Literal truth vs. allegory

[seebs]

So... How do *you* figure out which parts of the Bible are allegory, and which are literal? I'm assuming you'll grant, for the sake of argument, that the "four corners of the earth" are not literal. So... Where's the line go? Are people who draw it differently really bad people, or is this just one of those things people disagree about?

 

[Josephus]

How do I figure it out? I ask people who speak Hebrew. Obviously, it was Hebrew that the English version you have available to you was translated from (I hope).

And Hebrew roots, colloquialisms, traditions, and common phrases are all important to understanding the language we sometimes see translated either word-for-word or paraphrased, but hardly ever both.

The line is drawn by what a Jewish scholar will tell you. Or a Greek scholar if it's a question about a phrase in the New Testament.

There is only one way to properly understand the bible in your language and that's simply a word called, "hermaneutics," or the method of studying scripture.

I believe it is from Hank Hanegraaf where I got a better understanding of how exactly the bible is read logically.

For example:

The Literal Principle of Hermanuetics states that what is intended to be taken literally should be taken litearlly. For example, the story of Adam and Eve. At first glance there is nothing to indicate that the writer intends this story to be anything but a simple true story of two real people.

The Figurative Principle states that what is meant and intended to be taken as a figure should be taken as such. A vision of a dragon sweeping a third of the stars to the earth is just that: a vision. It's not a real literal dragon flinging real literal stars on the earth (we'd all be burned to a crisp!). Later on the stars are explained to be a third of the angels that fell with Lucifer. What is meant to be taken figuretively should be taken as such.

These two principles are the beginning of five principles to help anyone gain the understanding of any perspective in the bible.

The other princples are:

Historical Princple - take things in their obvious historical context.

Grammatical Principle - metaphors, colloquialisms, phrases and sayings should be taken in context and understood.

Harmony Principle - everything interpreted from scripture must harmonize with anything literally true in scripture. In other words, no contradictions are allowed in interpretations blatantly contradicting stated and clear scripture.

Following these princples, anyone can "draw the line" and indeed follow it.

 

[seebs]

Hmm. Now, let's say I'm pretty much used to accepting scientific conclusions about the world, and I have substantial problems trying to integrate the literal Adam and Eve story with things that I'm quite confident of. Is *that* something to indicate that the writer may intend it differently, or that the (human) writer may have been embellishing a bit on what God told him?

I'd actually say that, if anything, Adam and Eve *sounds* like myth. The very carefully structured phrasing about the days is exactly the sort of thing you get in myths and fairytales.

Essentially, the concern I have is, different people draw the line differently, and often everyone has convincing arguments. This turns out to make it difficult for me to be sure I've understood something.

 

[rwc109]

It is all very well saying that there should be no contradictions, but there seem to be many...

God says that it is not for Him to repent and He says He doesn't, but there are 8 places where the Bible records Him as repenting.

God alone can do wonders in one place but Satan can do them as the anti-cgrist in another.

Matthew and luke record that Jesus said he would keep the sign of Jonas [3 days and nights in the tomb] but Mark categorically denies any such sign being given.

Also how are we to accept translation where for instance the word 'sheol' in Hebrew is rendered equally as the 'grave' and 'hell' when these two would not be regarded as the same by many.

Looking at the index at the back of Young's concordance to the KJV the translations are often bizarre to say the least and far from consistent... a word may be translated into mnay words each of which is rendered from many different words... it is like unravelling spaghetti to get back to the meanings and find where the same word was used originally in other phrases to compare Bible usage of words [to get the oRIGINAL meaning from usage]... words are not even always translated as the same part of speech! or in the correct tenses!

My belief from experience of the Bible is that much of it is BOTH literal and allegorical... God lived out His allegories through His chosen people, thus for instance the women of the Bible all symbolise man's spiritual affiliation , brothers represent the differences between Jesus and Satan, etc

 

[Josephus]

rwc, for the record I use only one source for my scripture:

http://www.sovgracepub.com/bibles/interlinear1vol.htm


Seebs:
"Is *that* something to indicate that the writer may intend it differently, or that the (human) writer may have been embellishing a bit on what God told him?"

Do you trust God as the author of human history? If so, wouldn't such a writer who feared him so find it beyond reason to embellish the tale of creation with an entire made-up and well-designed story about Adam and Eve as to be taken as fact from God himself?

And you remember in Matthew 25:37, Jesus talks about Noah's flood as if it was a fact to be recalled. And Jesus being God, probably knew the scriptures of his day and accepted them and if you notice, he doesn't ever bother to correct them - even their septuagint translations. If I were God, that'd be the first thing I'd do if I visited Earth - fix the bible if it needed fixing. I also believe Jesus mentions something about Adam and Eve too, but at the moment I can't find it. When he does mention Adam though it is matter-of-factly, not some visionary allegory.

You must agree, however, Seebs, through everyone's disagreements, there is, and must be a single truth to every story, to every situation, to every thing that has ever happened. The bible is a great source for historical investigation with the things it is possible to investigate and actually prove. What can't be proven are things that really can't be proven any better than other theories regarding evolution and creation; so ultimately one is still left with a faith of some kind. Either you believe evolution actually happened, or believe something else. The fact is, you believe. And ultimately, that faith is based on a personal decision you've already given yourself too. The only way to accept something new is to change that personal decision.

 

[Jack Lewis]

So... How do *you* figure out which parts of the Bible are allegory, and which are literal? I'm assuming you'll grant, for the sake of argument, that the "four corners of the earth" are not literal. So... Where's the line go? Are people who draw it differently really bad people, or is this just one of those things people disagree about?

Common sense. Part of which means we don't swallow the whimsical myth of the day that Evolutionists demand is "proven fact" and try to force the Bible into that.

 

[Serapha]

So... How do *you* figure out which parts of the Bible are allegory, and which are literal? I'm assuming you'll grant, for the sake of argument, that the "four corners of the earth" are not literal. So... Where's the line go? Are people who draw it differently really bad people, or is this just one of those things people disagree about?

Hi there!



I follow dispensational theology. You take it all literally unless there is a specific reason why you cannot take the passage literally... such as "four corners of the earth"... which you are aware simply doesn't exist in the literal sense.


When you apply that interpretation, all of the passages fall into alignment with no contradictions.


~malaka~

 

[chilehed]

See the kind of problems that arise when we dispense with the authority of the Church to teach on matters of faith and morals...

As a former Calvinist, it wasn't until I became a Catholic that this stuff got tightly wrapped.

 

[Rafael]

So... How do *you* figure out which parts of the Bible are allegory, and which are literal? I'm assuming you'll grant, for the sake of argument, that the "four corners of the earth" are not literal. So... Where's the line go? Are people who draw it differently really bad people, or is this just one of those things people disagree about?

Anyone that has looked at a map drawn two dimensionally, sees north, south, east, and west. Could it be possible that the "four corners of the earth" is just another way of pointing to the idea of a map?
Bad people ? No, not necessarily.
I'm thinking that the string theory doesn't really unify relativity and quantum mechanics without at least nine dimensions. The Bible points to possibly five, eternity being one that God seems to be able to operate from with no trouble at all. Perhaps man has been limited by thinking in a three dimensional box for so long, as a curse, that it cannot help but misinterpret parts of the scripture. I think all will be revealed, someday, and the accuracy of scripture will be proved to be very good and that man's understanding was severely limited by a mind and dimension of death.
Also, the idoms of the language of that time of history may not describe the attributes of a God and His actions in the same way we would in our point in time.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

See the kind of problems that arise when we dispense with the authority of the Church to teach on matters of faith and morals...

As a former Calvinist, it wasn't until I became a Catholic that this stuff got tightly wrapped.

so how do you deal with revelations....


or mary having brothers and sisters.....Matt 13:55-56


or that we are priests 1peter 2:9 and saints eph 1:18, 2:19, 3:8, 4:12, 5:3[romans 4:8] since we are in Christ

 

[chilehed]

so how do you deal with revelations....

or mary having brothers and sisters.....

or that we are priests and saints since we are in Christ

I'm not sure I understand. Could you please clarify?

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

so how do you deal with revelations....



or mary having brothers and sisters.....Matt 13:55-56



or that we are priests 1peter 2:9 and saints eph 1:18, 2:19, 3:8, 4:12, 5:3[romans 4:8] since we are in Christ

the Catholic church does not like these verses to name a few

 

[chilehed]

the Catholic church does not like these verses to name a few

If that was the case then these verses might have gotten stripped out when they determined the canon, hmmm? I mean, if the Catholic Church is in the business of teaching anti-biblical things...

Well, we don't want to turn this thread into a debate, if you like we can go somewhere else, but for the present:

The word commonly translated as "brothers" in Matt 13 actually is more like "kinsman" in that culture, it can include cousins. So the idea that Mary remained a virgin does not contradict scripture.

And yes, we are all, in one sense, saints and priests because we are in Christ, but that doesn't preclude the idea that there is another sense that those words are used for. I'm not well versed enough to express it off the top of my head, and I gotta crash right now so I can't look it up, but there IS a satisfactory answer.

Overall, as I investigated Catholic Tradision I found that, at worst, it isn't inconsistent with scripture, and in many cases it's MORE consistent with scripture than Protestant theology is.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

we are called priest and saints because God calls us this since we are in Christ not because the Romans Catholic Church say so or not