The Bible: Symbolic or Literal?

[jad123]

The flood has been falsified. It cannot have happened unless God supernaturally hid all the possible effects we would see now. It's just as "probable" as a literal interpretation of Scripture leading to geocentrism and a flat earth.

The resurrection, on the other hand, is far from falsified. Christ being resurrected doesn't leave physical evidence like a worldwide flood would. We cannot disprove the resurrection unless we either show Christ never existed or we find his body.

Just to quickly address the flat earth statement lets be clear that science at one time and the Catholic Church stated that the earth was flat not the Bible. The Bible is clear:

Isa 40:22 It is He who sits on the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in;

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 B.C. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested, in his book On the Heavens, that the earth might be a sphere.

 

[Fed]

Just to quickly address the flat earth statement lets be clear that science at one time and the Catholic Church stated that the earth was flat not the Bible. The Bible is clear:

Isa 40:22 It is He who sits on the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in;

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 B.C. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested, in his book On the Heavens, that the earth might be a sphere.

You're not allowed to cherry-pick scriptures here. The Bible makes many references to the corners of the earth and support by pillars. Circularity doesn't imply spherical - you can have a flat circular earth (in fact some ancient cosmologies did believe in flat rings, etc). If the Bible really was that clear, everyone would have been a geocentric sphericist. The fact is people at the time believed the earth was flat and at the center of the universe and if you interpret the Bible literally you will as well. The instant you allow your observation and reason to correct literal reading in one case (geocentrism), you allow it for other cases as well.

You can't shift the burden to the church. A literal interpretation leads to absurdity, regardless of what science or the church then believed. Just as a literal interpretation of the flood is an absurdity, regardless of what the church now believes.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

The flood has been falsified. It cannot have happened unless God supernaturally hid all the possible effects we would see now. It's just as "probable" as a literal interpretation of Scripture leading to geocentrism and a flat earth.

The resurrection, on the other hand, is far from falsified. Christ being resurrected doesn't leave physical evidence like a worldwide flood would. We cannot disprove the resurrection unless we either show Christ never existed or we find his body.

I haven't read much about the flood, so I don't know if it has been falsified...what sources did you use?

But I think there are plenty of Old Testament miracles that are supported by evidence....I don't know how reliable this source is, but, for example:

http://www.probe.org/content/view/31/77/

I'm alright with taking the Bible literally, and I don't find that I have to leave my brain behind when I read it
To each their own, I guess.

God bless


monica

 

[Fed]

I haven't read much about the flood, so I don't know if it has been falsified...what sources did you use?

The flood has been falsified within the scientific community for almost 200 years. There's as much debate among geologists over the flood as there is with astronomers over heliocentrism - none. Most geologists in the early 1800s were Christians who believed in the flood but when they went out to find evidence for it and didn't, they were forced to change their beliefs. There are too many problems with the flood to list here. A quick Google search will reveal most of them. If you want a Christian perspective, you can check out this site.

 

[jad123]

You're not allowed to cherry-pick scriptures here. The Bible makes many references to the corners of the earth and support by pillars. Circularity doesn't imply spherical - you can have a flat circular earth (in fact some ancient cosmologies did believe in flat rings, etc). The fact is people at the time believed the earth was flat and at the center of the universe and if you interpret the Bible literally you will as well. The instant you allow your observation and reason to correct literal reading in one case (geocentrism), you allow it for other cases as well.

You can't shift the burden to the church. A literal interpretation leads to absurdity, regardless of what science or the church then believed. Just as a literal interpretation of the flood is an absurdity, regardless of what the church now believes.

You are blinded by what you think you know and what you have been taught. It is irrelevant what the church or science taught at that time as it is only important what Scripture says. A literal approach at instead of listening to what so called scientist at that time were saying would show the implications of round earth not flat earth. The four corners (East, West, North, South) does not imply flat. Talk of the sun rotating around the earth causing a stir is ridiculous. We use language today that would indicate the sun rotates around us and not us around the sun (the sun rises in the east and sets in the west). Let Scripture speak for itself!

 

[Fed]

You are blinded by what you think you know and what you have been taught. It is irrelevant what the church or science taught at that time as it is only important what Scripture says. A literal approach at instead of listening to what so called scientist at that time were saying would show the implications of round earth not flat earth. The four corners (East, West, North, South) does not imply flat. Talk of the sun rotating around the earth causing a stir is ridiculous. We use language today that would indicate the sun rotates around us and not us around the sun (the sun rises in the east and sets in the west). Let Scripture speak for itself!

No, I'm pretty sure a literal approach would lead to flat earth and geocentric assumptions. In fact, if I remember correctly, it wasn't your pure literal interpretation that led to heliocentrism but rather science. I may be wrong, but it seems Copernicus didn't sit around looking for a better literal reading when he postulated heliocentrism. And neither did Galileo. Instead, they logically concluded a literal reading was inappropriate since the Bible wasn't a science textbook.

Twisting scripture after the fact is funny - if it was really all that obvious, why didn't people realize it then? The fact is - it wasn't obvious, and a literal reading is much more suggestive of flat earth geocentrism. If you were born without scientific knowledge and all you had was the Bible, you'd be a geocentric.

We can use geocentric language today because we know better. It's simply convenient. But unless you can show that the ancient Hebrews knew better, it's a useless accusation. They used it because they believed it.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

"The Bible makes many references to the corners of the earth and support by pillars"

I would argue that the writers of the Bible never meant for these verses to be taken literally. I take the Bible literally where it talks about events, not where the authors used writing devices to make a point.

You are probably referring to things like:

"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (Job 9:6)"
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. (Job 38:4)"
"for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (Job 28:24)"

If you take these verses literally, you would think that the earth has 'foundations' like some ancient civilizations believed. But I think that 'foundation' here is meant in the same way as in Job 4:19: where it's clearly symbolic:

"God places no trust in his servants,
if he charges his angels with error,
how much more those who live in houses of clay,
whose foundations are in the dust,
who are crushed more readily than a moth!"

Do you see a difference between things like:

"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work"

and:

"Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.

Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine."

"Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot."

Or in the Old Testament, compare

"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (Job 9:6)"

and:

"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left."

In the former cases, the writers were trying to make a point. In the latter cases, they were describing events. The Bible never implies that the descriptions of the earth, should be taken literally. But it does seem that we should take the flood, the parting of the sea, the Resurrection; literally.

So it's perfectly possible to believe that the earth is round but that all the Biblical events actually happened.

edit: in addition, as jad123 said, the verses don't even imply that the earth is flat in the first place. "circle of the earth", etc. and I think the Biblical writers used 'four corners of the world' just as we do today: it's a metaphor.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

The flood has been falsified within the scientific community for almost 200 years. There's as much debate among geologists over the flood as there is with astronomers over heliocentrism - none. Most geologists in the early 1800s were Christians who believed in the flood but when they went out to find evidence for it and didn't, they were forced to change their beliefs. There are too many problems with the flood to list here. A quick Google search will reveal most of them. If you want a Christian perspective, you can check out this site.

I'll check out the site, but ..well I'm not trying to sound annoying but there is plenty that science can't explain or understand, and just because scientists think they have disproven something, doesn't mean it's not real. For example, I'm a creationist even though I took several courses on evolution in university. I've probably been presented with every argument in support of evolution there is. But even though I agree with micro evolution and natural selection, I haven't seen significant proof that species change into other species, even though that's what the scientists say.

However, I know there are lots of Christians who do believe in evolution, etc. I don't think they are 'lesser Christians' for doing so, and I don't have a problem with that. But as far as I'm concerned, I don't believe in it.

edit: i'm not trying to start a debate on evolution. I was just using an example.

 

[Floatingaxe]

You're not allowed to cherry-pick scriptures here. The Bible makes many references to the corners of the earth and support by pillars. Circularity doesn't imply spherical - you can have a flat circular earth (in fact some ancient cosmologies did believe in flat rings, etc). If the Bible really was that clear, everyone would have been a geocentric sphericist. The fact is people at the time believed the earth was flat and at the center of the universe and if you interpret the Bible literally you will as well. The instant you allow your observation and reason to correct literal reading in one case (geocentrism), you allow it for other cases as well.

You can't shift the burden to the church. A literal interpretation leads to absurdity, regardless of what science or the church then believed. Just as a literal interpretation of the flood is an absurdity, regardless of what the church now believes.

We aren't responsible for people of the past missing the mark when it comes to scripture calling the earth a circle (sphere). The four corners idea reflects the concept of compass points--NESW. Everyone is familiar with a flat map.

 

[united4Peace]

The flood has been falsified within the scientific community for almost 200 years. There's as much debate among geologists over the flood as there is with astronomers over heliocentrism - none. Most geologists in the early 1800s were Christians who believed in the flood but when they went out to find evidence for it and didn't, they were forced to change their beliefs. There are too many problems with the flood to list here. A quick Google search will reveal most of them. If you want a Christian perspective, you can check out this site.

Great site

 

[ludovica]

My father is an eminent geologist, and he is quite happy with the idea of catastrophic and widespread flooding incidents in prehistory; palaeolithic, mesolithic, neolithic and beyond.

 

[Ave Maria]

Stories such as Noah's Ark are to be taken literally. Much of the Bible is to be taken literally while other parts are to be taken symbolically.

 

[david_x]

You'll have to explain to me how the factuality of the Bible isn't on-topic in a thread titled "The Bible: Symbolic or Literal".

I know what the OP said but this was a side discussion.

 

[Fed]

"The Bible makes many references to the corners of the earth and support by pillars"

I would argue that the writers of the Bible never meant for these verses to be taken literally. I take the Bible literally where it talks about events, not where the authors used writing devices to make a point.

You are probably referring to things like:

"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (Job 9:6)"
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. (Job 38:4)"
"for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (Job 28:24)"

If you take these verses literally, you would think that the earth has 'foundations' like some ancient civilizations believed. But I think that 'foundation' here is meant in the same way as in Job 4:19: where it's clearly symbolic:

"God places no trust in his servants,
if he charges his angels with error,
how much more those who live in houses of clay,
whose foundations are in the dust,
who are crushed more readily than a moth!"

Do you see a difference between things like:

"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts."

Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

"My food," said Jesus, "is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work"

and:

"Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim.

Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine."

"Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot."

Or in the Old Testament, compare

"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (Job 9:6)"

and:

"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left."

In the former cases, the writers were trying to make a point. In the latter cases, they were describing events. The Bible never implies that the descriptions of the earth, should be taken literally. But it does seem that we should take the flood, the parting of the sea, the Resurrection; literally.

So it's perfectly possible to believe that the earth is round but that all the Biblical events actually happened.

edit: in addition, as jad123 said, the verses don't even imply that the earth is flat in the first place. "circle of the earth", etc. and I think the Biblical writers used 'four corners of the world' just as we do today: it's a metaphor.

You're making an arbitrary distinction - desciptions of the earth vs. descriptions of events. The only reason you reject cosmology from the Bible is that there is "clear scientific evidence" to the contrary. You cannot arrive at a correct description of the solar system strictly using the Bible. I say that you can extend using "clear scientific evidence" to an event such as the flood, which would leave incontrovertible evidence, but not to one like the Resurrection, which wouldn't. That's the core of the debate and this was the initial issue.

You accept those things literally which you see as being in tune with reality. That's why you reject geocentrism. But that's exactly why the entire scientific community rejects the flood - it seems just as absurd as geocentrism does to you because to scientists, there's just as much evidence for the flood (none) and plenty against.

I'll check out the site, but ..well I'm not trying to sound annoying but there is plenty that science can't explain or understand, and just because scientists think they have disproven something, doesn't mean it's not real. For example, I'm a creationist even though I took several courses on evolution in university. I've probably been presented with every argument in support of evolution there is. But even though I agree with micro evolution and natural selection, I haven't seen significant proof that species change into other species, even though that's what the scientists say.

Haha I don't plan on convincing you unless you want me to. Really, science is just a process of falsification - that's one thing science is great at. We know our current theories aren't complete, but we know even better that the past ones were worse, or outright wrong. Scientists with no agenda at all falsified the flood. It seems more than unlikely we'll be going back to previously falsified theories.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We aren't responsible for people of the past missing the mark when it comes to scripture calling the earth a circle (sphere).

Please tell me you didn't just equate a circle with a sphere! How can a circle be anything other than flat? How?!

 

[Fed]

We aren't responsible for people of the past missing the mark when it comes to scripture calling the earth a circle (sphere). The four corners idea reflects the concept of compass points--NESW. Everyone is familiar with a flat map.

They didn't miss the mark. A circle is not a sphere. You can have a flat circular earth. They read it literally and got the literal meaning. Compasses didn't exist back then (irrelevant, just pointing it out) and a corner is not a direction. I suggest you take a look at this site.

My father is an eminent geologist, and he is quite happy with the idea of catastrophic and widespread flooding incidents in prehistory; palaeolithic, mesolithic, neolithic and beyond.

Exactly. Except the flood people are referring to here is a global flood covering every mountaintop occurring 4000 years ago. Not a shred of evidence exists for that kind of flood. What's much more likely is a local flood.

 

[Rick Otto]

This topic probably has come up many times before, but I couldn't find any threads on it. Stories such as Noah's Arch, are they to be taken literally? Does it make us lesser of Christians if we take it symbolically?

It is both, sometimes simultaneously, othertimes not.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

"You're making an arbitrary distinction - desciptions of the earth vs. descriptions of events."

I don't think it's arbitrary...imagine if "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (Job 9:6)" was "He shook the earth from its place and made its pillars tremble". I think there's a difference. In terms of language, the two sentences are trying to achieve different things. The first one is written to make a point that is quite unrelated to the structure of the earth. The second one is trying to tell us about an event; something that happened to the earth, and the structure of it immediately becomes important.

"The only reason you reject cosmology from the Bible is that there is "clear scientific evidence" to the contrary."

When the Bible talks about a cosmological event, such as God creating the world, I accept it. For example, when it says "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", I take it as it is. But when the Bible talks about cosmology as a metaphor to make a point about something else, like in Job 9:6, then I take it symbolically, because it's meant to be symbolic.

"You accept those things literally which you see as being in tune with reality. That's why you reject geocentrism."

Well yes, everyone knows now that the earth is not the center of the universe, but even if science had never told us that, there wouldn't have been much cause to believe it because the Bible doesn't tell us that either.

I used to be an agnostic, and stories of a Man who came back from the dead and walked on water didn't seem very 'in tune with reality'. I had to accept it on faith, or not at all. Now I feel convinced it's the truth, but I wasn't convinced back then. It's a similar case with the rest of the Bible...I don't want to reject it just because it doesn't fit my limited perception of "reality", which is mostly based on my own experience and what others have told me.


I'll research the flood though

edit: something I've found on 'the earth not moving': http://creationwiki.org/Bible_says_the_sun_goes_around_the_earth
Maybe it's a similar case with Job 9:6, etc?

Maybe we should all just learn Greek and Hebrew?

 

[Floatingaxe]

Please tell me you didn't just equate a circle with a sphere! How can a circle be anything other than flat? How?!

It is meant as a sphere. The writers of scripture weren't inspired by a moron, you know...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is meant as a sphere.

Then why not use the word סְפֵירָה? Circles and spheres are very different things, so why make such a blatant error?

The writers of scripture weren't inspired by a moron, you know...

The point is that they weren't inspired at all. Why would they call the Earth circular?