The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Professor Moriarty

Safehands wrote: »

Yes and the burning bush that talked?
Made up,
Noah and the lions, kangaroos and Polar bears all living on a big boat? Take a wild guess, true? I don't think so.
We can keep going, it's not that hard really. Have go yourself Professor Moriarty.

But that's my point. Let's apply logic:

Based on my education, I might decide that there is sufficient archaeological evidence to infer that a certain event mentioned in the Bible may have taken place. Based on your education, you might infer that there isn't sufficient evidence. Similarly, based on my intellect, I might apply reason to certain stories and decide that they couldn't have happened. Based on your intellect, you might conclude that they did happen. And so on. So each person will have their own views on the accuracy of the Bible.

Also, because it is such a smorgasbord, I will pick and choose different elements and you will pick and choose different elements. So every human being will have a different interpretation and belief. Unless they take every word of the Bible literally. Which, in my opinion, would be insanity.

So how do we understand the Bible in a cohesive and coherent manner? If every person has a different interpretation then its purpose as the unifying Word of God is rendered meaningless. So who will interpret the Bible and give us meaning? Who will decide what is a metaphor, a fact or an event? What is the rationale behind this interpretation? Why should they decide? What is their purpose in making those interpretations? Where is the evidence that their particular interpretations are the right interpretations? Why should a rational human being hand over their spirituality to this book and those people?

Safehands

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But that's my point. Let's apply logic:
Based on my education, I might decide that there is sufficient archaeological evidence to infer that a certain event mentioned in the Bible may have taken place. Based on your education, you might infer that there isn't sufficient evidence. Similarly, based on my intellect, I might apply reason to certain stories and decide that they couldn't have happened. Based on your intellect, you might conclude that they did happen. And so on. So each person will have their own views on the accuracy of the Bible.

Yes, Lets apply logic. You might decide that there is sufficient archaeological evidence to infer that a certain event mentioned in the Bible may have taken place. Well, if there is any evidence that an event may have taken place then I for one will not dismiss it. I will examine that evidence and then decide if I can believe it or not. Take for example Noah's Ark. No evidence whatsoever. So is it likely that it happened? Is it possible that a man could not only live for 900 years but would continue to father children for most of those years? Answer: No. So I dismiss it as a nice fictitious story. I struggle to think of an OT story that stands up to any scrutiny.
The new Testament is a different story (excuse the pun). Historically there is evidence that some of it took place. I believe Jesus did exist. I believe he was put to death, he did have apostles. Was he devine? I don't believe so

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

every human being will have a different interpretation and belief. Unless they take every word of the Bible literally. Which, in my opinion, would be insanity.

I agree, that would be insanity. So, if we are going to interpret it then everything is up for grabs really. Its down to opinion and interpretation.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So how do we understand the Bible in a cohesive and coherent manner? If every person has a different interpretation then its purpose as the unifying Word of God is rendered meaningless.

The OT certainly is anything but the unifying word of God. The NT can be very useful as a blueprint for how we should lead our lives.
You can interpret it your own way so that it gives meaning to your life. I can do the same. You can do your best based on what you believe and stop trying to make everybody else believe what you believe. I can do the same. Live and let live.
But life is not really like that, is it? That's why we have so many religions and so many conflicts. Will it ever change?

Nick Park

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm still wondering which parts of the Bible are metaphors? Which are stories? Which are facts and events? Who gets to decide and why?

There's no one person, or institution that gets to decide, we all have to interpret the Bible for ourselves.

However, there are certain principles that we follow, just as we do when we interpret any piece of communication, be it written or oral.

For example, consider the following excerpt from an article in today's Irish Independent:

Miriam 'must come clean on her Áras intentions' - presidential hopeful Craughwell.
Presidential hopeful Gerard Craughwell says broadcaster Miriam O'Callaghan may have been "flying a kite" on a potential Áras bid by dropping her summer chat show.
Mr Craughwell believes it's in everybody's interest the public knows who intends to run sooner rather than later and called on Ms O'Callaghan, and any other parties who might be weighing up a bid, to declare their intentions.
"I hope she does run. I think it is time that those who are interested came out of the woodwork and declared their intention," he told the Irish Independent.

That short excerpt actually contains 6 metaphors, and I would guess that we both recognise them without needing anyone else to decide for us. We don't think Miriam O'Callaghan is physically dirty and needs to literally 'come clean'. Nor do we think she we was flying a literal kite, literally dropped a TV show onto the floor, is literally running (at a jog or a sprint?), literally weighed a bid on a set of scales, or that presidential candidates are literally appearing out of holes in woodwork.

The reason why we both (hopefully) instantly recognise the metaphors is because we are clued up to the rules and principles that govern speech in 21st Century Irish journalism.

Now, given how much we accept the use of metaphors in most texts and speech, it would seem rather petty and foolish to poke fun at the Bible for containing metaphors - wouldn't it?

The problem, of course, is that when we try to interpret a text that is thousands of years old (and which has been translated from other languages), we aren't as adept at spotting what is metaphor, parable, hyperbole, poetry or intended to be taken literally.

That is why, if we are really interested in what the authors of the Biblical books were really saying (and not just looking for an opportunity to take a cheap shot at religion) that we engage in literary criticism. This involves studying the cultures from which the biblical texts originated, and recognising how these cultures used poetry to make a point, what were the kind of metaphors they used, and what did their writings look like when they were intended to be taken literally. How, for example, would the language of a historian (like a writer of 1 Kings) differ from the language of a songwriter (like the writer of a Psalm)?

Many of the attempted answers to your question in this thread (which were probably tongue in cheek anyway) focus on whether we think today that miracles are possible. But that is not how historians and theologians approach these texts. They don't decide something is a metaphor because it conflicts with our current understanding of science. They decide if it is a metaphor based on whether they think the original readers would have understood it as metaphor or not.

Of course it is pretty easy to distinguish what in the New Testament is intended to be taken literally or not. We're talking less than 2000 years ago, we know much more about that culture, and we have thousands of texts from a similar time and culture from which we can learn the literary forms and conventions. It gets much harder when dealing with much older texts from a Semitic culture, such as Genesis, where we have very few contemporary examples of literature with which to compare it.