literal vs. figurative interpretation of the bible

[Jeff 152]

Whenever the logical contradictions, flaws, and flat out false statements in the bible are revealed, theists always interpret it figuratively to evade the falsity.

for example, a classic example is with genesis, where theists interpret the "days" of creation figuratively as large spans of time so as to account for the factual evidence we have today of the age of the earth and fossils and such.

If the entire bible was interpreted figuratively like this, I would have no problem with it. The problem is that theists randomly decide what to interpret literally and what to interpret figuratively.

A "day" is figurative and is actually thousands of years, but jesus literally turned water into wine. who decides this?

 

[VitalOne]

Well I think a lot of people take things too figuratively and symbolically thus perverting the entire meaning of things....

Jesus really did turn water into wine, walk on water, calm the storm, raise the dead, etc....there's no doubt about this...its all documented all around the world (with Gautama Buddha for instance).....so I'm pretty sure its all true....

As for the days in Genesis, these "days" are not 24-hour periods, obviously, in lots of other parts in the Bible days are not used to refer to literal days but used to mean some period of time...

 

[ylooshi]

Jesus really did turn water into wine, walk on water, calm the storm, raise the dead, etc....there's no doubt about this...its all documented all around the world (with Gautama Buddha for instance).....so I'm pretty sure its all true....

So which is it? Do you believe he "really did" or are you just "pretty sure?"

Either way, for anyone to say they "know" these magical things happened is an appeal to popularity and a desire to have your beliefs realized and to justify them in spite of evidence to the contrary. Indeed, the evidence is that people simply cannot do these sorts of things -magic and sorcery do not actually exist except in the minds of those who are given to fantasy (either temporarily or through full-blown delusion).

Of course, the believer's next reply is that "of course people cannot do these things... Jesus was a god.

Except there's no supporting evidence to suggest that "gods" exist. Indeed, there's less evidence for gods than there is for sorcerers!

This leads us to the reason why biblical fundamentalists (and Koranic, Vedic, etc. fundamentalists) exist to begin with: they realize that if people begin to accept that the stories in the bible (koran, vedic texts, etc.) were simply allegories and myths (some of which were perhaps real events that suffered great embellishment; some of which were completely fabricated) then the next step is to doubt the core principles of the bible itself. These adherents are frightened that their beliefs will no longer have the popularity and the unquestioning loyalty of millions of christian followers.

A decline in followers naturally means a decline in revenue. But, more importantly, it means a threat to a long-held delusion of Christian gods (Jesus [spelled Jesua in Hebrew], Yahweh, Elohim, Satan, Michael, Gabriel, Moses, Joshua [spelled Jesua in Hebrew], Abraham, and so on. People hate to admit they were wrong and the absolutely despise being duped. The delusion of Christianity is the biggest dupe of them all and recognizing it, for many, means admitting that they were wrong all their lives; that they wasted countless amounts of money and time; that their parents were wrong; that their grandparents were wrong; etc, etc.

Interestingly enough, this is similar to the excuses made to perpetuate slavery -yet we were able to rid ourselves of that scourge of society. Perhaps religion is able to be gotten rid of too.

I read far more threads and comments here than I post in, and I've seen Vital's new pattern of calling atheists "deluded," except this description doesn't wash in that direction. It fails to the point of silliness. Clearly, the description, when appropriately applied to fundamentalist Christians is offensive to him and angers him greatly, for if not angered, surely he would see the childish nature of reflecting criticism without providing the support for it. "I know you are but what am I," the 2nd grader said on the playground.

But in this case, the free-thinkers are criticizing the close-minded in their lack of critical thought and reason when they accuse fundamentalist Christians of being deluded. Since 'delusion' is the act of holding a belief in spite of evidence to the contrary; or, in this case, an extraordinary belief that lacks even basic evidence much less extraordinary evidence, then the deluded parties are certainly not the ones that are asking for evidence supporting claims that the believers are saying the "know" "really did" occur.

I won't say that Jesus never existed. I won't say there's no god. I will say that I've seen no good evidence to suggest to me that either are worth believing in and plenty of evidence that neither are worth two shits as beliefs since humanity has been inventing all manner of gods and succumbing to the affliction of magical thought since before there was even writing.

Yenald Looshi

 

[Jeff 152]

Another thing, its interesting how the figurative interpretations come about only after evidence is provided to disprove the literal translation. I am sure that originally, all christians believed the bible to be completely literal, and that god really did do the whole creation deal in 6 days. Then, as science disproved this, theists squirmed to come up with a figurative interpretation of the event to reconcile the discrepancy. Thus, the bible has gone from being completely literal, to now being mostly allegorical and symbolic. the only parts that remain literal are those that we have now way of disproving, such as whether jesus really did walk on water.

all seems a little too convenient how that works out, how all of a sudden "oh of course this is meant to be interpreted figuratively!" says the theist as soon as contradictory evidence is presented....

 

[rjr6]

/
for example, a classic example is with genesis, where theists interpret the "days" of creation figuratively as large spans of time so as to account for the factual evidence we have today of the age of the earth and fossils and such.
/

My question to you is why don't marbles when you drop them fall up? One caveat, do not answer the question with "an unexplained force", "gravity", "invisible wood gnomes with tethers", "fundamental force of the universe", "that is what we observe", "science has yet to fully understand/explain this".

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I don´t really know if Jesus walked on water, or if he converted water into wine, but these are methaphors. So most people don´t believe he actually did these things, although he well could have.
The point is, you can interpret it methaphorically, if you store water in a recipient, the water will go bad. It is the contrary with wine, you can store wine for years, and it gets even better.

Jesus is talking about inner-transformation:

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse. Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." (Mathew 9,16-17)

What we have right now is water, our soul is water, and it can go bad.
On the other hand, if you manage to transform that water into wine, it means you got in touch with your inner-self. The real you, not the you that has been tampered with by society, starting with our parents.
To do this, you gotta change the way you think, because our brains are as Jesus called them "old wineskins". You cannot listen to your inner-self (new wine) if you are stuck with your "old wineskin", your ego.

So, if you don´t believe that he transformed water into wine, it is perfectly fine, because you have never seen that happen, your old wineskin does not accept this situation. You can only understand the things you have seen by yourself. What is normal for you.
So Jesus didn´t literally transformed water into wine, but he made a lot of people realize that they had an ego, he transformed a lot of people into new wineskins.

That is what the refreshing words of a master do, they turn you into new wineskins in order to be able to contain the wine.

 

[VitalOne]

So which is it? Do you believe he "really did" or are you just "pretty sure?"

Either way, for anyone to say they "know" these magical things happened is an appeal to popularity and a desire to have your beliefs realized and to justify them in spite of evidence to the contrary. Indeed, the evidence is that people simply cannot do these sorts of things -magic and sorcery do not actually exist except in the minds of those who are given to fantasy (either temporarily or through full-blown delusion).

Of course, the believer's next reply is that "of course people cannot do these things... Jesus was a god.

Except there's no supporting evidence to suggest that "gods" exist. Indeed, there's less evidence for gods than there is for sorcerers!

This leads us to the reason why biblical fundamentalists (and Koranic, Vedic, etc. fundamentalists) exist to begin with: they realize that if people begin to accept that the stories in the bible (koran, vedic texts, etc.) were simply allegories and myths (some of which were perhaps real events that suffered great embellishment; some of which were completely fabricated) then the next step is to doubt the core principles of the bible itself. These adherents are frightened that their beliefs will no longer have the popularity and the unquestioning loyalty of millions of christian followers.

A decline in followers naturally means a decline in revenue. But, more importantly, it means a threat to a long-held delusion of Christian gods (Jesus [spelled Jesua in Hebrew], Yahweh, Elohim, Satan, Michael, Gabriel, Moses, Joshua [spelled Jesua in Hebrew], Abraham, and so on. People hate to admit they were wrong and the absolutely despise being duped. The delusion of Christianity is the biggest dupe of them all and recognizing it, for many, means admitting that they were wrong all their lives; that they wasted countless amounts of money and time; that their parents were wrong; that their grandparents were wrong; etc, etc.

Interestingly enough, this is similar to the excuses made to perpetuate slavery -yet we were able to rid ourselves of that scourge of society. Perhaps religion is able to be gotten rid of too.

I read far more threads and comments here than I post in, and I've seen Vital's new pattern of calling atheists "deluded," except this description doesn't wash in that direction. It fails to the point of silliness. Clearly, the description, when appropriately applied to fundamentalist Christians is offensive to him and angers him greatly, for if not angered, surely he would see the childish nature of reflecting criticism without providing the support for it. "I know you are but what am I," the 2nd grader said on the playground.

But in this case, the free-thinkers are criticizing the close-minded in their lack of critical thought and reason when they accuse fundamentalist Christians of being deluded. Since 'delusion' is the act of holding a belief in spite of evidence to the contrary; or, in this case, an extraordinary belief that lacks even basic evidence much less extraordinary evidence, then the deluded parties are certainly not the ones that are asking for evidence supporting claims that the believers are saying the "know" "really did" occur.

I won't say that Jesus never existed. I won't say there's no god. I will say that I've seen no good evidence to suggest to me that either are worth believing in and plenty of evidence that neither are worth two shits as beliefs since humanity has been inventing all manner of gods and succumbing to the affliction of magical thought since before there was even writing.

Yenald Looshi

The reason there's no evidence for God is because there's no way of gathering evidence of God.....obviously...just as with other theories in science...tell me how can you gather evidence?

I believe Jesus did literally walk on water, turn water into wine, etc...Gautama Buddha documented these supernormal powers (iddhi) as regular things wise ascetics are able to do when they've gained mastery over their mind...I don't think Gautama Buddha was lieing....why would they all be lieing for? The way you walk on water is you make your body lighter, so light that you walk on water, this too is documented in Hindu scriptures, Krishna speaks of this as a natural supernormal power (siddhi) gained when you gain higher mental power...why would they just be lieing for?

Even transforming matter, like water into wine, is documented in Buddhist scriptures:
"Friends, if he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth. Why is that? There is earth-property1 in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth.

"If he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but water... fire... wind... beautiful... unattractive. Why is that? There is the property of the unattractive in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but unattractive." (Daruka-khandha Sutta)

Another thing, its interesting how the figurative interpretations come about only after evidence is provided to disprove the literal translation. I am sure that originally, all christians believed the bible to be completely literal, and that god really did do the whole creation deal in 6 days. Then, as science disproved this, theists squirmed to come up with a figurative interpretation of the event to reconcile the discrepancy. Thus, the bible has gone from being completely literal, to now being mostly allegorical and symbolic. the only parts that remain literal are those that we have now way of disproving, such as whether jesus really did walk on water.

all seems a little too convenient how that works out, how all of a sudden "oh of course this is meant to be interpreted figuratively!" says the theist as soon as contradictory evidence is presented....

This is also how science works....in the past scientists believed in the ether, the geocentric theory, etc....then they changed their beliefs based on new evidence.....for instance a lot of scientists refused to accept the quantum double-slit experiment because of its seemingly insane implications....

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

The reason there's no evidence for God is because there's no way of gathering evidence of God.....obviously...just as with other theories in science...tell me how can you gather evidence?

I believe Jesus did literally walk on water, turn water into wine, etc...Gautama Buddha documented these supernormal powers (iddhi) as regular things wise ascetics are able to do when they've gained mastery over their mind...I don't think Gautama Buddha was lieing....why would they all be lieing for? The way you walk on water is you make your body lighter, so light that you walk on water, this too is documented in Hindu scriptures, Krishna speaks of this as a natural supernormal power (siddhi) gained when you gain higher mental power...why would they just be lieing for?

Even transforming matter, like water into wine, is documented in Buddhist scriptures:
"Friends, if he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth. Why is that? There is earth-property1 in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth.

"If he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but water... fire... wind... beautiful... unattractive. Why is that? There is the property of the unattractive in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but unattractive." (Daruka-khandha Sutta)


This is also how science works....in the past scientists believed in the ether, the geocentric theory, etc....then they changed their beliefs based on new evidence.....for instance a lot of scientists refused to accept the quantum double-slit experiment because of its seemingly insane implications....

I believe this things as well, but you just opened Pandora´s Box. Some people are going to be offended by this, telling you there is no proof of these things.

 

[Jeff 152]

This is also how science works....in the past scientists believed in the ether, the geocentric theory, etc....then they changed their beliefs based on new evidence.....for instance a lot of scientists refused to accept the quantum double-slit experiment because of its seemingly insane implications....

No, Im sorry thats incorrect. See, the difference is that science gets rid of the old theory, states that it was false, and devises a new theory that best fits the data, and this theory is not infallible and can be scrapped yet again with new evidence.

Religion, however, does not admit its mistake and rather still claims the bible is infallible. Scientists did not say "the geocentric model is still correct, its just that it actually means that the sun is the center of the solar system and rather earth is a metaphorical center" they flat out admitted it was wrong (after of course the church threatened and killed many scientists for saying this) and came up with a new theory.

Theists interpret the same falsities differently, scientists admit the falsity and try and come up with a better explanation. Get it?

My question to you is why don't marbles when you drop them fall up? One caveat, do not answer the question with "an unexplained force", "gravity", "invisible wood gnomes with tethers", "fundamental force of the universe", "that is what we observe", "science has yet to fully understand/explain this".

I dont see the relevance nor catch your purpose in asking this, what do you expect me to say, god?....Marbles may very well fall up the next time you drop them. After all, gravity is only a theory, not infallible, that is based upon many many observations, and one counterexample would be enough to disprove it and science would adapt. So go drop some marbles and tell me if something happens, its better than wasting everyones time here.

I don´t really know if Jesus walked on water, or if he converted water into wine, but these are methaphors. So most people don´t believe he actually did these things, although he well could have.
The point is, you can interpret it methaphorically

Thank you, someone admitted this. I believe the bible has great wisdom and lessons in it and is full of allegory and metaphor to help people in their lives. If the whole thing is metaphorical fine. The problem arises when people pick and choose how to interpret what. In fact, your fellow theist VitalOne seems to disagree with you. Cant you theists get your story straight??

The way you walk on water is you make your body lighter, so light that you walk on water, this too is documented in Hindu scriptures, Krishna speaks of this as a natural supernormal power (siddhi) gained when you gain higher mental power...why would they just be lieing for?

Even transforming matter, like water into wine, is documented in Buddhist scriptures:
"Friends, if he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth. Why is that? There is earth-property1 in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but earth.

"If he wanted to, a monk with psychic power, having attained mastery of his mind, could will that wood pile to be nothing but water... fire... wind... beautiful... unattractive. Why is that? There is the property of the unattractive in that wood pile, in dependence on which he could will that wood pile to be nothing but unattractive." (Daruka-khandha Sutta)

wow, that could be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read...no comment

 

[Nasor]

The reason there's no evidence for God is because there's no way of gathering evidence of God.....obviously...just as with other theories in science...tell me how can you gather evidence?

Oh, come on now. Obviously there would be a million ways to for science to gather evidence for God. If people could cause severed limbs to re-grow by praying to God (but the limbs didn't grow back without prayer) that would be incredibly strong scientific evidence for God. That's just the first thing that came to mind...

 

[rjr6]

I dont see the relevance nor catch your purpose in asking this, what do you expect me to say, god?....

No, believe whatever you like. The point I was trying to express was why people poke around at the bible using words such as 'falsity' and the like. It is beneficial to examine the bible-so that is good. But there seems to be a disconnect in your logic, which is not very scientific. You refer to science in it's pure form, an idealistic view of it. You mention how preist used to KILL 'scientists' at one point, as if no one had ever been killed in the name of science, or that no scientific concept, even known to be untrue, was supported. You mention religion and site behavior defended in the name of religion in maybe it's not best rendition, and then mention science like a sacred cow.
Yet science can not explain the MOST fundamental aspects of our experience in this universe.
This happens to be an interesting thread with interesting viewpoints that I have found beneficial, so my thanks to the posters and the thread starter.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Thank you, someone admitted this. I believe the bible has great wisdom and lessons in it and is full of allegory and metaphor to help people in their lives. If the whole thing is metaphorical fine. The problem arises when people pick and choose how to interpret what. In fact, your fellow theist VitalOne seems to disagree with you. Cant you theists get your story straight??

Well yeah, regardless if Jesus did or not those things, all the things acredited to him can be read metaphorically; this is the key aspect, because if you don´t believe, at least try to understand, and it will help you in your daily life. If you read, and get angry because you think the whole thing is fake, then you are missing the most important part, and that is the message intrisic in each of Jesus acts.
Believing or not is a personal choice, for me, if you choose either one of the sides, you are going in the correct direction, because you are following your own instinct, that is the most important thing.

 

[VitalOne]

No, Im sorry thats incorrect. See, the difference is that science gets rid of the old theory, states that it was false, and devises a new theory that best fits the data, and this theory is not infallible and can be scrapped yet again with new evidence.

Religion, however, does not admit its mistake and rather still claims the bible is infallible. Scientists did not say "the geocentric model is still correct, its just that it actually means that the sun is the center of the solar system and rather earth is a metaphorical center" they flat out admitted it was wrong (after of course the church threatened and killed many scientists for saying this) and came up with a new theory

But your argument was that religion changes belief after evidence of the contrary comes out, just as with science, belief changes after evidence of the contrary comes out...your argument was that it changes after evidence of the contrary comes out....thereby being the same as science

wow, that could be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read...no comment

Argument from personal incredulity....

Oh, come on now. Obviously there would be a million ways to for science to gather evidence for God. If people could cause severed limbs to re-grow by praying to God (but the limbs didn't grow back without prayer) that would be incredibly strong scientific evidence for God. That's just the first thing that came to mind...

This isn't evidence of God, if this really happened you would hear atheists saying something like "How do you know God did it?", because it isn't evidence of God......so what is evidence of God?

 

[Nasor]

This isn't evidence of God, if this really happened you would hear atheists saying something like "How do you know God did it?", because it isn't evidence of God......so what is evidence of God?

Of course that would be evidence of god. If you pray to a particular god for something fantastic and it actually happens, that's perfectly good evidence of that god's existence. If praying to a particular god allowed people to re-grow lost limbs, most atheists would convert in a second.

 

[VitalOne]

Of course that would be evidence of god. If you pray to a particular god for something fantastic and it actually happens, that's perfectly good evidence of that god's existence. If praying to a particular god allowed people to re-grow lost limbs, most atheists would convert in a second.

But stories of people being healed from so-called incurable diseases by prayer come up all the time...but this doesn't convince any atheist to even the slightest extent of anything....why is that?

 

[SkinWalker]

The reason is because whenever these "stories" are subjected to controls and scrutiny, they appear to be either complete fabrications or coincidence. There is not a single documented case of "faith" healing where the patient was clearly ill one moment and the illness gone after the "healing."

Indeed, most of the so-called "faith healers" completely avoid scrutiny and will not permit it. The individual only thinks they are better and if they were examined, doctors would reveal the truth of the matter: they are still ill or never were.

Mind you, we're talking about "incurable diseases" here, not common colds, back aches and migraines. Where's the documentation of a patient with Leukemia who was healed through faith? Where's the documentation of the patient with a missing leg that was regenerated through prayer? What about the blind man that was able to see after Benny Hinn stuck one hand on the man's forehead and the other in his wallet?

 

[Nasor]

But stories of people being healed from so-called incurable diseases by prayer come up all the time...but this doesn't convince any atheist to even the slightest extent of anything....why is that?

Even people who aren't religious and don't pray sometimes have deadly diseases simply go away for no apparent reason. And that's not even going into all the cases of "miraculous" healing that turn out to be outright fraud upon closer investigation. But humans have never been observed to regrow lost limbs. If praying allowed people to regrow missing arms or legs, that would be extremely convincing evidence of god's existance and most atheists would convert very quickly.

 

[Sarkus]

I believe Jesus did literally walk on water, turn water into wine, etc...Gautama Buddha documented these supernormal powers (iddhi) as regular things wise ascetics are able to do when they've gained mastery over their mind...I don't think Gautama Buddha was lieing....[/b]why would they all be lieing for?[/b] The way you walk on water is you make your body lighter, so light that you walk on water, this too is documented in Hindu scriptures, Krishna speaks of this as a natural supernormal power (siddhi) gained when you gain higher mental power...why would they just be lieing for?

Both these are arguments from incredulity and arguments from authority.
As you've obviously been looking up logical fallacies, I am confident in your abilities to appreciate that these are classic cases - and I further suggest you try to refrain from using them.

Even transforming matter, like water into wine, is documented in Buddhist scriptures:

Oooh - another logical fallacy. Documentation is not evidence any more than Lord of the Rings is evidence of the existence of Orcs.

This is also how science works....in the past scientists believed in the ether, the geocentric theory, etc....then they changed their beliefs based on new evidence.....for instance a lot of scientists refused to accept the quantum double-slit experiment because of its seemingly insane implications....

It's been said by another - but this is plain wrong. Science does not hold theories as absolute truth - which is why we call them "theories". Scientists (the actual people) might - but in doing so they are being unscientific.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

So, Lord or the Rings is not history? Oh damn it!!!

 

[Bowser]

A "day" is figurative and is actually thousands of years, but jesus literally turned water into wine. who decides this?

I think it is on the individual who reads the Bible. The NT appears to be a witness to such things (apostles' letters.) Maybe the Bible is one large parable. Either way, you should read it. Your issues regarding its truth might then be resolved.