Literal Translation of the Bible, (Where Applicable)?.?.?

[cvanwey]

I've spoken to many, including here, whom state some of the OT stories are not to be taken literally. So I ask, by what barometer or standard is to be used in determining which stories are literal, verses a metaphor, verses a mere teaching point, verses another?

It seems as though it's easy to say an expressed event in the Bible is not to be taken literal, only after later discovery exposes the sheer unlikelihood of it's literal claim.

It also seems safe to continue concluding the claim of a postmortem Jesus (resurrection) remains literal, as it is virtually impossible to 'disprove' past eye-witness attestation; just like the many claimed past eye-witness sightings of aliens, ghosts, spirits, etc...

On a side note, please try not to use hermeneutics as the absolute standard - (unless you can present a very solid foundation as such)... I've spoken to theologians whom view the very same Bible passages as expressing how the earth is 7k years old, as well as others whom conclude it's antithesis of 4.55 billion.

1). How is it that one determines some stories as myth, legend, allegory, metaphor; while determining the NT is actual?

2). And if so, did the writers intend for the story to only be metaphor? How do you know?

3). As a follow up to question 2). if the story wasn't intended as a metaphor/other, and the later evidence demonstrates to the contrary, then doesn't this make the Bible no better than any other opposing book of opinions/suggestions - (with no validated or warranted truth attached)?

Thank you in advance

 

[Tolworth John]

o I ask, by what barometer or standard is to be used in determining which stories are literal, verses a metaphor, verses a mere teaching point, verses another?

The stories in the OT are to be taken literally.
That is unless they say they are not historical reported events.

 

[Tree of Life]

1). How is it that one determines some stories as myth, legend, allegory, metaphor; while determining the NT is actual?

Every text in Scripture should be read literally. That is to say, as the literature intends. So the real question is genre. If the text is an historical narrative, then it should be read and interpreted as such. If the text is a poem, it should be read as such. There are different interpretive rules for interpreting different genres of Scripture.

2). And if so, did the writers intend for the story to only be metaphor? How do you know?

Genres always have markers and clues. For example, if you picked up a blank covered book and opened up to page one and it said...

"It was a dark and stormy night..."

Or

"Once upon a time..."

You could probably guess that the book was not a science textbook, but a story book. Or if you picked up a piece of paper which said:

"Dear John, I am writing to inform you that your credit card..."

You'd probably conclude that it was some sort of business letter.

How did you know? Genre is determined by form.

3). As a follow up to question 2). if the story wasn't intended as a metaphor/other, and the later evidence demonstrates to the contrary, then doesn't this make the Bible no better than any other opposing book of opinions/suggestions - (with no validated or warranted truth attached)?

If the author of a text intends for it to be a factual account of events and these facts are essentially wrong, then this would be a problem for the credibility of Scripture.

 

[HTacianas]

I've spoken to many, including here, whom state some of the OT stories are not to be taken literally. So I ask, by what barometer or standard is to be used in determining which stories are literal, verses a metaphor, verses a mere teaching point, verses another?

It seems as though it's easy to say an expressed event in the Bible is not to be taken literal, only after later discovery exposes the sheer unlikelihood of it's literal claim.

It also seems safe to continue concluding the claim of a postmortem Jesus (resurrection) remains literal, as it is virtually impossible to 'disprove' past eye-witness attestation; just like the many claimed past eye-witness sightings of aliens, ghosts, spirits, etc...

On a side note, please try not to use hermeneutics as the absolute standard - (unless you can present a very solid foundation as such)... I've spoken to theologians whom view the very same Bible passages as expressing how the earth is 7k years old, as well as others whom conclude it's antithesis of 4.55 billion.

1). How is it that one determines some stories as myth, legend, allegory, metaphor; while determining the NT is actual?

2). And if so, did the writers intend for the story to only be metaphor? How do you know?

3). As a follow up to question 2). if the story wasn't intended as a metaphor/other, and the later evidence demonstrates to the contrary, then doesn't this make the Bible no better than any other opposing book of opinions/suggestions - (with no validated or warranted truth attached)?

Thank you in advance

That's only one of the reasons I love the Orthodox Church. Provided that it doesn't contradict the teachings of the Church, a person may hold any opinion on the literal/allegorical interpretation one chooses to hold.

The Church has no definitive teaching on the age of the earth. So speculate away.

 

[cvanwey]

The stories in the OT are to be taken literally.
That is unless they say they are not historical reported events.

So what do you say about the flood claims and Exodus claims? Literal?

 

[cvanwey]

That's only one of the reasons I love the Orthodox Church. Provided that it doesn't contradict the teachings of the Church, a person may hold any opinion on the literal/allegorical interpretation one chooses to hold.

This answer appears confusing... Are you then saying the resurrection claim falls within the same camp? Or is this the one claim which is definitely literal, no matter what?

 

[cvanwey]

Every text in Scripture should be read literally. That is to say, as the literature intends. So the real question is genre. If the text is an historical narrative, then it should be read and interpreted as such. If the text is a poem, it should be read as such. There are different interpretive rules for interpreting different genres of Scripture.



Genres always have markers and clues. For example, if you picked up a blank covered book and opened up to page one and it said...

"It was a dark and stormy night..."

Or

"Once upon a time..."

You could probably guess that the book was not a science textbook, but a story book. Or if you picked up a piece of paper which said:

"Dear John, I am writing to inform you that your credit card..."

You'd probably conclude that it was some sort of business letter.

How did you know? Genre is determined by form.



If the author of a text intends for it to be a factual account of events and these facts are essentially wrong, then this would be a problem for the credibility of Scripture.

Based upon your assessments/conclusions, by your demonstrated way of evaluation, I'm curious... What is your stance on the creation account, the flood claim, and the exodus account? Are these literal?

Also, what is the age of the earth? (6-10K or 4.5 billion)?

 

[HTacianas]

This answer appears confusing... Are you then saying the resurrection claim falls within the same camp? Or is this the one claim which is definitely literal, no matter what?

To claim that the resurrection was not literal would contradict the teachings of the Church. See the Nicene Creed.

 

[cvanwey]

To claim that the resurrection was not literal would contradict the teachings of the Church. See the Nicene Creed.

The 'church' has no position on the flood, exodus, creation account, etc..?

 

[Tree of Life]

Based upon your assessments/conclusions, by your demonstrated way of evaluation, I'm curious... What is your stance on the creation account, the flood claim, and the exodus account? Are these literal?

Also, what is the age of the earth? (6-10K or 4.5 billion)?

I believe that Genesis is an historical narrative so I take a young earth view.

 

[HTacianas]

The 'church' has no position on the flood, exodus, creation account, etc..?

Nope. People in the Church often speak of all those things for edification, but there is no defined statement on any of them.

There may be other Orthodox here that can correct me and I hope they do if I've missed something.

 

[cvanwey]

I believe that Genesis is an historical narrative so I take a young earth view.

How do you reconcile the 'evidence' against this concluded belief?

 

[klutedavid]

I've spoken to many, including here, whom state some of the OT stories are not to be taken literally. So I ask, by what barometer or standard is to be used in determining which stories are literal, verses a metaphor, verses a mere teaching point, verses another?

It seems as though it's easy to say an expressed event in the Bible is not to be taken literal, only after later discovery exposes the sheer unlikelihood of it's literal claim.

It also seems safe to continue concluding the claim of a postmortem Jesus (resurrection) remains literal, as it is virtually impossible to 'disprove' past eye-witness attestation; just like the many claimed past eye-witness sightings of aliens, ghosts, spirits, etc...

On a side note, please try not to use hermeneutics as the absolute standard - (unless you can present a very solid foundation as such)... I've spoken to theologians whom view the very same Bible passages as expressing how the earth is 7k years old, as well as others whom conclude it's antithesis of 4.55 billion.

1). How is it that one determines some stories as myth, legend, allegory, metaphor; while determining the NT is actual?

2). And if so, did the writers intend for the story to only be metaphor? How do you know?

3). As a follow up to question 2). if the story wasn't intended as a metaphor/other, and the later evidence demonstrates to the contrary, then doesn't this make the Bible no better than any other opposing book of opinions/suggestions - (with no validated or warranted truth attached)?

Thank you in advance

Each book or letter contained in the various canons of the scripture. Has an inherent degree of accuracy and importance associated with it.

The book of Genesis for example, is a somewhat rough overview of human history. Genesis is not an accurate historical text, nor a scientific text describing human history.

Genesis is a compilation of older accounts to validate, the foundation of the history of the nation of Israel. The Old Testament is primarily concerned with the formation and validity of the nation of Israel.

If you devote considerable time to understanding the relevancy, of the Old Testament to the revelation contained in the New Testament. You will eventually see a prophetic thread, sown into the historical books of the Old Testament.

This is the critical point that cannot be ignored, prophetic texts contained within Israel's history.

You may have older accounts in the Old Testament of somewhat dubious integrity. Yet, woven into these older accounts is a disturbing prophetic truth. It is almost as if God allows men to write and edit the history of Israel, but inserts sections of undeniable truth.

I think we are dealing with a very, very clever fellow. You can select almost any letter or book of the scripture, examine it, then regard it as invalid. But when you have the overview of the revelation of the Christ, then you can see the purpose of the entire scripture.

The text is all about Jesus, the revelation of the Christ. Any inaccuracies were permitted to exist in the scripture to derive a people of faith.

You can tear the Old Testament out of the scripture, though the revelation of the Christ is still valid.

Paul was stating an observable fact regarding the resurrection of the Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:6
After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now...

That this Christ rose from the dead is beyond any doubt whatsoever, there were more than five hundred witnesses, to the resurrection event. Paul would not have made this claim to the Corinthians, unless the resurrection event was a valid event.

When all is said and done, there was only one event in human history of historical importance.

 

[Tree of Life]

How do you reconcile the 'evidence' against this concluded belief?

I don't feel much of a need to reconcile it. I gravitate toward the apparent age theory, though.

 

[Tree of Life]

Nope. People in the Church often speak of all those things for edification, but there is no defined statement on any of them.

There may be other Orthodox here that can correct me and I hope they do if I've missed something.

Ft Seraphim Rose was a young earth creationist who sought to promote creationism within Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[HTacianas]

Ft Seraphim Rose was a young earth creationist who sought to promote creationism within Eastern Orthodoxy.

May God bless Seraphim Rose.

There are quite a few creationists in Orthodoxy. And there are many who are not. But each is allowed their own opinion on it.

 

[cvanwey]

1 Corinthians 15:6
After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now...

That this Christ rose from the dead is beyond any doubt whatsoever, there were more than five hundred witnesses, to the resurrection event. Paul would not have made this claim to the Corinthians, unless the resurrection event was a valid event.

When all is said and done, there was only one event in human history of historical importance.

And yet there was no corroboration, nor did or do we have any documented response from the Corinthians. Also, the letters were written years later. By then, all such 'witnesses' were scattered all over. Furthermore, since they were not documented, by name, how might the receivers of such a document(s) even know who to ask for verification?

 

[cvanwey]

I don't feel much of a need to reconcile it. I gravitate toward the apparent age theory, though.

Really? You do understand that basically all scientific disciplines conclude billions of years old, and that doesn't concern you in the slightest?

And what do you mean by 'age theory'? Are the expressed days literal 24 hour days, or not?

 

[Tree of Life]

Really? You do understand that basically all scientific disciplines conclude billions of years old, and that doesn't concern you in the slightest?

Yes I understand that is the consensus of the day. No, I'm not concerned by it.

And what do you mean by 'age theory'? Are the expressed days literal 24 hour days, or not?

God created the universe with apparent age. He created a fully mature universe.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes I understand that is the consensus of the day. No, I'm not concerned by it.

So to recap, any scientific discovery, which contradicts Biblical claims, is incorrect or mistaken; regardless of how extensive the peer review measures may be?

If so, is there anything outside the Bible which validates a young earth claim? Or is it the Bible, and the Bible alone?

God created the universe with apparent age. He created a fully mature universe.

Does this also apply to the Egyptian pyramids, which are concluded to be over 4.5K years old; which demonstrate how no such population could have existed, (post-flood), to build such dwellings?