Interpretations of the Bible

[Darwin_Rocks]

Hey upon my wanderings of this Earth I have discovered many followers of the Bible, a few of my friends follow it...well...religiously, and through my discussions with them I find it's really hard to determine how people interpret the Bible. Basically from my present day knowledge the idea of the message that the Bible is trying to deliver comes under two forms.

LITERAL INTERPRETATION:

That is what happened in the Bible actually DID happen. The ranges from the Old Testament and things that we know are false (eg. Creation happening in a week) and things that we may never know (eg Was Christ really devine?)

Do you guys read the Bible and think that it really happened. That there was a huge flood and that Noah packed all those animals into an arc. Or what about the Adam and Eve story, were they the real first inhabitants of Earth?

METAPHORICAL INTERPRETATION:

The idea that the stories are just metaphors with messages behind them. Jesus' divinity wasn't real but symbolic that his teachings of love were the only way to go. That the only way we can achieve inner happiness is through loving one another.
Noah's Arc didn't really happen but serves as some kind of warning of an apocalyptic force of some kind.

So which is it? Is the Bible literal or Metaphorical? Please discuss with answers for your decision it's of great interest to me.

[Mastermind]

Hey upon my wanderings of this Earth I have discovered many followers of the Bible, a few of my friends follow it...well...religiously, and through my discussions with them I find it's really hard to determine how people interpret the Bible. Basically from my present day knowledge the idea of the message that the Bible is trying to deliver comes under two forms.

LITERAL INTERPRETATION:

That is what happened in the Bible actually DID happen. The ranges from the Old Testament and things that we know are false (eg. Creation happening in a week) and things that we may never know (eg Was Christ really devine?)

Do you guys read the Bible and think that it really happened. That there was a huge flood and that Noah packed all those animals into an arc. Or what about the Adam and Eve story, were they the real first inhabitants of Earth?

METAPHORICAL INTERPRETATION:

The idea that the stories are just metaphors with messages behind them. Jesus' divinity wasn't real but symbolic that his teachings of love were the only way to go. That the only way we can achieve inner happiness is through loving one another.
Noah's Arc didn't really happen but serves as some kind of warning of an apocalyptic force of some kind.

So which is it? Is the Bible literal or Metaphorical? Please discuss with answers for your decision it's of great interest to me.

It is very dangerous to utter the bolded words on this site, master skeptic.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I believe that in a very few words, several meanings can exist. The Bible is very complicated. I do believe, though, that what one needs to know about being saved is as clear as day, though. It took me almost a week to see that blooper....

I also believe that if one has enough time and a clue, he can get through the easy stuff and determine whether it is literal or methaphorical. For instance, when it said Jesus walked on water, He walked on water (just to tick Mastermind off). When it says that Jesus is the Lamb of God...NO, definately not literal....Mary didn't give birth to a furry bundle of joy! The lamb was what the Jews had used to cleanse their sin...they would place their sins upon the lamb and send it off to die in the wilderness (that's what I remember...if the tradition was different, correct me). A lamb is also meek and gentle-you'll never be attacked by a lamb, as far as I know...so, with my limited knowledge, I can understand with my limited knowledge of lamb that when Jesus is called the Lamb of God, it means He came here to be meek and gentle, and to take all of His sins upon Him....and I just remembered, wasn't a lamb slaughtered during the Passover in Egypt? So, with what I just remembered, it also says that it is Jesus' blood that saves us from death.

[Felgar]

Agreed KM... With very careful analysis (that is guided by our fellow believers and with the Holy Spirit) there are places in the Bible for either Literal or Metaphorical interpretation. Incidently, one reason that unbelievers cannot understand is that they are lacking that guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 13:10-13
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

So you see, those who walk with God and have a personal relationship with Him are given understanding of the non-literal biblical passages... Just like Jesus said when His disciples basically asked the same question: "Why don't you just literally say what you mean?"

[Christian2]

Hello to all,

What about the Three Temptations of Christ? Are we to understand that they literally happened?

Matt. 4:1; Mk. 1:12; Lk. 4:1

Matthew 4: 1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. 3Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread."

4But He answered and said, "It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."'
5Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, 6and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written:

"He shall give His angels charge over you,'
and, "In their hands they shall bear you up,
Lest you dash your foot against a stone."'
7Jesus said to him, "It is written again, "You shall not tempt the LORD your God."'

8Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me."
10Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve."'
11Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.

When Jesus said: "It is written again, "You shall not tempt the LORD your God," is He saying that He is God?

Thanks.

[Felgar]

What about the Three Temptations of Christ? Are we to understand that they literally happened?

When Jesus said: "It is written again, "You shall not tempt the LORD your God," is He saying that He is God?

We gotta get MM in this thread, so we can really have it out.

Yes it most certainly literally happenned. When Jesus is telling a story or parable, that is one thing. But when the Bible says that Jesus did this, and this happenned, one what grounds shall we dismiss it as non-literal? I don't believe that there are any.

With regards to the 2nd temptation, you'll note that a lot of translations quote that "you shall not test the LORD your God." Without actually learning Greek to understand the original word, I think it's safe to say that tempt is not quite conveying the proper meaning. My interpretation is that Satan is saying to Jesus, "If you are really the Son of God, then jump because God says that He'll save you." Jesus, being a man with our desires, was tempted to do it, mainly out of pride and boasting - to show that He certainly was the Son of God. I think it's a basic human trait to fullfill our pride by boasting. Jesus responds though, that we must not *test* the Lord; it would be wrong for Jesus to have jumped because God's intention is not for man to test for and prove His existance, but rather for us to have a humble heart that reaches out to Him in faith.

Besides, the only other interpretation is that Jesus is saying to Satan, "I'm God and you shall not tempt me." But Satan is already doing absolutely everything he can to defy God, what sense does it make for Jesus to be rebuking him for this specific act? And also if that were really the case, why wouldn't Jesus just have responded the same to all 3 temptations? He certainly could have, if that is the interpretation that you try to hold for the 2nd.

[Prodigal Son]

i believe all the stories happened: noah's ark, exodus, the plagues, etc. i just saw some discovery special which delineated available proof today for the exodus. i've seen two different discovery specials on the flood. one said that it happened (and gave proof), but not worldwide. the other was interesting, and backed my belief that people/dinosaurs coexisted...it delved into possible proofs that the flood was the primary reason for the dinosaurs' extinction.

Jesus' divinity. there's plenty of proof for it. there are tons of references to Jesus' miracles outside of the bible.

so, i take alot of the bible literally. alot of it metaphorically. some of it both at once. that's part of the wonder of it. it has lesson upon lesson...the more you read and study it, the more you find.

[Christian2]

Thanks to all.

Let me explain why I asked this question. A friend talked me into joining a book discussion that starts tomorrow and will last about 5 weeks. The book is "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time" by Marcus J. Borg. Borg is of the Jesus Seminar group. He thinks that we should look at the Bible from a historical-metaphorical position.

The reason it was suggested that I join the discussion is because I come from the "literal-factual" point of view and my friend doesn't.

The problem I have is I don't know when to look at the Scriptures in a literal way and when to view them as metaphorical. Some passages are obviously meant to be metaphors, but what about the rest? I have a feeling that I will end up doubting all Scriptures. That could be a good thing because it will force me to look at the Scriptures more carefully.

The Three Temptations of Christ sounds a bit too fantastic to believe it really happened, but I do get the message. Jesus was tempted by Satan and passed the test. He will sinless. Satan tempts us all and we can't give in.

But in my defense I do not take every Scripture to be factual. I do have a hard time believing that there really was an Adam and Eve, but I do get the message. The story of Adam and Eve sounds like a story made up when someone asked, "How did sin come into the world." I'm not sure I believe the story of Noah and the Ark, but I do get the message—"If you are good, God will save you, but if you are bad, God will kill you." lol

[Felgar]

Sounds to me that you don't actually hold as tightly to the "literal-factual" view as you might think. The metaphors are pretty obvious, and beyond that I think it's actually dangerous to just randomly make up symbolic messages for various parts of the bible.

Adam and Eve for instance. Suppose we don't think that they were the first people - that they never actually existed. Well, for one that immediately discredits the concept of original sin - death came through all mankind through Adam. But if Adam was only one of a population, it wouldn't make sense that the otehrs who did not sin came to death through him. If we're not all offspring of Adam, then original sin is pretty meaningless, and then perhaps salvation is not even necessary for some.

And beyond that, if Adam and Eve were not first, and created directly by God, what does that say about creation in general? Did God create us in his image, or are we just the product of some natural process?

[Mastermind]

Sounds to me that you don't actually hold as tightly to the "literal-factual" view as you might think. The metaphors are pretty obvious, and beyond that I think it's actually dangerous to just randomly make up symbolic messages for various parts of the bible.

Adam and Eve for instance. Suppose we don't think that they were the first people - that they never actually existed. Well, for one that immediately discredits the concept of original sin - death came through all mankind through Adam. But if Adam was only one of a population, it wouldn't make sense that the otehrs who did not sin came to death through him. If we're not all offspring of Adam, then original sin is pretty meaningless, and then perhaps salvation is not even necessary for some.

And beyond that, if Adam and Eve were not first, and created directly by God, what does that say about creation in general? Did God create us in his image, or are we just the product of some natural process?

Can't we be made in His image through a natural process? :p

There is also the possibility that we are all Adam's descendants but Adam was not the only man.

[Felgar]

Can't we be made in His image through a natural process?

Actually I honestly don't think so, because the part of us that IS in His image is supernatural, and by definition is therefore not natural.

There is also the possibility that we are all Adam's descendants but Adam was not the only man.

Well, I suppose; but that's pretty weak. And it does beg the question, why? I believe that in order to veer from an obvious literal reading of the Bible, we need really good reasons and a strong understanding that literal meaning is not the intention of that passage.

You can't just say that you believe the Bible is the infallable Word of God, and then completely change its meaning for no reason.

[Mastermind]

Well, I suppose; but that's pretty weak. And it does beg the question, why? I believe that in order to veer from an obvious literal reading of the Bible, we need really good reasons and a strong understanding that literal meaning is not the intention of that passage.

You can't just say that you believe the Bible is the infallable Word of God, and then completely change its meaning for no reason.

Adam DOES translate literally as "man". It could simply be a reference to the first humans, although I admit it is a bit of a stretch. I'll need to do some hard research on Genesis 1-3 when I have time.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Adam DOES translate literally as "man". It could simply be a reference to the first humans, although I admit it is a bit of a stretch. I'll need to do some hard research on Genesis 1-3 when I have time.

Adam is referred to as an individual. The obvious example is that Adam and Eve had relations and had Cain and Able....so, if Adam=first men...then Eve was raped.

[Mastermind]

Adam DOES translate literally as "man". It could simply be a reference to the first humans, although I admit it is a bit of a stretch. I'll need to do some hard research on Genesis 1-3 when I have time.

Adam is referred to as an individual. The obvious example is that Adam and Eve had relations and had Cain and Able....so, if Adam=first men...then Eve was raped.

Gangbanged, actually, but I won't get into that. Adam and Eve had many children could well be "men and women" had many children and it wouldn't change the meaning of it at all.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The children they had are recorded, correct. And whenever Adam and Eve take anatomy 101, one child.