »

so when it says the world was created in a week, thats literally what happened?

That's depend on how you define a week.

krudler wrote: »

if not then why not write "over the course of a few billlion years the world was created into what we know now" not "god worked for 6 days then rested, union regulations"

Because the original audience would not have understand this. Instead it was phrased in a language they could understand and comprehend.
I would see it similar to ways you try to explain things today to children, or to people who are not experts in a field. If you try to explain gravity for example to someone who doesn't know anything about physics, you propably wouldn't start talking about Geeneral Relativity or Quantum Mehcanics, instead you would talk about that objects with mass atract each other.

Said all that, if you look at the 6 day accounts and compare it with what science has detected about the order from creation of the sun and earth to the appearance of man, the order of both seems to fit very well, with the 6 day account obvious being a very dumped down version.

dlofnep

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's extravagant about God turning water into wine?

Nothing, if such an entity existed.

I don't believe one exists.

Fanny Cradock

antiskeptic, I would be interested in hearing what you think of the talk I linked to above. While Wolfsbane was unimpressed, I was quite enthused by the whole thing.

mdebets

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

antiskeptic, I would be interested in hearing what you think of the talk I linked to above. While Wolfsbane was unimpressed, I was quite enthused by the whole thing.

I would be interested in hearing it, but I don't really have the time at the moment. Is there a summary somewhere or a transcript?

KamiKazi

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's extravagant about God turning water into wine?

The whole zombie Jesus episode is a bit of a stretch though.

mdebets

antiskeptic wrote: »

This needn't be strictly true (although I take your point).

If it is the case that the Bible is God's word and intended to be understood primarily by God's people at all times then those in the modern era who are of God's people would be in a better position to discern than those in the era in which a particular book of the Bible was written.

But even that would mean that you need to interpret the text. You need to know the context of original writer and reader and then apply this to your current situation. Otherwise, you could not incorporate new developments that weren't mentioned in the Bible (e.g. is downloading a film from the internet morally ok, as it doesn't say in the Bible "Thou shall not downloading films from the Internet without paying" or is it not ok, as it is a form of stealing).

antiskeptic wrote: »

For example: many folk 2000 years ago would have as much trouble accepting as true the (then contemporary) accounts of Jesus' miracles, as many people would today.

That's a different problem, which is even harder to investigate what people in the past really thought.

Fanny Cradock

mdebets wrote: »

I would be interested in hearing it, but I don't really have the time at the moment. Is there a summary somewhere or a transcript?

Yeah. It goes as following: "I'm right and creationists are wrong." Boom Boom!

I can't find any synopsis - all I can find is this transcript from a previous talk on the same topic and perhaps this article (I haven't read it myself). If you are looking for more you can always read his book Can We Believe Genesis Today?. I'm awaiting delivery, so perhaps I'll write a brief review if I get around to it.

Fanny Cradock

KamiKazi wrote: »

The whole zombie Jesus episode is a bit of a stretch though.

You got your wish. For consistent trolling and ignoring a request to stop messing you get banned for a week.

PDN

magma69 wrote: »

As an agnostic/atheist myself, I just find it strange how some Christians can see parts of it to be undoubtedly true but perceive other parts to be taken in the metaphorical sense. This to me is flawed because if they can accept parts of it did not literally happen, then how come they can't perceive it all in the metaphorical sense. What reason is there to believe parts are literal truth whilst others are not?

Thanks to those who reply.

Sorry, I couldn't answer this earlier, but I went out to lunch with my family and the drive to the restaurant took longer than expected because it was raining cats and dogs. Nevertheless, we decided to persevere since we hadn't had a meal altogether like that since my uncle kicked the bucket last year.

The food was excellent. I had Chicken Alfredo. But I think my eyes were bigger than my belly, so now I'm going to have to put my feet up for a while.

Now, you probably read the above two paragraphs and instantly recognised that some phrases were meant to be taken literally while others were meant to be taken metaphorically.

For example, I ate a literal lunch with my literal family. And it was literally raining. Also, the Chicken Alfredo was certainly literal.

However, cats and dogs were not literally falling from the sky. Nor are my eyes literally bigger than my belly (me being rather rotund, that would be a big set of eyes indeed). And, I hope you guessed, my uncle didn't actually kick a literal bucket - he just plain died.

In fact, the only phrase in my wee story that you might be in doubt about would be my reference to putting my feet up. Is that literal, or just an expression that means taking a rest. But if I were to give you a little bit of personal information, such as the fact that I own a very comfortable leather electronic recliner, then you'll probaly understand that i really do have me feet 'up'.

Now, if you were one of the more humorless and pedantic atheists, you might accuse me of not speaking clearly because I used the odd metaphor there. But, I give you credit for being intelligent enough to be able to put one foot in front of the other while you're walking - so you're probably also intelligent enough to discern my metaphors from my literalness.

In fact, my job demands that I have to be a bit picturesque in my speech. After all, every Sunday I get paid to talk for 30 minutes+ to a crowd of 800 people without any of them dropping off (you do understand that 'dropping off' is a metaphor for falling asleep - don't you?)

So, we all live comfortablty every day with the process of both giving and receiving communication in language that mixes both metaphor and literal speech.

Now imagine you were living 2000 years in the future, but still had some knowledge of what Ireland was like in 2010. Imagine you also speak another European language and so need my two paragraphs to be translated into your own language (the kind of cultural, chronological and linguistic distance that separates us from the Gospel writers). You would probably still discern most of the metaphors.

But now imagine you are living 3500 years in the future, in a vastly different culture, and with a language from another linguistic group altogether. The Ireland of 2010, from the little you know of it, seems like a strange and frightening place. Now you read my two paragraphs and, even with the help of a translation, it is much harder to discern what is metaphor and what isn't. That is the kind of cultural, chronological, and linguistic distance that lies between us and the guys who wrote Genesis.

And that is why we generally read the New Testament and instantly understand the difference between Christ's commands and His parables (unless, of course, we are one of those atheist trolls who tries to pretend that Christ ordered His disciples to chop people into pieces).

However, when we read the Old Testament, particularly the early books, we have a much greater need for scholars with a knowledge of Semitic language and ANE culture who can help us discern the original intent of the authors.