Is the OT to be read literally or allegorically?

[Grumpy Old Man]

Do you believe the Old Testament is to be read literally or allegorically, or a bit of both?

When I was a Christian, I read the Bible literally, or as far as was contextually possible. This meant I believe in a literal and historical creation, a literal and historical flood, etc. I understand that many Christians now discard these stories as myths with hidden truths, like Jesus' parables.

I'm interested in hearing from Christians who are from both ends of the spectrum and somewhere in between. Which parts do you read as literal and which as allegory? How do you know the difference? (I emphasise that question because I'm curious about how Christians choose their interpretations of scripture).

I'm not actually interested in debating your interpretations. I'm only interested in why, for example, you believe the Tower of Babel story should be interpreted as myth or is a real historical event. Thanks.

 

[GrayAngel]

Do you believe the Old Testament is to be read literally or allegorically, or a bit of both?

When I was a Christian, I read the Bible literally, or as far as was contextually possible. This meant I believe in a literal and historical creation, a literal and historical flood, etc. I understand that many Christians now discard these stories as myths with hidden truths, like Jesus' parables.

I'm interested in hearing from Christians who are from both ends of the spectrum and somewhere in between. Which parts do you read as literal and which as allegory? How do you know the difference? (I emphasise that question because I'm curious about how Christians choose their interpretations of scripture).

I'm not actually interested in debating your interpretations. I'm only interested in why, for example, you believe the Tower of Babel story should be interpreted as myth or is a real historical event. Thanks.

Depends on the book, story, and style. Some things are meant to be taken literally, while others make use of figurative language.

I do not think it is my place to decide which parts are literal and which are not. It doesn't matter to me if Adam and Eve were real people or not, or if the world was really created in six 24-hour days. These things do not affect the Gospel.

I take all of the stories as (mostly) literal unless I have something to indicate otherwise, but I don't cling to them as if my salvation is dependent on knowing if the Flood was worldwide, local, or a work of fiction.

 

[Lukaris]

The Lord Jesus Christ sums up the old covenant in Matthew 7:12, 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-34, Luke 6:31, 10:25-28, & 24:44. To read it in faith & according to the Lord's commands. Even though many parts my seem baffling within His glorious Gospel, it is His word & His commands are to love God & our neighbor. Just the words of a struggling sinner.

 

[golgotha61]

Do you believe the Old Testament is to be read literally or allegorically, or a bit of both?

When I was a Christian, I read the Bible literally, or as far as was contextually possible. This meant I believe in a literal and historical creation, a literal and historical flood, etc. I understand that many Christians now discard these stories as myths with hidden truths, like Jesus' parables.

I'm interested in hearing from Christians who are from both ends of the spectrum and somewhere in between. Which parts do you read as literal and which as allegory? How do you know the difference? (I emphasise that question because I'm curious about how Christians choose their interpretations of scripture).

I interpret scripture according to the language. The Bible is literature that is the inspired word of God and so I interpret according to the rules and definitions of literature. For instance, the Bible is comprised of narrative, history, law, prophecy, etc. Similes are used and the definitions of literature concerning similes is; a simile is a comparison using words such as like and as. A metaphor is a direct comparison: "He is a good sport". Hyperbole is an intentional, conscious exaggeration. A parable is an extended simile; an allegory is an extended metaphor and so on.

 

[Faulty]

I'm not actually interested in debating your interpretations. I'm only interested in why, for example, you believe the Tower of Babel story should be interpreted as myth or is a real historical event. Thanks.

Context. The Tower account in chp 11 of Genesis flows from the genealogies on chp 10.

Chp 10 lays out which descendent dispersed to what region, among those with their own like languages. Literal people. Literal languages. A literal dispersion.

Immediately following the account of who went where, we are given the account of 'why'. They were dispersed, with varying languages (again, all literal), because of a single event, which was the Tower.

To take the Tower as myth, one would have to take the genealogies as myth as well, because they are integrated with each other.

 

[razeontherock]

To the thread title: yes.

Jesus is the hidden manna. Like the Hebrews in the desert, we are to collect this each day, morning and evening. What does He "feed you" today? It will be no good tomorrow; we will all need fresh.

It is not our own "beliefs," that save us, but His Presence. This makes itself known in delightful variety, like Joseph's coat of many colors. This is not weakness but strength!

 

[hedrick]

I don't think you can answer the original question in any simple way. It depends upon the section of the Bible, and there's more than one variable. Allegory is kind of a literary forms. There's not much true allegory in the Bible, though there are other non-literal forms. E.g. I'd classify Jonah as a satire. Obviously there's plenty of poetry. But Genesis 1 and 2, for example are from a literary point of view history, not allegory. But I think it's legendary history, included because it shows Israel's concept of its relationship with God.

How do you know what the intent of any literature is? The form will show you poetry and some other things. Satire is usually obvious because of exaggerations. We know that the early part of Genesis is legend because it looks like history (so it's not something like satire) but we know enough to know that it's not true history. I'm going to assume that the editor knew it as well, because he included two different stories in Gen 1 and 2. Usually there's enough basis to know whether it's history based on reasonable sources or not, though in Joshua and Judges it's probably got a basis in actual history but a strong legendary component.

There's a large scholarly literature that can help with these determinations.

I'm from what is for some reason called the liberal end of Christianity. Our version tries to use evidence as much as possible. I.e. we use science, history, etc, and we try to base our picture of Jesus on the Biblical evidence (interpreted through the best scholarship), rather than trying to justify traditional doctrines, though we respect Christian traditions.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you believe the Old Testament is to be read literally or allegorically, or a bit of both?

When I was a Christian, I read the Bible literally, or as far as was contextually possible. This meant I believe in a literal and historical creation, a literal and historical flood, etc. I understand that many Christians now discard these stories as myths with hidden truths, like Jesus' parables.

I'm interested in hearing from Christians who are from both ends of the spectrum and somewhere in between. Which parts do you read as literal and which as allegory? How do you know the difference? (I emphasise that question because I'm curious about how Christians choose their interpretations of scripture).

I'm not actually interested in debating your interpretations. I'm only interested in why, for example, you believe the Tower of Babel story should be interpreted as myth or is a real historical event. Thanks.

Like the rest of the Bible it should be read literately. It contains literal narrative, allegory, mythology, prophecy, lyrical prose, and wisdom literature.

The way to going about making sense and properly exegeting the text is by taking into account the numerous amounts of internal and external context, literary context (genre), paying attention to the language and also seeing how the text has been received in those historic communities which have received it. We use all the tools at our disposal to make sure that we are reading the text as it was meant to be read and seek to avoid imposing ourselves too much onto the text. To some degree doing that perfectly is impossible, as even the act of translation is going to itself end up distorting aspects of the text due to human interpretive error and the natural barriers of language. But we do as much as we can to do justice to the text.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

To amend to my former post, I think this bit from N.T. Wright answers the question far better by calling into question the whole dichotomy of "literal" or "figurative" and asking bigger and far more important and interesting questions:

N.T. Wright and Pete Enns: What Do You Mean by Literal? - YouTube

-CryptoLutheran

 

[martinlb]

I'm in basic agreement with the majority of the previous posters.

One point that I learned about interpreting the Bible is that you cannot accurately interpret a thousands-year old text as though it had been written in recent times. The science of interpreting ancient documents, Biblical and others, is called literary criticism, and there's a reason such a science exists. If you're curious, Wikipedia has an easily accessed article about it.

Accurate interpretation by folks today requires understanding of, and respect for, at least some of the principles exercised in literary criticism. For Christians, it's taught in seminaries (at least I hope so - it was at the seminary I attended), and when necessary, by Church leaders.

This doesn't mean that everyone has to have a graduate degree in order to read the Bible. It means that some areas of the Bible cannot be accurately understood without at least some understanding of how to interpret an ancient text. Fortunately, the message of the Bible, in areas that are crucial for us to understand, can be understood by reading any respectworthy modern translation. Of course that still leaves open the question of how to know what to interpret literally.

I'll give one example of how to know when something is not meant to be interpreted literally. If it's written poetically, it's not meant to be interpreted literally. That was a sign used by ancient writers to say "this isn't meant to be taken literally".

If a given text seemes to contradict either proven fact (the earth is a sphere that orbits the sun), or another Biblical text, chances are there's an error in interpretation somewhere.

 

[golgotha61]

Like the rest of the Bible it should be read literately. It contains literal narrative, allegory, mythology, prophecy, lyrical prose, and wisdom literature.

The way to going about making sense and properly exegeting the text is by taking into account the numerous amounts of internal and external context, literary context (genre), paying attention to the language and also seeing how the text has been received in those historic communities which have received it. We use all the tools at our disposal to make sure that we are reading the text as it was meant to be read and seek to avoid imposing ourselves too much onto the text. To some degree doing that perfectly is impossible, as even the act of translation is going to itself end up distorting aspects of the text due to human interpretive error and the natural barriers of language. But we do as much as we can to do justice to the text.


-CryptoLutheran

Well done!

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I interpret scripture according to the language. The Bible is literature that is the inspired word of God and so I interpret according to the rules and definitions of literature. For instance, the Bible is comprised of narrative, history, law, prophecy, etc. Similes are used and the definitions of literature concerning similes is; a simile is a comparison using words such as like and as. A metaphor is a direct comparison: "He is a good sport". Hyperbole is an intentional, conscious exaggeration. A parable is an extended simile; an allegory is an extended metaphor and so on.

If you treat the Bible according to the rules of literature, does this also include a critical analysis? For example. take the Creation story. Do you view this literally, or is it just a mythological story?

 

[hedrick]

If you treat the Bible according to the rules of literature, does this also include a critical analysis? For example. take the Creation story. Do you view this literally, or is it just a mythological story?

The genre is myth. But I think it's almost an anti-myth, that is, it's targeted at pagan views. See the following discussion of Gen 1, Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance. He argues that the 6 days of creation are attacks on specific pagan gods, saying that the world is not governed by the action of a bunch of nature gods, but that each aspect of nature that was thought to be a god was created by God, is under his control, and was pronounced good by him.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

RE Genesis I wold be one of those affirming the position that the Creation narrative is a kind of temple construction story.

One can't just ask 'is this literal, or not??' That's a poor way of looking at it. One has to ask 'what was the author trying to tell us? Something can be true without being literal - metaphors are a good example. So asking whether or not a certain portion of the Old Testament (let's say Genesis just for kicks) is literal or not literal (and by that implying that if it's not literal it's false, and if it is literal it's true) won't due - we need to ask 'What is the author of Genesis trying to tell us? What is the literal meaning of Genesis?' That's the proper way to approach an issue like this, imo. And, as I said before, I am one of those who would say that the literal meaning of Genesis is that God is making the heavens and earth as the place where He wants to dwell, and putting His image via humanity in His creation; like any good artist, He signs His work. To read Genesis with the mindset of 'Well, is this how the physical elements of our universe came into being? Were there 5 or 6 or 7 days? Were they 24 hours? Is this a scientific approach to creation?' is just not the right way to do it - those questions are irrelevent and not what the text is trying to tell us. I doubt the author of Genesis was trying to provide us with a scientific treatise on the formation of human and animal life.

*edit - I guess i basically paraprashed that NT.Wright video above. lol. great minds think alike.

 

[golgotha61]

If you treat the Bible according to the rules of literature, does this also include a critical analysis? For example. take the Creation story. Do you view this literally, or is it just a mythological story?

I have done a small amount of review on some of the "higher criticisms" such as the "Documentary Hypothesis" which focused on the OT and some of the criticisms of the NT as well. I interpret the Genesis account of creation as literal in meaning.

But as Kovacs says, it was not meant to be taken as a scientific account of how life originated or progressed in its development. The OT was written to a culture, both religious and culturally, that had a "supernatural" world view.

Today in the US and also in Britain, the worldview is one of naturalism and the examples of the "beginning", that satisfy the natural world view, could not have satisfied the supernatural world view and it would have made no sense to even try. God entered human history in the ancient Near East as a knowable and explainable God. He could not have explained the science involved in the "beginning" to a culture that would have had absolutely no idea what He was saying. The account He gave in Genesis made sense to the ancient culture.

For example; my son is a missionary in the mountains of Peru and in this localized culture, the worldview is still the supernatural one. When he talks about the things of the supernatural world, they are more readily accepted than say some one in Germany, where the atheists are about 90% of the population. The atheist would not accept the supernatural biblical accounts without the ability to test, verify, and physically authenticate them in some way.

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you believe the Old Testament is to be read literally or allegorically, or a bit of both?

When I was a Christian, I read the Bible literally, or as far as was contextually possible. This meant I believe in a literal and historical creation, a literal and historical flood, etc. I understand that many Christians now discard these stories as myths with hidden truths, like Jesus' parables.

I'm interested in hearing from Christians who are from both ends of the spectrum and somewhere in between. Which parts do you read as literal and which as allegory? How do you know the difference? (I emphasise that question because I'm curious about how Christians choose their interpretations of scripture).

I'm not actually interested in debating your interpretations. I'm only interested in why, for example, you believe the Tower of Babel story should be interpreted as myth or is a real historical event. Thanks.

You want to take 39 books, written in different times and places, some of them poetry, some of them history, some of them prophesy...... and ask whether thay are all to be read literally, or whether they are all to be read in some other way?

Over simplifying things a bit, wouldn't you say?

why, for example, you believe the Tower of Babel story should be interpreted as myth or is a real historical event.

With regard to that specific example, for one thing, although I am not an expert in anthropology or linguistics, it seems highly unlikely that the earth ever was all of one language. For another thing, there is an obvious theological interpretation to be put on the story which has nothing to do with history. (Humans may think that they can build a metaphorical tower up to heaven, and become God's equal, but they will find out that they can't, and the discovery might be a painful one.)

 

[elman]

Do you believe the Old Testament is to be read literally or allegorically, or a bit of both?

When I was a Christian, I read the Bible literally, or as far as was contextually possible. This meant I believe in a literal and historical creation, a literal and historical flood, etc. I understand that many Christians now discard these stories as myths with hidden truths, like Jesus' parables.

I'm interested in hearing from Christians who are from both ends of the spectrum and somewhere in between. Which parts do you read as literal and which as allegory? How do you know the difference? (I emphasise that question because I'm curious about how Christians choose their interpretations of scripture).

I'm not actually interested in debating your interpretations. I'm only interested in why, for example, you believe the Tower of Babel story should be interpreted as myth or is a real historical event. Thanks.

We human beings cannot discuss the spiritual realm except through allegory and symbolism. We have no other way so discussing concepts beyond our ability to comprehend, such as eternity or God. One can use their common sense and know that when a sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus is being used, it is not reasonable to assume a literal sword will be coming out of the mouth of Jesus. Weather it is the new or old testament, God is loving and our Creator is lovable. If something is being said that says God is evil or does evil or is unloving or unkind, it is not true. There are exagerations for effect in the scripture. It is not literally true that no one has ever sought God. It is true that our seeking God has been so weak as to be almost insignificant. It is not literally true that we never do what we want to do, but it is far too often the case.

 

[hedrick]

I just watched an interesting video from William Lane Craig about inerrancy. He maintains that it is not a central Christian belief. He accepts it, but he's concerned that people who put it at the center are setting themselves up for a fall if they find anything they can't explain.

He also sees something that I've observed, which is that too many people who see it as central don't actually think that if you approach the Bible using normal historical criteria you could justify accepting it. Craig and I believe that this is wrong. I consider the history before the exodus as mostly legendary, and I think even the stories of the settling of Canaan are idealized. But I take the history starting roughly in Samuel as mostly historical, and more rigorously so by the time of the kings. And I also accept that there was actually a covenant with God, which was worked out in history, with God speaking through the Prophets. I think this is a reasonable view that one can hold on historical grounds. (Also in the NT that although we don't have verbatim recordings, we have a reasonable knowledge of what Jesus taught, and he was actually crucified and resurrected.)

In the most detailed discussions I've had with someone who holds inerrancy, it became clear that he held it partly because he thought that if you didn't take inerrancy as an axiom, but had to use historical criteria, you would decide that the Bible doesn't measure up. Oddly enough I as someone who rejects inerrancy have more confidence in the Bible. But that doesn't mean that I think it's "literally" true, at least in the sense people typically use the term.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

I just watched an interesting video from William Lane Craig about inerrancy. He maintains that it is not a central Christian belief. He accepts it, but he's concerned that people who put it at the center are setting themselves up for a fall if they find anything they can't explain.

He also sees something that I've observed, which is that too many people who see it as central don't actually think that if you approach the Bible using normal historical criteria you could justify accepting it. Craig and I believe that this is wrong. I consider the history before the exodus as mostly legendary, and I think even the stories of the settling of Canaan are idealized. But I take the history starting roughly in Samuel as mostly historical, and more rigorously so by the time of the kings. And I also accept that there was actually a covenant with God, which was worked out in history, with God speaking through the Prophets. I think this is a reasonable view that one can hold on historical grounds. (Also in the NT that although we don't have verbatim recordings, we have a reasonable knowledge of what Jesus taught, and he was actually crucified and resurrected.)

Craig has taken a lot of flack for his stance on inerrancy - but I don't disagree. I do, however, have a more conservative position on the historicity of the Exodus/Canaanite narratives; while I'm aware of exaggerations/hyperbole in ANE literature, I'm more or less sold the OT being pretty solid historically.

 

[Harry3142]

Grumpy Old Man-

I probably should have voted 'a bit of both'. But my belief is that the stories which came prior to Abraham's lifetime were allegories, while the stories that took place within his lifetime and afterward can be seen as factual.

The Creation STory (or stories, to be more accurate) wee ritten for a people who already had another creation epic that they had learned during their time in Egypt. You can read that epic here:

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

Note that in that creation story the first five days were devoted entirely to gods and goddesses creating other gods and goddesses. It was only on the sixth day that man and all the other animals were created together and then 'dumped' on the land.

The first Genesis creation story (Genesis 1:1 to 2:3) dealt directly with that epic. Under egyptian mythology those gods and goddesses that had been created were in the forms of stars, the sun, the moon, and the animals seen around them. But the author of Genesis (whom I personally accept as being Moses himself) 'stripped' all those object and animals of their divinity. The sun, moon and stars were merely objects which gave us light, and the animals that we saw around us were merely fellow creatures, and nothing more. Byt the time that Genesis 2:3 was reached, the only divinity left was an invisible God whom no one could build an idol to, because no one could no his appearance.

The second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25) separated man from all the other animals. Whereas the egyptian creation epic had simply 'lumped' him in with all the other animals, Genesis identified him as being created through a unique procedure not taken with the other animals. Even the breath of life was breathed into his nostrils from God himself, which is not recorded as having been done to any other animal.

Alone of the animals, man could talk to God, as we converse with each other. He was given the authority to name the other animals, a symbol of power over them. A special place was created in which he would live, caring for it and tending it. Even his spouse was created in a unique manner in orderto further differentiate him from the other animals.

And alone of the animals, man had the ability to choose, and therefore to violate God's orders. No other animal was capable of knowing what is good and what is evil; man is unique in having that knowledge to this day.

Even the serpent in the garden was an adaptation of egyptian mythology. We identify him as Satan, but in egyptian mythology he was Sebau. He and his minions were enemies of man, but Ra had defeated him in battle and rendered him legless, forcing him to crawl on the ground. You can read a reference to that in the book 'The Egyptian Book of the Dead'. It's under the heading 'A Hymn to Ra'.

But whereas Ra had needed to fight a battle with Sebau, God was able to accomplish the same purpose by his will alone.

The story of the fall of man is asgood as any to describe a unique situation we have yet today. We still see some acts as evil and other acts as good (the knowledge of good and evil). And we still recognize ourselves as having departed from the correct path when we choose to follow the path that is evil. The innocence which all other animals have is not part of our existence.

As for the other stories, They were the means whereby people could explain why something had happened, whether that was a natural catastrophe or the difference inherent in our languages. As an example, The Great Flood predates Genesis by centuries, and is believed to have originated as a way to explain the great floods that overwhelmed landmasses following the last Ice Age. The remains of what appear to be manmade structures have been found hundred's of feet below the surface of presentday seas. including The Black Sea, now a saltwater sea, but in ancient times a freshwater lake much shallower than it is now. Since the people would have made their homes near large bodies of water in order to get food, a rapid increase of the water level would have been seen as a major catastrophe to them.

I hope this helps-