How Do You Distinguish Biblical History vs Parable?

[humblehumility]

It seems most Christians I come across are not creationists or absolute Biblical literalists. When I ask "Do you think the world was made in 7 days?", I get the reply "Of course not, the Bible is not a science book and God was just explaining that he created the universe through the story of creation."

My question: How then do you determine what is literal truth and what is parable? Is that not a slippery slope? Can the entire Bible just be a parable under this logic?

It is kind of baffling that Christians will say the earth was not created in 7 days, but still believe in a magical garden on Earth where the first human being was made from dust.

Unless you don't believe in Adam, which means there was no original sin, which means there is no need to be "saved". Again, the slope is slippery.

 

[solarwave]

My question: How then do you determine what is literal truth and what is parable? Is that not a slippery slope? Can the entire Bible just be a parable under this logic?

I have only recently accepted that the Bible has errors so I don't have full answers to these questions, but just because because a book (that is made of many books over hundreds of years) has errors and metaphor doesn't mean nothing in it is literal history.

]Unless you don't believe in Adam, which means there was no original sin, which means there is no need to be "saved". Again, the slope is slippery.

I don't believe in a real Adam. Original sin has never been a big part of my theology anyway and I have no idea why original sin is necessary for the need to be saved. Have you ever done anything wrong? Desired anything wrong? Are you imperfect? If so then there is a need for salvation, enlightenment or whatever you want to call it.

 

[drich0150]

My question: How then do you determine what is literal truth and what is parable?

Parables are identified by the parable giver. Allegories are "our" way of to make sense of something we do not fully understand or in the case of the account of origins to try and incorporate the "evidences" found by science into the biblical accounts.

Is that not a slippery slope?

yes

Can the entire Bible just be a parable under this logic?

Yes it can, it depends on the faith of the one who is doing the interpretation.

 

[timf]

My question: How then do you determine what is literal truth and what is parable? Is that not a slippery slope? Can the entire Bible just be a parable under this logic?

You are correct, it is a very slippery slope. Most of the allegorical examples are obvious and have been seen as such since they were first spoken.

John 15:5 I am the Vine; you are the branches.

Psalm 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

Matthew 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

Most Christians have been cowed by the intensity of secular "science" that purports to prove the Bible wrong, particularly about creation. Since very few people actually understand science, they are bullied by the consensus of those who claim expertise.

Those Christians you have met that "admit" the Bible is full of errors and that it cannot be relied upon, have been crippled by the god of this world. They should not be seen as a source for accurate understanding, but more pitied for the injuries they have incurred by straying so far from their Lord.

In fact there are only two ways to look at our existence. We are either an accident (nothing existed, then it blew up and became everything and then became people), or we were created.

If you take the so-called Bible "errors" one by one a go through the slow, boring process of refuting each one, you find that the charges against the Bible all fade away. Most people do not have the endurance or ability for such an undertaking and subsequently choose a position based on what most other people will object to the least.

The key to the Bible is understanding truth and having wisdom. Truth and wisdom are found in God. Since the secularists have cut themselves off from God, it should not be a surprise that they tenaciously cling to their "religion" (secularism can be seen as the worship of man in general and self in particular).

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

The key to the Bible is truth. The key to truth is an absolute God. Only those seeking truth find God. God helps those seeking truth because they are drawn to Him.

 

[humblehumility]

I have only recently accepted that the Bible has errors so I don't have full answers to these questions, but just because because a book (that is made of many books over hundreds of years) has errors and metaphor doesn't mean nothing in it is literal history.

2 Timothy 3:15–17
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

So all scripture is directly from God. This means all scriptural errors are directly from God. There is a clear contradiction, no? Is God capable of error? Why would he intentionally record errors in his ONLY book to humanity?

I don't believe in a real Adam. Original sin has never been a big part of my theology anyway and I have no idea why original sin is necessary for the need to be saved. Have you ever done anything wrong? Desired anything wrong? Are you imperfect? If so then there is a need for salvation, enlightenment or whatever you want to call it.

Have you ever done research on Tibetan monks? Some are born into a life of silence, self-meditation and self-reflection. They live peacefully, they do not harm anybody, and many don't even communicate with anybody.

Despite this, they still need the salvation of Jesus Christ because they were born with sin inherited through Adam and Eve. They will go to hell (or be separated from God, whatever you want to call it) even though they have done nothing wrong.

The entire concept of salvation relies on the fact that we are all born sinners due to Adam and Eve. I'll ask you this: do you think humans were at any point perfect? Sin had to originate somewhere in history, or else there was no need to send Jesus after 2,000 years to "save" everybody. If there was not a point when we were once perfect and then chose to sin, that would mean God created us sinners.

 

[humblehumility]

You are correct, it is a very slippery slope. Most of the allegorical examples are obvious and have been seen as such since they were first spoken.

John 15:5 I am the Vine; you are the branches.

Psalm 22:14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

Matthew 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

Yes, those are clear examples of allegories, things like "I am poured out like water". "God created the world in 7 days" is not an allegory and there is no reason to believe it is such.

In fact there are only two ways to look at our existence. We are either an accident (nothing existed, then it blew up and became everything and then became people), or we were created.

Right, and I would argue that we were an "accident". My proof: the size of the universe. It makes perfect sense that out of trillions and trillions and trillions of planets, at least one would develop with conditions perfect for the evolution of intelligent life. Grab a telescope and see for yourself, or do some basic research into the vastness of the universe.

The key to the Bible is truth. The key to truth is an absolute God. Only those seeking truth find God. God helps those seeking truth because they are drawn to Him.

Do you mind explaining Genesis 1-3 for me? Is that literal truth or an allegory? If you believe it is literal truth, why? If you believe it is an allegory, why?

 

[bling]

2 Timothy 3:15–17
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

So all scripture is directly from God. This means all scriptural errors are directly from God. There is a clear contradiction, no? Is God capable of error? Why would he intentionally record errors in his ONLY book to humanity?



Have you ever done research on Tibetan monks? Some are born into a life of silence, self-meditation and self-reflection. They live peacefully, they do not harm anybody, and many don't even communicate with anybody.

Despite this, they still need the salvation of Jesus Christ because they were born with sin inherited through Adam and Eve. They will go to hell (or be separated from God, whatever you want to call it) even though they have done nothing wrong.

The entire concept of salvation relies on the fact that we are all born sinners due to Adam and Eve. I'll ask you this: do you think humans were at any point perfect? Sin had to originate somewhere in history, or else there was no need to send Jesus after 2,000 years to "save" everybody. If there was not a point when we were once perfect and then chose to sin, that would mean God created us sinners.

The Bible does not “save” us.

The Bible is just one of many tools provided to help the Christian.

If the Bible had been the totally the actual “words” of God, than it would have been unexplainably perfect (scientific proof that there must be the Christian God). That would also mean you would not need “faith” to believe in the existence of God, but since “faith” is needed by man and faith in the existence of God is the easiest faith to have, this becomes a detriment instead of a help to man. There would be other detriments created by such a scenario like: we would have to learn the original language God used (big waste of time) the book could not be translated and would actually become an object of “worship”.

The Bible is designed to be the best help for Christians.

“Original” sin as far as someone having to sin first, yes. But as far as condemning all of us, we all sin, so original sin is not needed. Sin is not the problem (unforgiven sin can be a big problem). Sin has purpose.

 

[Biker Angel]

The entire concept of salvation relies on the fact that we are all born sinners due to Adam and Eve. I'll ask you this: do you think humans were at any point perfect? Sin had to originate somewhere in history, or else there was no need to send Jesus after 2,000 years to "save" everybody. If there was not a point when we were once perfect and then chose to sin, that would mean God created us sinners.

Adam and Eve were perfect until they disobeyed God and ate the fruit from the forbidden tree. That is when sin entered into the world so God sent His son (second Adam) to live the perfect life that Adam failed to do, and after His resurrection thereby become the crucible by which man could get back to God and the Garden.

 

[solarwave]

2 Timothy 3:15–17
15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

So all scripture is directly from God. This means all scriptural errors are directly from God. There is a clear contradiction, no? Is God capable of error? Why would he intentionally record errors in his ONLY book to humanity?

Your icon says you are an atheist so why are you arguing that the Bible is inerrant? For one thing 2 Timothy 3:15–17 could itself be an error. I think the Bible is God inspired and is useful for teaching but that it has errors. God works through fallible humans and doesn't drop books from heaven.

Have you ever done research on Tibetan monks? Some are born into a life of silence, self-meditation and self-reflection. They live peacefully, they do not harm anybody, and many don't even communicate with anybody.

I wonder if they would say they were perfectly moral.

Despite this, they still need the salvation of Jesus Christ because they were born with sin inherited through Adam and Eve. They will go to hell (or be separated from God, whatever you want to call it) even though they have done nothing wrong.

If they are truly sinless then they are at one with God. It could even be said that they have the spirit of Christ within them. I don't believe sin is inherited. The sins of my father will not be pasted down to me.

The entire concept of salvation relies on the fact that we are all born sinners due to Adam and Eve. I'll ask you this: do you think humans were at any point perfect? Sin had to originate somewhere in history, or else there was no need to send Jesus after 2,000 years to "save" everybody. If there was not a point when we were once perfect and then chose to sin, that would mean God created us sinners.

Well at some point humans slowly evolved from an ape like creature and became aware of good and evil. At this point they were sinless untill they did evil..... which would probably be pretty quick. Individual humans are born innocent and then grow up to understand good and evil and then at some point sin. The Genesis story doesn't speak of perfection, just creation being good and very good.

 

[ebia]

It seems most Christians I come across are not creationists or absolute Biblical literalists. When I ask "Do you think the world was made in 7 days?", I get the reply "Of course not, the Bible is not a science book and God was just explaining that he created the universe through the story of creation."

My question: How then do you determine what is literal truth and what is parable? Is that not a slippery slope? Can the entire Bible just be a parable under this logic?

John picked up the morning paper and read "... the fall of the Berlin Wall was an earth-shattering event...". "____, he said, there was no earthquake that day. How can I possibly trust my newspaper if goes around using metaphors? How do I know the 'wall' isn't a metaphor for something else?"

All human texts, without exception (save perhaps the most trivial of texts) swap between genres all the time. We deal with that. Why on earth would you expect Scripture to be any different?

It is kind of baffling that Christians will say the earth was not created in 7 days, but still believe in a magical garden on Earth where the first human being was made from dust.

Most Christians don't take Genesis 2 as being literal in that way. Most of the early chapters of Genesis are parabolic history.

Unless you don't believe in Adam, which means there was no original sin, which means there is no need to be "saved".

Genesis 3 is not really the reason we need salvation. We need salvation because we and consequently are world is messed up - that is visibily true. Genesis 3 is written to explain the situation that is self-evidently true, but it's the self-evidently true current situation that we need saving from.

But a non-literal reading does not mean nothing happened. Read 2 Samuel 11-12. King David fancies the wife of Uriah the Hittite (one of his generals). So he sleeps with her. She gets pregnant. He tries to avoid Uriah finding out, and then arranges for Uriah to 'accidentally' be killed in battle. So the prophet Nathan tells David a story:

‘There were two men in a certain city, one rich and the other poor.2The rich man had very many flocks and herds;3but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his meagre fare, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him.4Now there came a traveller to the rich man, and he was loath to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared that for the guest who had come to him.’

Nathan's story is about something that actually happened - David's treachery to his loyal general - but it is told in a parabolic way.

 

[timf]

Do you mind explaining Genesis 1-3 for me? Is that literal truth or an allegory? If you believe it is literal truth, why? If you believe it is an allegory, why?

I consider it literal truth in the original language. For example the KJV in Genesis 3:1 refers to a "serpent" (nachash). We don't know enough to say if the "serpent" is a derogatory use of the word snake similar to how we would use it to describe someone of devious character, a literal serpent such as a biological entity such as even a dragon that Satan used to talk, or if the word usage contained more of its root origin as in divination and fortune-telling. There are a variety of possibilities, but the message is still the same. For something to be literally true does not imply that we have the capability or resources to completely understand it.

Consider the question, "What would be impossible for an all powerful God?" Such a God could create the world in seven seconds if He wanted to.

I can see room for real science such as the measurement of the slowing of earth's rotation due to the gravity of the sun. A day at the time of creation may have been a few seconds shorter.

I see nothing in so-called science to cast a single doubt on the literal understanding of Genesis. However, I am somewhat dubious of the claims of evolution.

1. In the 100+ years since the theory was put forth, where are the evidences of the favorable mutations that were anticipated? The invention of "punctuated equilibrium" seems a little too convenient to explain the lack of evidence for evolution. Darwin was right about natural selection. Entropy alone would tell us to expect that we would lose genetic information from the gene pool. However, there is no evidence of favorable mutations or the creation of new favorable genetic information.

2. Anyone who has studied the structure of a single cell is usually impressed which the complexity and has a difficult time honestly trying to say that it was not designed. There are no organisms that are "almost cells" such that some random mutation would complete the process and start cellular reproduction.

3. The dust on the moon is only an inch deep.

 

[humblehumility]

The Bible does not “save” us.

The Bible is just one of many tools provided to help the Christian.

I understand this, the blood of Christ "saves" us. I just disagree with the logic of simply accepting God to get to heaven rather than doing good deeds, balancing karma, etc.

If the Bible had been the totally the actual “words” of God, than it would have been unexplainably perfect (scientific proof that there must be the Christian God).

Well according to the Bible, all of the words ARE the words of God (God's breath).

That would also mean you would not need “faith” to believe in the existence of God, but since “faith” is needed by man and faith in the existence of God is the easiest faith to have, this becomes a detriment instead of a help to man.

I would say it's certainly not an easy faith to have. I find it extremely hard to believe that 1 human sacrifice saved me from all of the bad things I've ever done and will ever do. That's not justice, and God is supposed to be just.

“Original” sin as far as someone having to sin first, yes. But as far as condemning all of us, we all sin, so original sin is not needed. Sin is not the problem (unforgiven sin can be a big problem). Sin has purpose.

What's your marker for sin, the 10 commandments? You don't think there's ever been a monk that never once broke a commandment? (Since monks do not believe in God, they do not have any God's before them, fulfilling commandments 1-3).

 

[Rikki_renee]

I don't see where everyone is saying the Bible has errors. Where?

 

[ebia]

I understand this, the blood of Christ "saves" us. I just disagree with the logic of simply accepting God to get to heaven rather than doing good deeds, balancing karma, etc.

So long as you realise that's a bit of a cardboard cut-out theology you're rejecting. Christian soterology is about accepting Jesus so that he can transform us to make us fit for the Kingdom of God.

 

[Hentenza]

It seems most Christians I come across are not creationists or absolute Biblical literalists. When I ask "Do you think the world was made in 7 days?", I get the reply "Of course not, the Bible is not a science book and God was just explaining that he created the universe through the story of creation."

My question: How then do you determine what is literal truth and what is parable? Is that not a slippery slope? Can the entire Bible just be a parable under this logic?

It is kind of baffling that Christians will say the earth was not created in 7 days, but still believe in a magical garden on Earth where the first human being was made from dust.

Unless you don't believe in Adam, which means there was no original sin, which means there is no need to be "saved". Again, the slope is slippery.

You seem to get it better than quite a few Christians.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A couple of points. The Bible is God revealing himself to those he has called and chosen. It is the mind and heart of God, in print. It is foolishness to most others as God has hidden the truth of it from them. Those who are called in this dispensation, and accept the sacrifice of Christ, are a special group: the Bride of Christ and the friends of the Bridegroom, who he is personally redeeming from death by his own blood. Millions if not billions of people will have a chance for salvation during the millenial dispensation of Christ's rule on earth, even most who are disbelievers now (including them monks).

 

[humblehumility]

Adam and Eve were perfect until they disobeyed God and ate the fruit from the forbidden tree. That is when sin entered into the world so God sent His son (second Adam) to live the perfect life that Adam failed to do, and after His resurrection thereby become the crucible by which man could get back to God and the Garden.

Are you a YEC? In which case, this thread wasn't intended for you.

 

[humblehumility]

Your icon says you are an atheist so why are you arguing that the Bible is inerrant?

Because I don't see any other way to take it. The Bible says over and over again that God is perfect (perfect is a very strong word to use). The Bible also says that it is the "Word of God", "God's breath", etc. The Bible also makes no distinction on what is parable and what is literal truth.

So...why should we believe in one section that a human performed miracles such as turning water into wine (alchemy...science in the Bible) and rising from the dead and appearing as a ghost, but in the other section say "Oh no, there was no magical garden on Earth, that's just a story."?

Remember God is omnipotent, he knows we would stumble across this problem when he had the Bible written in such a way. He knew we'd discover science. So why make the Bible so confusing to interpret? Is this some sort of ultimate test that determines our fate? That's tyrannical and unjust, not two qualities you would describe God with.

For one thing 2 Timothy 3:15–17 could itself be an error. I think the Bible is God inspired and is useful for teaching but that it has errors. God works through fallible humans and doesn't drop books from heaven.

You're quickly sliding down the slope. Under this logic, you shouldn't truly believe in anything the Bible says, as any given verse may be an error.

I wonder if they would say they were perfectly moral.

I can't speak for them, but I do know that many take vows of silence for most of their lives, and spend their entire life in the monastery meditating. These people do no harm to God's Earth in any way.

I don't believe sin is inherited. The sins of my father will not be pasted down to me.

Unfortunately, according to the Bible sin is inherited. One of the consequences for original sin was pain during childbirth. Even if a woman is born and lives a sinless life, she will have pain during childbirth because her sin is inherited from Eve. Also Romans 5:12

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

One man sinned (death), and as a result that death was passed on to all men, including yourself.

The Genesis story doesn't speak of perfection, just creation being good and very good.

You wouldn't describe a sinless world as being perfect?

In order to believe that God is all-loving, you have to believe that disease, natural disasters, and pointless creatures like ticks are a result of sin. If they are not, they are simply placed there by God with the only purpose of destroying humanity and his planet (which makes no sense). So in a world without sin, nobody would be evil, nobody would die, there would be no natural disasters, etc. Sounds perfect to me.

 

[humblehumility]

All human texts, without exception (save perhaps the most trivial of texts) swap between genres all the time. We deal with that. Why on earth would you expect Scripture to be any different?

Because Scripture isn't a newspaper article published solely by a human being (accountable for error), it is the word of God. I don't see any reason why God would want to confuse us by making random parts of the Bible literal truth, and random parts parable. Why make it so hard to decipher?

Most of the early chapters of Genesis are parabolic history.

Why "most", but not all? This is my original question, how do you distinguish between literal and parabolic history?

But a non-literal reading does not mean nothing happened. Read 2 Samuel 11-12. King David fancies the wife of Uriah the Hittite (one of his generals). So he sleeps with her. She gets pregnant. He tries to avoid Uriah finding out, and then arranges for Uriah to 'accidentally' be killed in battle. So the prophet Nathan tells David a story:


Nathan's story is about something that actually happened - David's treachery to his loyal general - but it is told in a parabolic way.

And it is told directly after we have the literal story listed out for us. Genesis is not written in this fashion, we are given only one account. Is that account literal, or parabolic? If it is literal, why? If it is parabolic, why?

 

[humblehumility]

Consider the question, "What would be impossible for an all powerful God?" Such a God could create the world in seven seconds if He wanted to.

No, it wouldn't be impossible, but I don't see the point. Why create the universe in a completely nonsensical way to physics, and then allow humans to discover physics and solid evidence that the world and universe is billions of years old? Why the confusion and contradiction here? Why not just keep things consistent?

I see nothing in so-called science to cast a single doubt on the literal understanding of Genesis.

You don't believe in red-shifting?

1. In the 100+ years since the theory was put forth, where are the evidences of the favorable mutations that were anticipated? The invention of "punctuated equilibrium" seems a little too convenient to explain the lack of evidence for evolution. Darwin was right about natural selection. Entropy alone would tell us to expect that we would lose genetic information from the gene pool. However, there is no evidence of favorable mutations or the creation of new favorable genetic information.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection

Also, scientists are finding that bacteria is evolving/mutating to avoid antibiotics. This worries a lot of people because if bacteria becomes immune to penicillin...well you can imagine the consequences.

2. Anyone who has studied the structure of a single cell is usually impressed which the complexity and has a difficult time honestly trying to say that it was not designed. There are no organisms that are "almost cells" such that some random mutation would complete the process and start cellular reproduction.

We can't go back to the origin of species and take samples, but as of recent scientists have witnessed single-celled yeast particles turn into a multi-celled "snowflake" yeast as a result of simply spinning the yeast in a dish. The single celled particles slowly clump together, scientists grab the clumps and keep spinning, and eventually you have a multi-celled yeast particle out of only single celled yeast particles.

3. The dust on the moon is only an inch deep.

I hate to just keep posting links, but it's easier than typing everything out. There are many arguments that refute the space dust argument, and you can read some of the evidence here :

Space Dust, The Moon's Surface, and the Age of the Cosmos | NCSE

Specific Arguments - Moon Dust