Question:
Christians: Do you see the Bible as a metaphor, or do you take it literally?
?
2013-03-02 07:38:24 UTC
I could understand how one could believe in a god and see the Bible as a metaphor, but how many Christians actually think that way?

Do you take the Bible literally or metaphorically? Why?
Fifteen answers:
?
2013-03-03 13:40:29 UTC
Don't be ridiculous! A metaphor is a specific type of language figure. The Bible is a collection of written materials of many different types, by many authors, with many points of view, in multiple languages. To ask about it being "a metaphor" is to completely ignore its size and scope.



To get to the heart of what I believe you meant, though: Substantial parts of the Bible were not intended to be taken literally. Not intended that way by the writers, or by the writers of their sources, or by the storytellers who passed down some of the tales orally for generations, or by the ones who made them up in the first place. Nor was there any significant tradition of taking them literally, by those who read and interpreted the writings we have now, until relatively recently. Literal interpretations were the province of the inferior or untrained mind--evidence of a person whose reading level is suitable for "See Spot Run," not for the Bible.



The whole point of studying "See Spot Run" is to advance beyond it, to reach the point where reading is not just an exercise in reading, but a way of appreciating stories. Stories are a major component of the Bible. And stories, as anyone who's gotten as far as Dr. Seuss knows, are very often not meant to be taken literally. That's true whether they are primarily entertaining, or are presented as a history. Most historians--at least, those worth reading--tell the stories of their subjects from a particular point of view, and for most of the history of History itself, it has been understood that history is also propaganda.



People who take the Bible literally, and claim it is somehow God's perfect set of instructions to humanity, seem to me to be worshiping software. They do it because it interposes something between themselves and God: they can point to something in the Bible (as they happen to interpret it) and claim that God is contractually obligated to obey it.



The fact is that the Bible is not a manifesto; it's a selection of samples from a long argument. The notion of God, and his will for humanity, in the earliest-written parts is not much like the notions in the parts written a thousand years later.
Daniel
2013-03-02 08:13:40 UTC
Interesting Question. The Bible is a great literary work of Art. It entails aspects of literal and metaphoric / figurative in regard to logic. One can reflect on both literal and metaphorically in the interpretation of. Logically, the Bible will benefit in any way one sees, thinks and believes it to be as a guide. As a guide it does contribute to the survival of the Human Race as guidelines for all of us living in this Home we call Earth. When it was written it was very well needed. Does anyone think the need has changed ? If the answer is yes, I suggest one listens to the news for just one day. Thanks.
Tristen
2013-03-02 19:05:38 UTC
You present a false dichotomy.



There is no provision in Christianity, for just deciding to take scripture in any particular way.



Some parts of the Bible is meant as an historic account. Other parts are direct teaching. Other parts use intentionally symbolic grammatical tools (such as metaphor, simile, parable etc. - many prophecies are clearly symbolic). [Note that symbolic in the biblical context does not mean untrue, but rather a symbolic representation of the truth]



The Bible is written in human language for humans. How a particular passage of scripture is meant to be interpreted is determined by its context - as is the case for all other human communication.



I suspect that Christians who use the term "literally" don't actually take it literally - they use that term to amplify their claim that it represents the truth. The Bible consists of many grammatical devices such as metaphors, similes, allegories, parables, lyrics, poetry, prophetic visions etc. (which involve some degree of symbolic application). To interpret these "literally" would be to ignore the intent of the author.
2013-03-02 07:41:36 UTC
If God meant the bible strictly as a metaphor, there would be no point in believing it. Many will say that this is the case, regardless. But, those people reject the literal truth of the bible wherein literalism, allegory and metaphor are each used within their own given context.
Whitewolf
2013-03-02 17:44:13 UTC
Well the Bible is made up of different books with different authors. Then the translator is to also be taken into account as well. I take some books literally, others metaphorically.
?
2013-03-03 05:59:34 UTC
We don't "pick and choose" The Old Testament is to show what it was like before Jesus came and saved us, The New Testament is to show how Jesus did save us and how we are suppose to live out lives. With that being said, I can see some of stories being metaphorical, like Adam and Eve, did they really eat an apple under Satans temptation? Maybe not, either way though, they went against Gods word, and they created sin.
?
2016-10-06 07:06:05 UTC
spectacular which you will no longer get an answer. that's person-friendly. The bible tells that are merely illustrations and that are literal. as an occasion: if Jesus grow to be speaking purely to his disciples, often that's going to likely be literal. If he spoke before a crowd, it grow to be constantly with illustrations. "34 a great form of those issues Jesus spoke to the crowds via illustrations. certainly, without an illustration he does not talk to them; 35 that there could be fulfilled what grow to be spoken interior the direction of the prophet who stated: “i visit open my mouth with illustrations, i visit submit issues hidden because of the fact the founding.” (Matt. 13:34-35 see additionally playstation . seventy 8:2) This grow to be to skinny out the riffraff from the extremely involved. those desirous to comprehend could return and ask for the meaning and Jesus could gain this. Revelation is often all illustrations for the destiny, that's on the instant. the motives for a great form of those issues could be discovered interior the others books of the Bible, tremendously Isaiah and Daniel. The introduction account is literal, no longer purely because of the fact it describes God's introduction, yet Jesus noted Adam as a actual individual. At Matthew 19:5, Jesus fees his Father's words in Genesis 2:24 with reference to the 1st marriage of Adam & Eve. In Luke 3, Luke strains the relatives line of Jesus lower back to Adam and to God. Romans 5:12 lays the duty for humanity inheriting sin and dying through Adam on my own. those references have been made because of the introduction account with Adam & Eve being actual, no longer any representation or myth.
?
2013-03-03 20:08:02 UTC
That depends on the context of the passage; if it's meant to be taken literally like GOD's Commandments such as thou shalt not steal, kill and commit adultery or metaphorically; as in the case of parables and visions by the prophets and apostles of GOD as John in the Book of Revelations.
Nathan H
2013-03-02 15:06:39 UTC
Which parts? There's 66 books you know. You're asking for a yes or no answer to a question that does not have a yes or no answer. The answer is both yes and no depending on which part you're talking about.



There are parts of the Bible that deal with history. Was there a literal nation named Israel, with a literal king and a literal palace and a literal temple on a literal mountain? Uh, yes. Duh. That nation is still a literal nation even today since it's rebirth in 1948.



But there are parts that are clearly figurative. When Jesus said "eat my flesh and drink my blood" was he being literal or figurative? Well, he was being figurative, because later on he said to take this bread, for this bread is my body, and take this wine, for this wine is my blood.



When Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and I'll rebuild it in 3 days" was Jesus talking about the literal temple. No, the text clearly tells us that he was talking about his body.



Jesus said all kinds of things that were figurative. But he also said things that were literal, for instance, in Luke 16:25 he says:



"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father."



Jesus clearly said that he had been speaking to them figuratively, but the time is coming when he will speak plainly, in a way that is literal and not figurative.



So you're question is a strange question. You're asking, is all the bible figurative or is it all literal? Uh, neither. It's both figurative and literal.



But when it comes to the Creation of the world, the bible makes it clear that those were 6 literal 24 hour days. That's the way the Bible presents it. It's scientifically impossible for them to be million year time periods, because then you would have plants living through the 4th "day" of creation with no insects to pollenate them. If that day was 24 hours then there would be no problem. But plants cannot go for millions of years without pollination. So yes it has to be a literal 24 hour day because a million year time period is impossible.
?
2013-03-03 17:56:59 UTC
For more than a decade popular TV personality Bill Maher has made a cottage industry out of ridiculing Christianity. Maher has gone so far as to dogmatically pontificate that the Bible was “written in parables. It’s the idiots today who take it literally.” Even a cursory reading reveals that Scripture is a treasury replete with a wide variety of literary styles ranging from poetry, proverbs, and psalms to historical narratives, didactic epistles, and apocalyptic revelations.



To dogmatically assert that the Bible was written in parables and that those who read it LITERALLY must be “idiots” is at best an idiosyncratic form of fundamentalism and at worst a serious misunderstanding of the literal principle of biblical interpretation. In order to read the Bible for all its worth, it is crucial that we interpret it just as we would other forms of communication---in its most obvious and natural sense. As such, we must read it as literature, paying close attention to FORM, FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, AND FANTASY IMAGERY.



If Genesis were reduced to an allegory conveying merely abstract ideas about temptation, sin, and redemption devoid of any correlation with actual events in history, the very foundation of Christianity would be destroyed. If the historical Adam and Eve did not eat of the forbidden fruit and descend into a life of habitual sin resulting in death, there is no need for redemption. On the other hand, if we consider Satan to be a slithering snake, we would not only misunderstand the nature of fallen angels but we might also suppose Jesus triumphed over the work of the devil (Genesis 3:15) by stepping on the head of a serpent rather than through his passion on the cross (Colossians 2:15).



A literalistic method of interpretation often does as much violence to the text as does a spiritualized interpretation that empties the text of objective meaning. A “literal-at-all-costs” method of interpretation is particularly troublesome when it comes to books of the bible in which visionary imagery is the governing genre. For example, in Revelation the apostle John sees an apocalyptic vision in which an angel swinging a sharp sickle gathers grapes into “the great winepress of the wrath of God.” The blood flowing out of the winepress rises as high as “the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs” (Revelation 14:19-20). Interpreting apocalyptic imagery in a woodenly literal sense inevitably leads to absurdity.



Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that Scripture—particularly apocalyptic portions of Scripture—is replete with figurative language. Such language differs from literal language, in which words mean exactly what they say. Figurative language requires readers to use their imagination in order to comprehend what the author is driving at. Such imaginative leaps are the rule rather than the exception in that virtually every genre of literature contains metaphorical language. In point of fact, we might well say that figurative language is the principal means by which God communicates spiritual realities to his children. In other words, God communicates spiritual realities through means of earthly, empirically perceptible events, persons, or objects—what might be best described as living metaphors. For example, everywhere in the New Testament when Jesus teaches using parable, the WORD “parable” appears. A parable is simply an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.



A metaphor is an implied comparison that identifies a word or phrase with something that it does not literally represent. Far from minimizing biblical truth, metaphors serve as magnifying glasses that identify truth we might otherwise miss. This identification creates a meaning that lies beyond a wooden literal interpretation and thus requires an imaginative leap in order to grasp what is meant. For example, when Jesus said, “I am the bread of life” (John 6:48), he obviously was not saying that he was literally the “staff of life” (physical bread). Rather he was metaphorically communicating that he is the “stuff of life” (essence of true life). Biblical metaphors are never to be regarded as vacous occasions for subjective flights of fancy. On the contrary, biblical metaphors are always objectively meaningful, authoritative, and true.



Hyperbole is another figure of speech particularly prevalent in some prophetic passages. While the scriptures must indeed be read as literature, you and I must be ever mindful that the Bible is also far more than literature. Instead, the Scriptures are uniquely inspired by the Spirit. As Peter put it, “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). We must fervently pray that the Spirit, who inspired the Scriptures, illumines our mind as to what is IN the text.



The Voice
805gabe
2013-03-02 07:39:50 UTC
Metaphor because I can somehow still believe in science. If I take everything literally, its much harder to believe in both.
M.
2013-03-03 21:16:27 UTC
Literally ~ more literally than Rai's Yahoo'ed Questions

Let's say that :)
?
2013-03-02 07:47:46 UTC
Dito to Dr. James Wilson's answer.
?
2013-03-02 07:46:44 UTC
They pick and choose to apply things how they see fit. When asked why they don't stone their insolent children or own slaves they brush it off as being the Old Testament.
Richard
2013-03-02 07:39:27 UTC
They pick and chose that is why they are not stoning women that are not virgins on their wedding nights, but they persecute homosexuals.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...