Understanding the Bible

Thanks for all the help with choosing a version, next is the issue of how to understand it. One poster somewhere in CF explained that not all the Bible should be taken literally - The Song of Solomon is obviously poetic.

My question is how does someone decide if a passage is literal or metaphorical?

GreenMunchkin said:

Hilo

It's often in the flow of the language. This is such a massive, massive question, though, and short of being a scholar of ancient Greek, Latin and Aramaic (which am not... I can say "puella est in horto" [which means "the girl is in the garden"... check me out speaking Latin!] but beyond that, I know very little) it's hard to explain intellectually. This'll sound like a cop out but I've always sort of depended on the Holy Spirit to lead in that respect. But. For a non-Christian that's impossible, so may I recommend a book that's awesome in explaining all of this? It's also jolly readable and fascinating. It's largely intended for a Christian audience, so it makes some assumptions in terms of the beliefs of the reader, but it's also incredibly informative and knowledgable when it comes to each book and how it ought to be read.

It's called Unlocking the Bible by David Pawson and tis honestly wonderful.

Click to expand...

Hi Munchy

I remember trying to learn Hebrew, it was fun but I didn't get very far, that was after all the comments from visiting preachers about how this word or that didn't accurately convey the meaning of the text.

The exact meaning of the word does matter. If I recall, the Hebrew for donkey is the same word as the Hebrew for heap, so 'with the jawbone of a donkey I made heaps of men' is pointless in English but sort of witty in Hebrew.

But it isn't just the exact meanings of the words but the interpretation.

One form of interpretation I had never met before appears in my previous thread 'read the Bible, but which one?' in post 33 where one poster states that Noah's Flood was really God saying he could have done that and wiped out evil, but it would be terribly nasty to drown everyone and everything and the narrative then explains how evil would just start again anyway.

With this type of interpretation what the Bible says is either what happened or what could have happened but didn't happen.

Basically all the nice stuff happened and all the nasty stuff didn't, and it is up to the reader to decide which is which. Because the Bible lacks any statements that 'what follows is metaphor', or 'God stated he could wipe out evil by flooding the Earth but evil would return in the very next generation', effectively the reader is producing his own Bible as he reads it.

And if he doesn't like any of it he just swaps the meaning from 'did this' to 'that's why I didn't do it' until the reader is happy with the end result.

MorkandMindy said:

...With this type of interpretation what the Bible says is either what happened or what ... didn't happen...

Click to expand...

theVirginian said:

I hate when people do this. I can almost hear them thinking, "My mind is so awesome, that if it can't wrap itself around something in the Bible, it didn't happen."

Click to expand...

I thought the poster was trying to find a way around the objection that God is responsible for an awful lot of killing in the O.T.

Unfortunately it also rendered the Bible totally meaningless since there was no basis for determining where to apply it and where not to.

But the problem if we do drop that fix is we have God responsible for killing all of Egypt's first-born, whether human or animal, and commanding His Chosen People to cut up the non-chosen people all over the promised land.

twistedsketch said:

Well, an easy way for me to tell if it's poetry is when I look in my NIV, and I see indented text.

Click to expand...

Excellent; a simple answer that takes less than a year to understand!

twistedsketch said:

It's not the end-all, be-all way to tell, but it's a start.

Click to expand...

Um, just looked in my NIV and Gen 1 is indented because it is all quotations, and this rule is used throughout the NIV, Gen 2 is not indented.

twistedsketch said:

Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Lamentations are all poetry.

The challenge with the poetic passages is obtaining the truth from them, while treating them according to their genre. God probably doesn't have a literal helmet called "salvation," (Isaiah 59:17) but we do know from this verse that he is a God who is mighty to save.

Click to expand...

Just because it is poetry doesn't mean it isn't also true.

PS 119 for example is a good read and it doesn't contain anything impossible nor does PS 121. I don't have time to read all the Psalms right now but they don't seem to contain the untrue stuff in Gen 1. I don't think claiming Gen 1 is poetry gives God the right to lie.

One well-established method for determining which Bible statements are literal and which are metaphorical is simply that if they are not true then they are intended to be metaphorical.

Sounds good to me: If I ever say something and it turns out untrue then it was meant to be taken metaphorically. Suspects taken by the police will never be found to lie because all their untrue statements were just meant to be interpreted as metaphor. (Maybe I could make a fortune as a lawyer using that defense.)

twistedsketch said:

...
Some things to keep in mind here:

- All rights come from God. All humanity are the subjects, he is the King.

- The Canaanites, who he commanded the Israelites to "cut up" as you put it, were heavily involved in human sacrifice, even sacrificing children (look up Ras Shamra sometime). They had been a wicked people for longer than 400 years, the time in which Israel had spent its time in Egypt (Genesis 15:12-16). In short, they deserved it.

- The plagues were a direct attack on Pharoah's supremacy and authority, as well as the notion that Egypt's gods were anything of significance. Furthermore, remember that Pharoah ordered the slaughter of all Hebrew boys.

Click to expand...

- Pharaoh according to Ex ordered the two Hebrew midwives to kill the boy babies. This they did not do but gave the excuse that the Hebrew women birth too quickly and that seemed good enough. Pharaoh did not seem interested in taking more effective action.

- 'All rights come from God'

OK, if you believe God exists, and you believe he is the potter and we are the pots and he can break any he chooses, well if he wants to kill someone he can do it himself.

In any case this leads to the other problem that if Satan is a killer why does God do over 99% of all the killing in the Bible?

- The Canaanites...

This is where a commentary might come in useful, except an evangelical commentary will only give information to make scripture sound true and nothing against it, so maybe not.

Human sacrifice was mainly to placate god to ensure the rains came when needed, agricultural societies would be far more prone to this than a shepherding society like Israel.

But despite the lack of perceived need it still went on in Israel.

Lev 18: 21 Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

1 Kings 11:7
On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.

2 Kings 23:10
He desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice his son or daughter in the fire to Molech

Judges 11:31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."

32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.

34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."

36 "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."

38 "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.


Despite my Bible study course jumping all over the place, some of it did get sifted out in my mind.

Basically in the earlier parts of the O.T. the Israelites did all sorts of really nasty things like the odd bit of human sacrifice. In the gospels although they did tithe their herbs they also got up to even worse things like saying their prayers aloud at the street corners, and for that the nation of Israel was totally destroyed.

Van said:

How to interpret the Bible? Now that is the question.

Let's see, should we decide what it says and then if something does not mesh, we say that it does not mean what it says, it is figurative, or has no application or whatever. Jesus says the traditions of men make scripture to no effect.

Let's take just one example, say you come across a verse that says God's eyes are everywhere. But you recall that another verse says God is spirit, meaning He has no physical body, no eyes no hands, no arms. So rather than interpret these verses as meaning God has a physical body, we understand them to mean God's capabilities and attributes are being described in human terms, metaphorically.

And the last thought I have is sometimes it is not clear whether the passage should be taken literally or not. And so, some go one way, and others another way and then the folks fight as if their way was the only way.

May God Bless

Or how about if the literal sense makes sense and is consistent with the rest of the Bible, then seek no other sense, i.e figurative.

If the literal sense creates contradictions then careful study of all the passages that address the issue must be studied to seek a consistent understanding. This employees the idea that if the Bible is rightly understood it provides a consistent view. I think that one is sound.

Click to expand...

That is exactly how I have always interpreted scripture too.

Attempts to explain that God didn't mean what it looks like he meant have always led to lots more problems than they solved,

cheers, Morky

GreenMunchkin said:

This is totally true. For example, "love" in the English Bible covers 3 different words for love in the original text and it loses so much of its colour and meaning. If I can show you what I mean? After Peter betrayed Jesus by denying Him 3 times, in our English Bible, all we have is Jesus asking Peter 3 times whether he loves Him. But in the original it went like this:

"Peter, do you agape me?"
"Lord, you know I filio you."
"Peter, do you agape me?"
"Lord, you know I filio you!"
"Peter, do you filio me?"
"Yes, Lord, I filio you."

The difference between those 2 is enormous. Agape is the love He has for us; it's an overwhelming, unconditional, everlasting love. Filio love is still wonderful, but very human. Brotherly. So in the original, Jesus wasn't just asking Peter 3 times to balance out the 3 betrayals. He is telling us that (as in the parable of the Prodigal Son) He will meet us wherever we are; He will take what we are willing to give Him. The depth of His love there is completely lost when only "love" is used. Same in the gospel of Matthew when we're told not to judge - the original text had 2 words and meanings. So, aye, there is mucho mucho value in learning the Biblical languages

Click to expand...

Yes, there are fewer words in Hebrew so it works the opposite way - what in Hebrew is a pun in English is not.

But as you pointed out where there are several words describing different entities in the source language, a lot of meaning is lost by converting all those words into one word in English.

Obtaining an accurate translation (if that is possible, but learning Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek is not) was the point of my previous thread 'read the Bible, but which one?'.

I started that thread because I had found that the NIV I had used for years contained deliberate mistranslations, and as the thread progressed it turned out that nearly all newer translations were inferior to the 1611 King James in accuracy.

The KJV website I looked at said the newer translations were the work of Satan. Personally I think they mis attributed it. Basically in the course of the thread one stumbling block I had, that of choosing a Bible out of around 50 versions, was replaced by a much bigger problem of why did people deliberately mis translate words?

GreenMunchkin said:

You're right: something we have to accept is God will have done things we find unpalatable, because we don't understand. We simply don't have the capacity to understand His ways. ...

Click to expand...

Yes, we had a thread on that back in the days when General Apologetics existed. One Calvinist Christian said we should tell the truth right up front:

Christianity is not Humanism.

God created Hell and it is eternal torment for those who do not or refuse to believe in Jesus Christ, it really is that simple.

She was scorned for that, reminded me of Monty Python's Whizzo Chocolate assortment - 'but sales would plummet!'.

But she may have been right. Instead guys come around selling Christianity as a cure for all your woes and after umteen years trying to answer the most basic things you end up with a large number of disaffected ex Christians annoyed with all the time wasted.

Yup, here in Oxford on March 22 we burnt the Arch Bishop alive. What a dude, totally courageous to the last, he was the one who put together and wrote a lot of our Book of Common Prayer, and he went to his reward in a fiery chariot sort of. The man who translated the New Testament and some other bits that is included in the KJV was William Tyndale and he was burnt alive by Protestants, so it isn't only Catholics who do that, and Protestants also killed Catholics in about the same number as vice versa.

But because of the present Humanist climate it is common for Christians to make claims about all the Christians killed in past by Romans, Pagans, you name it, the reality is far more Christians were (until recently) killed by other Christians, and in obedience to this: Ex 22:18 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' around 50,000 witches were killed by Christians and far fewer vice versa because the witches have no such command to kill or harm anyone. But we know they are evil and we are good.

Trying to make the Bible sound Humanist is trying to put a square pig in a round hole.

Looks like I missed the nicest bit in your post, but I'll take in reverse order:

GreenMunchkin said:

...
But, as much arbitrary (mis)interpretation as there is, what we all agree on is He died, and He rose again, and that He did it for us. There's no misreading or misinterpreting that.

Click to expand...

Yes though there is some dispute on who benefits; the Universalists say with considerable scriptural and theological backing that Jesus saved all men from their sins and as through Adam all died, so through Jesus all recieve life. But others also with good scriptural backing say otherwise...

Given that is about all that all Christians do agree on, I think it would be wise to chuck the whole Old Testament out and just read the New Testament. In terms of cost / benefit overall the O.T. is just a waste. OK, maybe read Isaiah.

I was told all scripture was God-Breathed and of value but really nobody believes it is all of equal worth. In the Anglican Church there is one reading from the Old Testament and one from the New, and given the O.T. is a lot longer that isn't giving each word the same emphasis

Call me a heathen but I just would not give the same amount of attention to a chapter of Leviticus as to a chapter of Ephesians.

GreenMunchkin said:

... Corinthians tells us that "for now we see through a glass, darkly" (isn't that beautiful?) but that He will answer all our questions one day.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is amazing

twistedsketch said:

I mean indented like Genesis 2:23 or Genesis 3:14-16. That indicates poetry or a song or something on that order.

Exactly, it's true stuff, but its genre indicates that there could be metaphors in there which are true, but not necessarily to be taken literally.

Genesis 1 is true. I don't know if it's literal or not, that's something that various Christians will go the rounds on for a long time, but it is true.

Click to expand...

Gen 1 6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth,


The firmament ('vault' or 'dome' would be a more modern term, but it is firm and therefore capable of support), was put in to divide the waters, so some waters were above the firmament and some below. The stars are actually in the firmament.

By the time this was written the Hebrews had noticed the sky is not like a tent canopy in that it does not have a tent pole, non visible at all, therefore it is like that more remarkable structure; the dome.

Interestingly evidence of the firmament has been found, firstly radio waves bounce off it (in Job the firmament is described as being like cast metal) showing that it is metal. The rolling up of the heavens at the end of time also suggests it is not stone but something that can be bent, although this could be very poetic. And although just a century ago the idea of metal sheet not buckling and folding would have been laughable, the more recent technologies in aircraft construction using stringers have made large stable metal structures possible. So, yes, science may be starting to move a bit closer to the Bible as things once thought impossible are actually being found to be possible.