The Figurative Interpretation: Is it Legit? (Jesus, Eden, hell, Holy Spirit)

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

For all of Bible-believers who do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible, how do you justify your reformed view?

I've never quite understood how it is that Noah and the Tower of Bable are mere "stories included to teach lessons, etc.", while the resurrection is considered fact, written in stone.

If one is fact, what makes you so sure that the others aren't as well? Inversely, if one is fictional, how can you be sure that the entire book doesn't follow suit?

What makes you think I belive the Tower of Bable or the story of the Flood to be a mere story?

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

For all of Bible-believers who do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible, how do you justify your reformed view?

I've never quite understood how it is that Noah and the Tower of Bable are mere "stories included to teach lessons, etc.", while the resurrection is considered fact, written in stone.

If one is fact, what makes you so sure that the others aren't as well? Inversely, if one is fictional, how can you be sure that the entire book doesn't follow suit?

Very little of any of it is literally true. Some is, but the majority of the stories are myths. It doesn't matter. They all have a purpose, you just have to find the hidden meaning. God didn't make it easy, but it is not impossible.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen

For all of Bible-believers who do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible, how do you justify your reformed view?

I've never quite understood how it is that Noah and the Tower of Bable are mere "stories included to teach lessons, etc.", while the resurrection is considered fact, written in stone.

If one is fact, what makes you so sure that the others aren't as well? Inversely, if one is fictional, how can you be sure that the entire book doesn't follow suit?

I would have to say that I think most of the bible is written in parables; it doesn't even particularly matter to me what is right and what is wrong - as long as the main message gets across.

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by michel

I would have to say that I think most of the bible is written in parables; it doesn't even particularly matter to me what is right and what is wrong - as long as the main message gets across.

Maybe the story of jesus was a parable...

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

For all of Bible-believers who do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible, how do you justify your reformed view?

I've never quite understood how it is that Noah and the Tower of Bable are mere "stories included to teach lessons, etc.", while the resurrection is considered fact, written in stone.

If one is fact, what makes you so sure that the others aren't as well? Inversely, if one is fictional, how can you be sure that the entire book doesn't follow suit?

We recognize the Bible as a compilation of several different books, with a variety of literary styles, types, and tools. For example, we do not need to interpret a parable literally. There are a variety of methods that we use to identify various literary types. We use rhetorical handbooks by Aristotle, Quintillian, and Menander to identify struture of arguments and literary devises. There is actually literary structure to a parable, and we can seperate parables from proems or historical data. A proem is a teaching that usually includes a quotation and interpretation of an OT verse(s) and follows Hebrew midrash structure and therefore should not be interpreted as a parable but as a proem.

The resurrection story in the NT is intended to be the record of an historical fact, and the early church took it as such, and later the church canonized the literal interpretation of the resurrection in all of the Christian creeds, paricularly the Apostles' Creed, the Nichene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

Apostles' Creed: "the third day he rose again from the dead"
Nichene Creed: "For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father."
Athanasian Creed "He died for our salvation, descended into hell, and rose from the dead on the third day."

Compare to Paul in 1 Cor. 15:
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve

14And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.


In other words, the literal resurrection is understood to be critical to the Christian confession, whereas other stories may be interpreted as figurative as we recognize a variety of literary tools/genres/etc. Non-literal interpretations are often justified by the interpreter showing that the story was always intended to be figurative. Also, non-literal interpretations of most of the NT and OT is not needed in order to preserve the Christian confession.

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by Binyamin

Maybe the story of jesus was a parable...

There was certainly somebody. Probably an Essene. He certainly had a ministry and made an impact. He was almost certainly crucified, but probably by the Romans rather than the Jews.

So, in essence, he did exist and the basic story is true. It would take more than a parable or a myth to create a few billion followers.

is isIt was also time to move the world to a higher plane of understanding of God's purpose. The strict discipline of your rituals did allow mankind to develop religiously to the point where it would be able to cope with the next revelation. Jesus brought that.

I will not argue with you whether Jesus was divine, or the Messiah, or just a prophet. That is for each individual to decide. But I think you can be sure that he was here, and he did exactly what was required of him, as did the next person inspired directly by the holy spirit - St Paul.

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by Merlin

There was certainly somebody. Probably an Essene. He certainly had a ministry and made an impact. He was almost certainly crucified, but probably by the Romans rather than the Jews.

So, in essence, he did exist and the basic story is true. It would take more than a parable or a myth to create a few billion followers.

is isIt was also time to move the world to a higher plane of understanding of God's purpose. The strict discipline of your rituals did allow mankind to develop religiously to the point where it would be able to cope with the next revelation. Jesus brought that.

I will not argue with you whether Jesus was divine, or the Messiah, or just a prophet. That is for each individual to decide. But I think you can be sure that he was here, and he did exactly what was required of him, as did the next person inspired directly by the holy spirit - St Paul.

Wait and pick up on the sarcasm, I was making a joking. I have no doubt that a man named, "Yoshua" existed, I do have plenty of doubts about who he claimed to be. But as you said, that in itself is another debate.

[Ceridwen018]

Scott,

I can't see where that link addresses the issue of firguative vs.literal throughout the entire Bible--it just seems to focus on the Gospels.

So again, how can anyone take a half and half stance on the Bible? Of course, the Bible is composed of works by many different authors, so it is certainly possible that some stories were written to be fictional and others as history, but how can one be sure which is which? How can someone say, "Oh, the story of Noah is definitely fictitious, but Jacob wrestling with an Aangel? That totally happened!"

Maybe the story of jesus was a parable...

That's exactly my point.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

For all of Bible-believers who do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible, how do you justify your reformed view?

Actually, it's the idea that all of the bible is literally true that is the relatively recent belief, taking hold only at the beginning of the 20th century. The traditional view, as expressed by Dante, was that the bible was a book of such divine inspiration that it was to be read on several different levels.