Literal vs. Allegorical Interpretation

[RedDragon94]

Does scripture have more than one level of meaning or is it set on only one way of viewing things (that being the literal way)?

 

[Laika]

Voted "more than one" but purely from an anthropological/atheistic view of scripture as something that is handed down and re-interpreted through the generations.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Does scripture have more than one level of meaning or is it set on only one way of viewing things (that being the literal way)?

People choose the one that fits their views.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Does scripture have more than one level of meaning or is it set on only one way of viewing things (that being the literal way)?

I chose more than one not because the Bible is unclear or subjective, no much of it is very clear and can't really be interpreted in a different way.

I chose more than one because there are verses which have a immediate, literal meaning while also having a more long-term symbolic meaning. This really applies to a lot of the prophecies in Isaiah which both signify things that may come to pass in the short term while also the greater messianic prophecies concerning salvation in Jesus Christ.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I chose more than one not because the Bible is unclear or subjective

Can you not also do this to justify any holy text?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Can you not also do this to justify any holy text?

Huh? What do you mean?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Huh? What do you mean?

For example can I also not use this to justify the Koran by saying some parts are literal and some parts are not?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

For example can I also not use this to justify the Koran by saying some parts are literal and some parts are not?

No, you have to look at the genre of the text. The Bible is made up of 66 different books. The Gospels are clearly historical biography. Prophecies in Isaiah or Daniel are just that, prophecies, and so use a lot of symbolic language that is clearly metaphorical.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

No, you have to look at the genre of the text. The Bible is made up of 66 different books. The Gospels are clearly historical biography. Prophecies in Isaiah or Daniel are just that, prophecies, and so use a lot of symbolic language that is clearly metaphorical.

But the Koran also uses prophecy and neither book has historical evidence.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

But the Koran also uses prophecy and neither book has historical evidence.

Okay... when did I say any of this was justification for the Bible's reliability?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Okay... when did I say any of this was justification for the Bible's reliability?

When did I say that you said that?

I was making two separate points.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

When did I say that you said that?

I was making two separate points.

I don't get it, what's the point? How does the Bible or Qu'ran having literal and non-literal parts justify it?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

I don't get it, what's the point? How does the Bible or Qu'ran having literal and non-literal parts justify it?

Because then you can ignore the parts that contradict ethics or science which you cannot do if it is all literal.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Because then you can ignore the parts that contradict ethics or science which you cannot do if it is all literal.

Nah, not really. There are different genres and clear symbolic imagery, but if a command is given in the New Testament or a specific teaching you can't really get around that haha.

You can't just assert something is non-literal, you'd have to argue for it and demonstrate why this is clear from the text itself.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Nah, not really. There are different genres and clear symbolic imagery, but if a command is given in the New Testament or a specific teaching you can't really get around that haha.

You can't just assert something is non-literal, you'd have to argue for it and demonstrate why this is clear from the text itself.

Cool, so is the Adam and Eve story literal?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Cool, so is the Adam and Eve story literal?

Adam and Eve, the people, are quite clearly literal yes. I'm not entirely sure on the whole Creation story itself, there are a number of different arguments purely based on the text. Origen in the 4th century, long long before scientific developments, was arguing for an allegorical interpretation based on his textual analysis. As I said, I'm not really 100% decided myself, it isn't a fundamental core doctrine of my faith.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Adam and Eve, the people, are quite clearly literal yes. I'm not entirely sure on the whole Creation story itself, there are a number of different arguments purely based on the text. Origen in the 4th century, long long before scientific developments, was arguing for an allegorical interpretation based on his textual analysis. As I said, I'm not really 100% decided myself, it isn't a fundamental core doctrine of my faith.

So regardless you believe all humans are descend from one maternal and paternal ancestor?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

So regardless you believe all humans are descend from one maternal and paternal ancestor?

Yes. Wouldn't science agree with mitochondrial Eve?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Yes. Wouldn't science agree with mitochondrial Eve?

Yes however her counterpart. the y-chromosome Adam does not exist.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Yes however her counterpart. the y-chromosome Adam does not exist.

If mitochondrial Eve exists then we are all descended from one couple. You're aware of how reproduction works... right?

(I apologise for the snarkiness of that post)