Literal and allegorical

[Tellyontellyon]

A) Does reading scripture as allegorical rather than literal truth damage religion?

B) Does reading scripture as literal rather than allegorical truth damage religion?

Tashi Delek

 

[Pavel Mosko]

um many Christians do both. I will say this, on stuff like Genesis creation etc. there has been lots of writing about that sort of thing from the stand point of ancient far east literature etc. That acknowledges things like the use of various Egyptian and Sumerian iconography etc. in the Old Testament.

 

[thecolorsblend]

A) Does reading scripture as allegorical rather than literal truth damage religion?

B) Does reading scripture as literal rather than allegorical truth damage religion?

Tashi Delek

It's not an either/or thing. You can read some parts of scripture as literal and other parts as metaphor.

 

[JackRT]

Rabbi Brian Zachary Mayer wrote ~~~ I do not take the Bible literally. But I take it seriously. To take it literally would mean that I believe that every word, as it is written, was spoken by God. I cannot do that. But I can and do take it seriously. To take the Bible seriously means to examine it in its time and for the culture in which it was written. I want to offer up a very handy distinction that can help in our understanding of the Bible. That distinction I would like to make is revealed in the two words: true and truth. True is if it actually happened. It is a fact of history. Truth is the moral. It is the actual essence of things. I do not believe that most of the biblical stories are true stories. But I sure do believe that they are truth stories. It doesn’t matter to me if the Red Sea parted or if Noah had an ark. I don’t care if Jonah was swallowed by a whale or if that’s not necessarily factually so. To me, the great meaning of these stories has nothing to do with whether they’re historically accurate or not. Whether Jonah slept or didn’t sleep for three nights in the proverbial halibut hotel does not take away from the moral of the story – that it is human nature to run away from the things that we don’t want to do. I don’t believe this historically happened. I don’t believe Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and brought to the bottom of the sea-world after not doing what he knew he had to do. This is a truth story. Not a true story. This is a story about humanity, about me, about the troubles we get into when we don’t do what we should do and about how it will bring us down to the very bottom of our existence. It’s a truth story, not a true story. And if we look at the miracles in the Bible as truth stories, what we learn from these stories will be liberative for us. In this important way the Bible can be a very liberating force in our lives. If we read the Bible in this way we will probably fight less with what we read in the Bible. Moreover, seeking the "truth" of the stories can allow us to have meaningful conversations with people who might read the stories to be true stories rather than truth ones. The truth aspect of the story offers a place of connection between myself and those who read the words literally.

 

[eleos1954]

A) Does reading scripture as allegorical rather than literal truth damage religion?

B) Does reading scripture as literal rather than allegorical truth damage religion?

Tashi Delek

There is a mixture of both .... and none of it is damaging ... we all endeavor to understand His word.

 

[Paul4JC]

[2Ti 4:3-4 NIV] 3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

 

[JackRT]

number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

I find that final verse to be quite ironic.

 

[BrotherJJ]

A) Does reading scripture as allegorical rather than literal truth damage religion?

B) Does reading scripture as literal rather than allegorical truth damage religion?

Tashi Delek

I believe we see both.

Literal vs Allegorical scripture examples:

Here ALL literal
Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; & every eye shall see him, & they also which pierced him: & all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen

Here allegorical
Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
(NOTE: NOT wool or snow or a flame. BUT "like wool" "as snow" "as a flame". CONTEXT is always KEY.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I believe we see both.

Literal vs Allegorical scripture examples:

Here ALL literal
Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; & every eye shall see him, & they also which pierced him: & all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen

Here allegorical
Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
(NOTE: NOT wool or snow or a flame. BUT "like wool" "as snow" "as a flame". CONTEXT is always KEY.

What about the context of these verses determines if you take it allegorical or literal?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

A) Does reading scripture as allegorical rather than literal truth damage religion?

B) Does reading scripture as literal rather than allegorical truth damage religion?

Tashi Delek

I don't know about damaging religion but it will damage people if taken literally. In the Handmaids Tale they took the bible literally and they were cutting off hands, fingers and eyes for sins as Jesus said, if you take that literally.

Also westboro baptist church took the bible literally and caused much pain to others.

 

[JackRT]

When I first started seriously studying the Bible some 40 years ago I took most of it literally but as time goes on I increasingly find that most of it is allegorical.

 

[Tolworth John]

A) Does reading scripture as allegorical rather than literal truth damage religion?

B) Does reading scripture as literal rather than allegorical truth damage religion?

Tashi Delek

It would depend what one is reading. For example John 14:6 I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, No one comes to the Father but by me.

If Jesus is the Son of God then that is literally true, if however he was some mad man then it is not true and one would have to work out whether or not it meant anything.

You need to decide whether the above verse is true. If it is then why aren't you a Christian?
If it is not true, why are you investigating Christianity?

 

[Tellyontellyon]

If Jesus is the Son of God then that is literally true,

But that depends on what 'Son of God.' means... The phrase son/daughter of God occurs on a number of places in the Bible and not always referring to Jesus. And 'God' ... that can mean different things to different people.
For example, to Buddhists we believe that there are many gods, but do not see them as creators or all knowing. However, Gods in Buddhism often do believe that they are all powerful and will live forever. From a Buddhist perspective Gods are deluded and have overweening pride. This can lead them to being angry and jealous.
I don't mention that to start a debate about Buddhism, but only to point out that you can't take for granted what these words could mean to different people. They are labels, but what does the label actually mean.
When you use a phrase like 'Son of God', it literally means nothing until you define what that actually means. Only then can you say if you believe in that or not even if you do take it literally.

 

[Albion]

I don't know about damaging religion but it will damage people if taken literally. In the Handmaids Tale they took the bible literally and they were cutting off hands, fingers and eyes for sins as Jesus said, if you take that literally.

Oh, well, if the Handmaid's Tale (!) included that as part of the narrative. I mean, you know.

Also westboro baptist church took the bible literally and caused much pain to others.

It wasn't because those twenty or so people took the Bible literally, however. It was how they chose to exhibit their beliefs.

 

[JackRT]

From a Buddhist perspective Gods are deluded and have overweening pride. This can lead them to being angry and jealous.

Interesting. Many Christians regard God as wrathful and jealous and yet manage regard those characteristics as sinful in humanity.

When you use a phrase like 'Son of God', it literally means nothing until you define what that actually means. Only then can you say if you believe in that or not even if you do take it literally.

Messiah means literally "anointed one" and was the common way in which the Jews referred to kings of the dynasty of David. "Anointed" refers of course to the method of investiture of the Jewish kings. It translated into the Greek as "Christos". The Jews regarded themselves as a "theocracy"... a kingdom ruled by God. The Jews also envisaged a (metaphorical) throne room in which there were three thrones. God occupied the central throne. At "the right hand of God" was the throne of the "king messiah" who was the reigning king of the house and family of David. At "the left hand of God" was the throne of the "priest messiah" who was the high priest of the house and family of Zadok. Ideally there were always two messiahs who were known collectively as the "sons of God". All these terms, "messiah", "kingdom of God", "at the right hand of God" and "son of God" were political rather than religious statements. It was a later generation of gentile Christians who re-interpreted these phrases in a very different religious sense. Both before and after the death of Jesus the early Christians, who were, after all, practicing Jews, understood these terms in their traditional sense. Jesus in claiming to be the messiah had not committed any blasphemy... there was no religious crime that the high priest could legitimately charge him with. That is why he went to the Romans to do the job. Jesus was executed as a political dissident not for blasphemy.

 

[Tolworth John]

They are labels, but what does the label actually mean

Like any label or name one finds out what it meant to the writer and how it has been understood by those who use it through its history.

I know little of Buddhism, but if posting about it will check meanings of any technical or religious words I'm quoting.

The pharase Son of God can be easily investigated as it is important to Christianity.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Oh, well, if the Handmaid's Tale (!) included that as part of the narrative. I mean, you know.

My point is that if you take those verses where Jesus says to cut off your body parts literally you would be causing harm.

It wasn't because those twenty or so people took the Bible literally, however. It was how they chose to exhibit their beliefs.

I disagree. I am glad most Christians read into the bible their morals instead of getting their morals from the bible. Westboro is actually one of the few groups to try to obey what the bible actually says. Look on their doctrine page and it is all bible verses that support their positions. Not much commentary. Their stance on homosexuality for example is right from the pages of the bible. God did command that they be put to death at one point in history. That is not love the sinner hate the sin.

 

[Albion]

My point is that if you take those verses where Jesus says to cut off your body parts literally you would be causing harm.

I know. I just thought that the use of the Handmaid's Tale to make the point was sort of self-defeating, but yes, I understand that the point itself was the more important part of the comment.

I disagree. I am glad most Christians read into the bible their morals instead of getting their morals from the bible.

Really?

Westboro is actually one of the few groups to try to obey what the bible actually says. Look on their doctrine page and it is all bible verses that support their positions. Not much commentary. Their stance on homosexuality for example is right from the pages of the bible. God did command that they be put to death at one point in history. That is not love the sinner hate the sin.

As I said, it's how the Westboro people demonstrate their convictions that has brought down most of the criticism upon them. Even people who agree with them on the matter of homosexuality are uncomfortable seeing them disrupt someone's funeral.

I do also know that many who vilify the Westboro people think it's some sort of cult, theologically speaking, and would be very much surprised if they took the time to look at the church's website for their statement of beliefs.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I know. I just thought that the use of the Handmaid's Tale to make the point was sort of self-defeating, but yes, I understand that the point itself was the more important part of the comment.

Well they do quote scripture in that series to give support to what they are doing. You may not agree with their interpretation but it can and has been interpreted that way.

Really?

Yes, how many Christians actually believe that a slave should respect their master and be the best slave they can be to honor god? Most ex believers I know did not change their norals much when the stopped believing. The only thing I changed really was my stance on homosexual marriage. Although I was always uneasy about not supporting them.

As I said, it's how the Westboro people demonstrate their convictions that has brought down most of the criticism upon them. Even people who agree with them on the matter of homosexuality are uncomfortable seeing them disrupt someone's funeral.

Why? Why is your interpretation the correct one and theirs is not?

I do also know that many who vilify the Westboro people think it's some sort of cult, theologically speaking, and would be very much surprised if they took the time to look at the church's website for their statement of beliefs.

Maybe they should. Have you?

 

[Tellyontellyon]

I do also know that many who vilify the Westboro people think it's some sort of cult, theologically speaking, and would be very much surprised if they took the time to look at the church's website for their statement of beliefs.

But didn't Jesus say you would be judged as you judge others? Didn't he talk about the person who has no sin having the right to cast the first stone?
The Westbro Baptists quote the letter of some parts of the Bible but miss the spirit of what Jesus taught... The WBC are modern Pharisees.