christians and non-literal understanding of the bible

Hi all!

I have a question, and I was hoping some of our Christian members could clarify.

I've recently learned that come Christians have a non-literal understanding of the bible... meaning they don't believe most of the stories, and see them as metaphoric and just told to teach lessons.

Apparently this even applies to Adam. Does it apply to other prophets too?

How did this come about, and is it wide spread? Also, how do they tell the difference between a real story and a fake story?

I really don't understand why they would ruin the religion like that!mg:

Well, if by Adam you are referring to the creation story, Christians do not see Adam as a prophet anyway.

On the issue though, there are many Christians that take the Biblical accounts quite literally, and there are many who do not. The creation story in Genesis is a good example. This is usually the story that many Christians do not take as literal history. Why? Because they believe the author or authors of Genesis wrote the creation cosmology as poetic allegory. Primarily because of the use of human definitions of time(days), and the idea of two people and their children having incestious relationships in order to populate the Earth. Not saying that is my belief system, just explaining the different opinions on the matter that I have heard.

In the larger context, I suppose it doesn't really matter whether one takes the Adam and Eve creation story as literal history as long as the faith in God is there and one lives a life devoted to God. The Bible is indeed full of poetic allegory, and parables are used quite often as an instructional tool.

Malaikah said:

How did this come about, and is it wide spread? Also, how do they tell the difference between a real story and a fake story?

Click to expand...

Among all the Christians of my own aquaintance across several denominations it is universal .. they consider the idea of taking the Bible literally in all things, such as the creation myth, as utterly absurd. But it is a matter of allegory and metaphor, not "real" and "fake".

I really don't understand why they would ruin the religion like that!mg:

Click to expand...

It doesn't 'ruin' it. If anything, it keeps it credible when obvious myths such as the creation story aren't taken too seriously, and certainly not as anything resembling historical fact.

Trumble said:

It doesn't 'ruin' it. If anything, it keeps it credible when obvious myths such as the creation story aren't taken too seriously, and certainly not as anything resembling historical fact.

Click to expand...

Right, then they might as well become atheist as they obviously don't think much of power of God if they can't believe the story of creation to be true!

To me it sounds like nothing more than changing the religion to suit the times.

Is this something new, or have Christians historically seen creation as a myth?

I would love the opinion of more Christians on this.

Keltoi said:

In the larger context, I suppose it doesn't really matter whether one takes the Adam and Eve creation story as literal history as long as the faith in God is there and one lives a life devoted to God. The Bible is indeed full of poetic allegory, and parables are used quite often as an instructional tool.

Click to expand...

Of course it matters- how exactly do they decide which events are real, and which are fake? What if someone stands up and I says 'I think the trinity is a metaphor and that Jesus was never God?"

And for the people who don't take the story literally, do they even believe that Adam existed?

Malaikah said:

Right, then they might as well become atheist as they obviously don't think much of power of God if they can't believe the story of creation to be true!

To me it sounds like nothing more than changing the religion to suit the times.

Is this something new, or have Christians historically seen creation as a myth?

I would love the opinion of more Christians on this.

Click to expand...

The story was originally interpreted as a myth and only later taken as literal. You have it backwards.

Have any proof for that, Isambard? :?

Malaikah said:

Right, then they might as well become atheist as they obviously don't think much of power of God if they can't believe the story of creation to be true!

Click to expand...

They just don't believe the literal version, i.e that the world was created in six days, or there ever was literally an Adam and Eve/tree/fruit/apple and such. That is not a barrier to believing in God as Creator. The creation myth is more saturated with metaphor and assorted symbolisms than any other story in religious or literary history... something that was recognised by Augustine, although he still believed the story to be literally true.

Of course it matters- how exactly do they decide which events are real, and which are fake? What if someone stands up and I says 'I think the trinity is a metaphor and that Jesus was never God?"

Click to expand...

I'm tempted to say in same way that scholars 'interpret' the Qur'an to relate to certain things that are not literally stated in it. If someone did stand up and say that they would need to provide strong exegesic evidence to support their claim (a metaphor for what?) to be taken remotely seriously - I suspect if such evidence did exist it would have emerged long before now!

But it's a barrier to beleiving that the bible is a factual book inspired by God.

Trumble said:

I'm tempted to say in same way that scholars 'interpret' the Qur'an to relate to certain things that are not literally stated in it. If someone did stand up and say that they would need to provide strong exegesic evidence to support their claim (a metaphor for what?) to be taken remotely seriously - I suspect if such evidence did exist it would have emerged long before now!

Click to expand...

True, to say a whole story, which is narrated in full as if it were a real event, didn't really happen, that definitely requires some real strong evidence rational.

Alternatively, if people really wanted to believe it (so they can fix the problem of clashing with evolution) it wouldn't take too much evidence at all.

If someone could provide the 'evidence' that would be much appreciated!

Malaikah said:

Alternatively, if people really wanted to believe it (so they can fix the problem of clashing with evolution) it wouldn't take too much evidence at all.

Click to expand...

That's not 'fixing' the problem, it's sticking your fingers in your ears, shouting "la, la, la", and hoping the problem goes away.

No evidence at all is required for people to believe in the creation myth as literal truth as a great many do, while while there has never been and never will be a shred of scientific evidence for it. Belief depends purely on faith in the authority of the religious work(s) in which the story is given.

I think it's important not to get too tied up with evolution in this context. It is still perfectly possible to 'attack' evolutionary theory and rely on God as Creator without resorting to creation in six days and Adam and Eve. Indeed for any hope of scientific credibility it must be done that way.. even a science that admitted the possibility of 'intelligent design' would still have no room for overgrown children's stories as historical reality.

Trumble said:

... even a science that admitted the possibility of 'intelligent design' would still have no room for overgrown children's stories as historical reality.

Click to expand...

Yet it's only a recent (ish) problem. As science progresses, Theism remains Static as in the case of Islam, and trys to warp itself convolutedly to fit cold hard reality like a square peg in a round hole, as in the case of Christianity and Judism.

I personally find it facinating that up to 100 years ago in the west, we were working with electricity generation, driving cars with combustion engines and beleived that the world was created in 6 days and Giant fish gobbled up naughty prophets.

It is only as our societys cleared of the coercion of religion thatwe were able to progress. Once we reach a certain point of rationality, the tales can be discarded. Todays Protestant Church likes to use the explaination of "These stories are a metaphor". Well if theyre a metaphor, how come you were swearing blind that thy were Literal not so long back?
Whenever Science brings us a new discovery, Theists are faced with a choice, Adapt or Deny.

greetings and peace be with you Malaikah;

If someone could provide the 'evidence' that would be much appreciated

Click to expand...

I believe and trust that God exists fully and totally and he created the universe and life, I have no final proof for this. If I trust fully that God created the universe then he should be able to create all kinds of minor miracles by comparison, like prophets in fish, virgins giving birth, talking donkeys and life after death.

Why should any of these things be impossible to an all powerful God?

I believe that God had the story of creation written in the way that he wanted, it is up to me to search for meaning. The Bible is written to inspire people to trust in God and for them to do things, and it has and does.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

Greetings and peace be with you barney;

Whenever Science brings us a new discovery, Theists are faced with a choice, Adapt or Deny.

Click to expand...

How is it possible for the story of Jesus to survive, he was only a carpenter and he had no power. The ruling Jewish authority condemned him to death and the Jewish Nation was under occupation. The Romans were all powerful at the time, they had their own Gods, why should they change their beliefs to fall in line with someone they had washed their hands of and left him to be killed.

The yearly calendar had already been set by the Romans to correspond with the Roman Empire and to show the greatness of Rome, why should an all powerful empire scrap their existing calendar and set the years to Jesus? After all the Bible is not very kind to Rome in the way they left Jesus to be condemned. Somehow the Roman Empire submitted its beliefs of greatness to a dead Jewish carpenter under their occupation, how does that make sense?

In the spirit of searching for inspiration

Eric

Apologies but i'm not too certain how your reply addresses the Quote you took.
But as to your reply, Rome would have and indeed did fall Christianity or no-Christianity, that was really to do with overextending, financial ruin, political intrigue and a load of hairy Visgoths overrunning them.

Jesus was indeed a carpenter, but a lot more than that. he was a superb orator and a successful prophet. He convinced thousands to follow him and gained the critical mass needed to acheive the success that all prophets need. His story has survived by this very fact, or at least a version of his story, focusing on the last few years of his 33 on the earth when he took up preaching.

If your asking why Constantine converted, then i would say, he knew which way his bread was buttered! Christianity was on the rise and the Roman gods were on the wane.

Salam Alayki Sis Malaikah,

Yes, there are, in my view, increasing number of Christians who are looking at their scripture less literally. I think this stems from the scholarly work done on the Bible. The more is revealed the more doubt is produced, to the point that some doubt, I think with good reason, the virgin birth of Jesus.

I think the problem you have sister is that you face the Bible as you would the Qur'an. The Bible, according to some Christians is not the absolute word of God, rather it is a documentation of the history of God and His people. A work which recounts for future generations what has happened between God and his people. It does not have to be 100% Historical, and someone who takes it as such has misunderstood the point of the Bible.

Eric H said:

Greetings and peace be with you barney;

How is it possible for the story of Jesus to survive, he was only a carpenter and he had no power. The ruling Jewish authority condemned him to death and the Jewish Nation was under occupation. The Romans were all powerful at the time, they had their own Gods, why should they change their beliefs to fall in line with someone they had washed their hands of and left him to be killed.

The yearly calendar had already been set by the Romans to correspond with the Roman Empire and to show the greatness of Rome, why should an all powerful empire scrap their existing calendar and set the years to Jesus? After all the Bible is not very kind to Rome in the way they left Jesus to be condemned. Somehow the Roman Empire submitted its beliefs of greatness to a dead Jewish carpenter under their occupation, how does that make sense?

In the spirit of searching for inspiration

Eric

Click to expand...

Simple, look at how disireable it is for man to hear about the worship of One GOd alone, many muslims actually turn from the trinity in Christianity and become Muslim because of this reason, imagine then those men and women who were worshiping statues and gods of cities and villages and so forth.

So we have the monotheistic persuation, on top of that we should take into account that the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, apparently said new converts did not need to be circumsiced, this also helped many of those previously dettered, in my mind, and they also did not have to follow the whole Jewish law, something which would have been a big barrier.

Add to this the great story of Jesus, an amazing character, peace be upon him, a real prophet, so yes, given all these new circumstances it is easy to see the massive appeal Christianity had, no wonder it survived.

Al Habeshi said:

I think the problem you have sister is that you face the Bible as you would the Qur'an. The Bible, according to some Christians is not the absolute word of God, rather it is a documentation of the history of God and His people. A work which recounts for future generations what has happened between God and his people. It does not have to be 100% Historical, and someone who takes it as such has misunderstood the point of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your post. I don't understand this part though- how can the bible be historical if is contains stories that apparently didn't happen? :?

There are far more reliable historical sources than the Bible that also contain much that is wildly exaggerated or never happened at all!

Malaikah said:

Thanks for your post. I don't understand this part though- how can the bible be historical if is contains stories that apparently didn't happen? :?

Click to expand...

Wa Aleykum Salam,

Part of it, I didn't write it properly, is that it is not historical in the sense of it being a historical document, but rather it has stories, which are representative of God's communication with us. So you need to look at the meaning behind the stories, understand God's plans and wishes and so forth.

I don't get it much either, you're not alone.

I think the difference here is that Christians understand quite well that the Bible was written by human hands...divinely inspired, yes, but not a word for word retelling of a monologue from God or something. I realize that Muslims believe the Qu'ran is basically a word for word retelling as recieved by Muhammed straight from God, but that isn't the case with the Bible. I'm not sure what the Jewish position on that is, but I assume it is similar to the Christian perspective on the matter.

Knowing that the books of the Bible were written by men without an angel or some other heavenly entity reciting verse, it opens the door for different ways of understanding and digesting the material. It doesn't mean those Christians who do not take the Genesis creation story literally are doubting God or God's ability to do what is written.

It sort of goes back to the way Christ taught, which was mainly in parables. Stories meant to withstand the test of time and still come away with the same interpretation. Knowing that Christ also taught by way of parables, many people read many Bible stories with that knowledge in mind, and look for the more significant meanings behind them, and not necessarily on their literal result.

Hi Malaikah:

I have a question, and I was hoping some of our Christian members could clarify.

I've recently learned that come Christians have a non-literal understanding of the bible... meaning they don't believe most of the stories, and see them as metaphoric and just told to teach lessons. Apparently this even applies to Adam. Does it apply to other prophets too?

How did this come about, and is it wide spread? Also, how do they tell the difference between a real story and a fake story?

Click to expand...

The Bible must be read with a fair bit of common sense. If one simply reads a few verses, then you will not know whether you are reading a parable or a historical record. You must read it completely so that the verses are understood in their proper context.

Parables are identified as such. Historical records are also identified as such. The prophets explain whether they are describing a vision, or reciting a message from God, or providing a historical reference.

The principal problem is our unbelief. We simply do not believe that God did certain things so we interpret them as allegories or not part of the historical record. There are some whose faith is so weak that they mentally crumble at the first piece of conflicting information shown to them.

Thus, many simply accept evolution for fear of being ostracised and try to twist the scriptures in order to accommodate a conflicting theory. Others, when presented with some conflicting misinterpretation of history, automatically conclude that it is the Biblical account that must be wrong. Unfortunately they then teach their congregations to be as weak willed as themselves.

The problem can be solved if these religious leaders would simply critically analyse the conflicting information rather than intellectually surrendering in order to befriend the secular persons who challenge them. They seem unaware that those who challenge them have generally turned away from the faith of their parents or grandparents, but they know that something about it was real. The secular challenger then views the religious leaders with even more contempt for refusing to even defend the faith of their parents or grandparents.

For your information, the Genesis account of creation is presented as a historical account, and the evidence provided can be defended.

I really don't understand why they would ruin the religion like that!

Click to expand...

I find it perplexing myself.

Regards,
Grenville