The Figurative Interpretation: Is it Legit?

[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?

 

[Aqualung]

You bring up a very good point. I tend to think most of it is truth, but truth written so people could undstand it. Like what nutshell and Jay were talking about earlier - Why did god guard the Garden of Eden with a flaming sword? Maybe because the people at that time wouldn't understand "forcefield."

 

[Scott1]

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?

Short version= Holy Spirit

Long version= http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1352

Happy reading.

 

[jonny]

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

Common sense.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Pardon me, but these seem rather flippant answers to a serious question. What source is there for
beleiving some parts of the Bible, such as the Jesus' Resurrection is literal while other parts are merely figurative or illustrative to teach a lesson?

Are there extra-biblical teachings which leads one to this beleif? Or is it, as was Johnny says,
merely "common sense"? If it is your own common sense which leads you to believe that, then
how is your common sense any more accurate than mine, which tells me the whole thing is bogus?

Happy debating.

B.

 

[Aqualung]

well, as I said earlier:

You bring up a very good point. I tend to think most of it is truth, but truth written so people could undstand it. Like what nutshell and Jay were talking about earlier - Why did god guard the Garden of Eden with a flaming sword? Maybe because the people at that time wouldn't understand "forcefield."

 

[Shaggy Flasko]

If someone chooses to take a figurative approach to certain portions of scripture, the only thing I request is evidence from the text itself that it should be interpreted in such a manner. I've never met anyone who takes the Bible 100% literally or figuratively. Therefore, to remain consistent and reasonable, they must establish criteria according to hermeneutical principles (audience relevance, for example).

If they can explain logically why they interpret a passage a certain way, then I can happily go from there. It's when people don't attempt to use logic in their interpretation that the discourse is destroyed, since discourse is based on reason and hitherto, logic.

God bless.
-Bill

 

[jonny]

Pardon me, but these seem rather flippant answers to a serious question. What source is there for beleiving some parts of the Bible, such as the Jesus' Resurrection is literal while other parts are merely figurative or illustrative to teach a lesson?

Are there extra-biblical teachings which leads one to this beleif? Or is it, as was Johnny says, merely "common sense"? If it is your own common sense which leads you to believe that, then how is your common sense any more accurate than mine, which tells me the whole thing is bogus?

Happy debating.

B.

I don't believe that all truth is contained in the Bible. For example, I can be fairly certain that the earth was not created in seven days as we would define a day. I can say that God may have created the earth over the span of millions of years and that when the bible refers to a day that it is probably referring to some undefined period of time.

Christ commonly taught with parables. It seems reasonable to me that if he taught us in this way while he was on the earth that he might of taught us this way in other instances. This is where I feel that I have the right to take certain things literally and others figuratively. This pattern is common in religious teachings.

That is what I mean when I say "common sense."

 

[Merlin]

Common sense.

Do not apply to large a dose of common sense to religion.

 

[Merlin]

I don't believe that all truth is contained in the Bible. For example, I can be fairly certain that the earth was not created in seven days as we would define a day. I can say that God may have created the earth over the span of millions of years and that when the bible refers to a day that it is probably referring to some undefined period of time.

Christ commonly taught with parables. It seems reasonable to me that if he taught us in this way while he was on the earth that he might of taught us this way in other instances. This is where I feel that I have the right to take certain things literally and others figuratively. This pattern is common in religious teachings.

That is what I mean when I say "common sense."

This is what is so nice and convenient. It means we are all allowed to interpret many of the Scriptures teachings in our own way. That is why there are hundreds of denominations. All are sure they are right

 

[Deut 13:1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Dear Ceridwen,

Just as we speak to our children in more complex (and accurate) terms as they mature, it is my belief that God has done the same to us. As our understanding of the world around us increases, God is able to give us a more direct explanation. Two verses come to mind:

I Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. NIV

Societies mature just as humans do. It is not hard for me to accept that God would be sensitive to that as well.

Of course, there is also:

Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. NIV

Just as our life is one continual discovery, so is our understanding of God. This is true in the corporate as well as personal sense. Personally, the Spirit will guide us into ALL things as we allow him to.