Bible Believers Only - Historicity & Literalness

[Rival]

Same Faith Debates

For Bible believers only.

How do you see Scripture. Do you take a mostly literal or mostly allegorical/metaphorical view of things like Adam and Eve, Noach, etc. Do you believe they were real or something else? Would you class yourself as a fundamentalist, a liberal, anything else?

 

[Dawnofhope]

As you probably appreciate Baha’is are Bible believers along with Christians. Our views cover a spectrum of beliefs that would align from those similar to evangelicals to those who largely rely on Biblical scholars. There’s a useful paper by Colin Dibdin that sums up the Baha’i view as:

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts.

A Bahá'í View of the Bible

There is universal agreement amongst Baha’is about the largely allegorical nature of some stories in Genesis such as The creation of the earth in six days, Adam and Eve and Noah. Science and religion need to be in harmony. So if science establishes the earth is not less than 10,000 years as Young Earth Christians assert then we need to find alternative narratives than those held by Biblical literalists.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Can I be allowed to menace in this area? I must believe in the Bible at least somewhat, considering I use it so much, quote it so much, and also believe in the Qur'an which seems to make mention of the Bible.

I think the Bible is written by God (but that doesn't say much, since I think all things, including your post and my post are also written by God, the writer of Moby Dick also), and I think that God is the one who made it into the book important to two religions and many others and such an influence in the world today also.

I think the Bible also contains traces of true stories and the truth in it, that it is a very important and influential text, and a lot can be derived and learned from it. My strong dislike of it, my visceral negative reaction to it, does not make me actually discount it as necessarily completely all lies, but I think that it may contain clues regarding actual historical events and real people and leaders and all that.

So I believe in the Bible, but a lot of it as symbolism, euhemerized stories or reverse euhemerization like stories of a mythological nature being turned into human figures, like Esther as Ishtar perhaps and Samson as the Sun with a big ol' curly afro.

I take a special interest in the Samaritan Bible and the comparison of the Bible with Canaanite myths and culture as well as the Greek which I think has a significant influence and relationship or related clues as well due to the Hellenistic Jewish period or Second Temple Period.

The Bible is an essential text for someone with interests such as mine, and I also use it in relation to its many words and terms that it contains which also have meanings and potentially other uses and references. These I use almost in a "Kabbalistic" fashion or even "Esoteric" fashion.

I also think of the Bible as a potential "book of magic" that was used eventually by people in such a way, much like other scriptures and books of antiquity.

Yet, I can not take the Bible as entirely accurate in the most literal and cartoonish sense possible, that some people seem to take it, I also don't think it was really supposed to be a book that was "written by God" (so is only as much "written by God" as anything written by human beings), and that it is not collecting accurate history, but only glimpses and clues and its timeline is imprecise and incorrect, its full of contradiction, its collecting lots of different things from different times, and is also placing content into times that are anachronistic and incorrect as well.

I don't believe in many of the details presented in the stories (and in fact hate them deeply, the details I mean) for example the Curse of Noah, the stealing of Blessings by Jacob, the incest of Lot, the blindness of "I don't know who I'm having sex with" stories lol, the chopping up of the concubine, I think its largely rubbish central, gross, horrible, and that anyone who doesn't reject it is probably pretty messed up if they don't have a negative reaction and wish to oppose it, BUT, nonetheless, I think it may reflect some real elements and that the stories didn't just get totally made up entirely in a vacuum, they also not only made references but had intentions or an agenda behind them most likely and provide clues about attitudes and ideas presented by the actual writers and scribes and re-writers over time.

I don't believe the "Oral Torah" is likely to actually be from the time of Moses himself or his "Secret Teaching" regarding the Bible (which he also seems to have not written, or written himself into dying), and I think of it as perhaps a kind of "apologetics" or trying to make something more out of this text, and that overall they might have done an alright job of turning something so weird and un-religious seeming into a semi-noble religious effort with semi-noble ethics possibly in some cases.

Only what seems good is what I approve of in anything.

So for the accuracy or historicity of the Bible, I give a big thumbs down and tongue out, nyah, no way, its flat out not useful as real science, real history, real anything practically, its not even realistic. It also teaches very many bad things, very many bad ideas, and corrupt ideas, bad laws, crazy laws, bad concepts all throughout and implicit in it, it teaches bad things about God and God's nature or confusing things, it teaches bad things about angels potentially, its just very dangerous for people and has led to so many flat out bad and terrible beliefs for those who take it seriously or literally like that.

It provides clues to historical researchers about a lot of stuff, has a lot of useful stuff coded and locked in little clues and information, like mentioning Og for example. Og - Wikipedia "
A reference to "Og" appears in a Phoenician inscription from Byblos (Byblos 13) published in 1974 by Wolfgang Rölling in "Eine neue phoenizische Inschrift aus Byblos," (Neue Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik, vol 2, 1-15 and plate 1). It appears in a damaged 7-line funerary inscription that Rölling dates to around 500 BC, and appears to say that if someone disturbs the bones of the occupant, "the mighty Og will avenge me."

A possible connection to Og and the Rephaim kings of Bashan can also be made with the much older Canaanite Ugaritic text KTU 1.108 from the 13th century B.C., which uses the term "king" in association with the root /rp/ or "Rapah" (the Rephaim of the Bible) and geographic place names that probably correspond to the cities of Ashtaroth and Edrei in the Bible, and with which king Og is expressly said to have ruled from (Deuteronomy 1:4; Joshua 9:10; 12:4; 13:12, 31). The clay tablet from Ugarit KTU 1.108[4] reads in whole, "May Rapiu, King of Eternity, drink [w]ine, yea, may he drink, the powerful and noble [god], the god enthroned in Ashtarat, the god who rules in Edrei, whom men hymn and honour with music on the lyre and the flute, on drum and cymbals, with castanets of ivory, among the goodly companions of Kothar. And may Anat the power<ful> drink, the mistress of kingship, the mistress of dominion, the mistress of the high heavens, [the mistre]ss of the earth." Og's existence and true identity is disputed.[5][6]"

 

[Kenny]

Same Faith Debates

For Bible believers only.

How do you see Scripture. Do you take a most literal ore mostly allegorical/metaphorical view of things like Adam and Eve, Noach, etc. Do you believe they were real or something else? Would you class yourself as a fundamentalist, a liberal, anything else?

There are areas that are allegorical/metaphorical but I trust it is mostly historical. Yes, I believe that there was an Adam and Eve, Noach, Jonah, Joseph and Mary and a God-created child Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you take a most literal ore mostly allegorical/metaphorical view ...

You title the thread "Bible Believers Only - Historicity & Literalness" yet you ask about 'literal' versus 'allegorical/metaphorical', but any given pericope could be intended as literal without being historically accurate.

I believe the the use of the term "mostly" when applied to the bible is mostly problematic.

 

[Deeje]

Same Faith Debates

For Bible believers only.

How do you see Scripture.

I see the Bible as the inspired word of God. For Jews and Christians, it is a guidebook of laws and principles to direct us in life and in our worship.
It is also a record of God’s dealings with one nation, who alone were in a covenant relationship with him. It shows us what God required of them, and what they experienced from him when they obeyed his laws...and the response they received from God when they disobeyed him. (The blessing and the malediction. Deuteronomy 11:26-28)

God did not leave any of us in any doubt about what we can expect from him....and what he requires of us.

Do you take a most literal ore mostly allegorical/metaphorical view of things like Adam and Eve, Noach, etc. Do you believe they were real or something else?

I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the Bible accounts because I believe that God does not lie, and when something was illustrative, or allegorical, it was obvious in its context. I allow scripture to interpret other scripture. If it has one author, it should not contradict itself......men will contradict it by misinterpreting it.

The garden of Eden sets the scene for the Bible’s entire narrative. It also contains the Bible’s first prophesy (Genesis 3:15) the meaning of which only came to be understood gradually over time, identifying Jesus as the one who would deal the devil (the first rebel against God) a fatal head wound, but only after the devil had dealt him a painful, but not fatal, heel wound which was seen in Jesus’ death and resurrection. It also set the scene for the conflict that the children of the devil would bring against the children of God.

Since Jesus came to offer his life for the sin of Adam....if Jesus was real, then so was Adam, or it makes Jesus’ life and death here on earth, meaningless. He made several references to the scenario in Eden.

As for the flood of Noah’s day, again, Jesus referred to it as a literal event, taking from it the situation on earth at that time that forced God to respond in a very drastic way.....and again, just before the return of Christ and another catastrophic event, Jesus said that we could expect the world to again be filled with violence and immorality. (Matthew 23:37-39) I believe that we are seeing this right now.

Would you class yourself as a fundamentalist, a liberal, anything else?

I do not consider myself to be anything but a worshipper of the true God Jehovah, as a disciple of his Messiah, Jesus Christ. I see the divided state of Christianity as proof that a foretold apostasy took place and that there is “wheat” among many “weeds” as Jesus said. We have to identify the wheat and be taught by them in order to be found ‘doing the will of the Father’. (Matthew 7:21-23)

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Oh, here is something sort of weird, cute, and funny to think about:

I take the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible as non-literal and allegorical and symbolic and whatever (even though it appears to be written as quite literal seeming with literalist seeming details).

I take the story of Adam and Eve from the Qur'an as literal, and these are almost identical stories told almost identically. What the heck is that all about? Why do I find one to be wrong if taken literally, the other to be wrong if taken symbolically only?

 

[Windwalker]

Same Faith Debates

For Bible believers only.

How do you see Scripture. Do you take a most literal ore mostly allegorical/metaphorical view of things like Adam and Eve, Noach, etc. Do you believe they were real or something else? Would you class yourself as a fundamentalist, a liberal, anything else?

It's an odd question to say "for bible believers only", and then ask about metaphors, etc. Typically "bible believer" is associated with literalism. But there are those who see the Bible as meaningful, inspired in a spiritual way, without it being literal. So they are "believers", or those who find value and meaning in it.

For me personally, I see scripture as the language I adopted in search for spiritual truth and meaning in my youth, searching for God. There is a great deal of depth and meaning for me, if you remove the literalist insistence on a literal interpretation of it. I see that what the heart hears, has vastly far more meaning than what the rational mind hears. To hear non-linearly, to hear with the heart, opens to understanding, rather than definitions. That means that the truth of what is said, is dynamic. It flows.

So, yeah, I "believe in the bible", but in a way that does not mean a literalist interpretation of it.

 

[Rival]

but any given pericope could be intended as literal without being historically accurate.

It could, and this is an option.

 

[Sundance]

Same Faith Debates

For Bible believers only.

How do you see Scripture. Do you take a mostly literal or mostly allegorical/metaphorical view of things like Adam and Eve, Noach, etc. Do you believe they were real or something else? Would you class yourself as a fundamentalist, a liberal, anything else?

This is a very interesting kind of question, @Rival, and I have had some time to really explore my own perspective on this.

My theology is sort of unorthodox to begin with, but I would call myself a Christian in a strong sense.

The more I’ve learned about early Christianity and the Bible’s cultural and religious contexts, the more I’ve become drawn to an interpretation of the Bible which reflects these realities. So, it’s not in either a literal or metaphorical manner that I read the Bible, but rather a historical or contextual one.


In the Hebrew Scriptures, there is so much to them. They are, to me, not meant to be read the same way. The Book of Genesis, for instance, is made up of stories related to the beginning of the world and early humanity. The Book of Leviticus contains laws to guide a particular nation of people. The Psalms are musical and poetic compositions. Job, The Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes are Wisdom Literature. So I try to account for that in reading these whenever I do.


When reading the Greek Scriptures, recognizing that it’s meant to be a real-world account of the Life and Teachings of an historical person and of His early followers, I often ask myself “if I were a Pagan – as most Gentiles were in that day – living in the first century, how would I read this or react to what was being discussed?”

(Not being Jewish, I have no room to speak to this perspective.)

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Same Faith Debates

For Bible believers only.

How do you see Scripture. Do you take a mostly literal or mostly allegorical/metaphorical view of things like Adam and Eve, Noach, etc. Do you believe they were real or something else? Would you class yourself as a fundamentalist, a liberal, anything else?

I'm open to the possibilities that the more "surreal" events may have been more literally true than what would make sense by today's standards of rationality. However, the wisdom and inspiration I gain from it is because of its allegorical value.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

This is a very interesting kind of question, @Rival, and I have had some time to really explore my own perspective on this.

My theology is sort of unorthodox to begin with, but I would call myself a Christian in a strong sense.

The more I’ve learned about early Christianity and the Bible’s cultural and religious contexts, the more I’ve become drawn to an interpretation of the Bible which reflects these realities. So, it’s not in either a literal or metaphorical manner that I read the Bible, but rather a historical or contextual one.


In the Hebrew Scriptures, there is so much to them. They are, to me, not meant to be read the same way. The Book of Genesis, for instance, is made up of stories related to the beginning of the world and early humanity. The Book of Leviticus contains laws to guide a particular nation of people. The Psalms are musical and poetic compositions. Job, The Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes are Wisdom Literature. So I try to account for that in reading these whenever I do.


When reading the Greek Scriptures, recognizing that it’s meant to be a real-world account of the Life and Teachings of an historical person and of His early followers, I often ask myself “if I were a Pagan – as most Gentiles were in that day – living in the first century, how would I read this or react to what was being discussed?”

(Not being Jewish, I have no room to speak to this perspective.)

I also look at these things from the perspective of the "pagans" and I find what the books really seem to mention the things that people are calling "gods" now quite a bit throughout, and that the New Testament Gospels seem to be a kind of text that proves the superiority of Jesus over these various forces repeatedly in all their domains or manifestations.