format_quote Originally Posted by
Malaikah
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!:omg:
format_quote Originally Posted by
Malaikah
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.
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?
format_quote Originally Posted by
Malaikah
:sl:
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? :?
Lots of great questions.
First let me say that I myself, while approaching the Bible from a rather conservative viewpoint, am not a strict literalist. In truth, I know no one who is, this includes those who claim to be.
For example, we are quite aware that there are many figures of speech in the Bible:
Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. (Isaiah 1:18)
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
A strict literalist would not interpret these as figures of speech, but believe that sins actually have a particular color to them or that Jesus had wings. But know one thinks that way because they are both obviously similes, given away by the use of the terms “like” and “as”. But similes are not the only figures of speech. Metaphors are another figure of speech and there are many of them in the Bible as well.
The LORD has sworn by his right hand and by his mighty arm: (Isaiah 62:8)
Again a strict literalist would not interpret this as a figure of speech, but proof that God actually has a hand and an arm. But sometimes it is hard to discern what is a figure or speech, a bit of poetic license taken by the author, and what is a description of an historical occurrence:
By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!" (Psalm 137:1-3)
This passage reflects on the captivity of the nation of Israel in Babylon. And these events certainly could have occurred just as described. But did they? Is the author in saying “we” referring to himself and a few others, or the whole nation? Personally, in reading the rest of the Psalm, I believe the author is talking about his own personal experience, and thus it is likely that something akin to this actually occurred, on the other hand I don’t want to put to much weight on that interpretation because I also see the author given to what I take as hyperbole as I wonder if even he wants his to literally lose the skill of his right hand or have his tongue cling to the roof of his mouth:
How can we sing the songs of the LORD
while in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill.
May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.
Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
"Tear it down," they cried,
"tear it down to its foundations!"
O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalm 137:4-9)
Of course, in a passage like this, there isn’t much resting on whether it is literal or hyperbole. But that is not true of all passages:
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30)
This is the teaching of Jesus with regard to sin. Pretty serious stuff. It is an effective point, it really would be better to literally lose and eye or a hand than to lose one’s life in hell. But does that mean that Jesus wanted his followers to literally do these things? Or again, is this a figure of speech, a bit of hyperbole used to drive home the serious nature of sin? We don’t see maiming being a practice that Jesus asked of any of his disciples or ever practiced in the Church. But here it is in scripture.
The answer to your question as to why not all people believe all parts are to be taken literally is because we understand scripture to comment on both faith and life and to be the standard for Christian living, but that it is not to be read in a vacuum. We read it in the context of its own time, try to understand not just the words but also the intention of the Biblical writer and what he was trying to communicate.
I keep seeing figures that over half of the population accepts the Biblical 6 days of creation as true. And over half the population believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. So, someone out there is trying to hang onto two beliefs that just don’t mesh that well with each other, or maybe they simply don’t know what they believe. I tend to believe the majority of people are easily influenced by others around them and may not even bother to really think about what they are actually saying.
For myself, I understand a story such as the Biblical narrative of creation to be making a statement not about “HOW” the world came into being, but about “WHO” is the author of all that we see around us. One reason I accept this view, which does not require a literal understanding is because I notice that there really are two slightly different creation stories in Genesis. Now, some see this as a contradiction in an historical record and therefore disproving the Bible. But I don’t see it as even an attempt at a scientific or historical narrative of events. I believe it is a faith statement about the nature and character of God, his relation to the created order, and then mankind’s relationship both to God and to the rest of creation. But I also find it interesting, that when looked at on the cosmic scale, how similar the Biblical narrative of the first 3 days is to what happened in the coming into existence of the universe out of nothing that science attempts to describe. And then the last three days of the Genesis 1 narrative, again on the large scale, give an order to the arrival of animals that parallels that taught by science today. (I don’t think that proves anything, but I do find it interesting.)
Then in Genesis 2 there is a whole second take on what is important to tell. Now, if this was supposed to be a science text or a historical record, then it fails right there in that it gives a different accounting of the order of the arrival of things (man first and then God causes trees to grow, followed by animals, and lastly woman) than in the first chapter. Those who want to accept the Bible as intending an historical record have to do all sorts of gymnastics to make it harmonize. On the other hand, those who don’t think that the author was even trying to provide an historical record can relax and search for the meaning within the story. This doesn't mean that I don't think that God could not have done it this way, just that I don't think that the author is even trying to describe how it is that God did create, but simply that it was God who is the Creator (however it came to be).
But if that part isn’t historical, then how can the rest of it be? Well, not all of the rest of it is either. But as the Bible is not a single work of literature, but a collection of different pieces of literature, it is certainly possible for some to have been writing as allegory, others as historical narrative, and others as proclamation. The more difficult answer is how do we know which part is which. And the answer, sadly, is that sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we just study it, learn what we can, and then make our best guess as to what was the purpose of the author in writing it. Was the author providing his own interpretation or speaking on behalf of God? This makes the Bible a wholly different type of book than the Qu’ran.
Those who use the Bible need to remember not to approach it with a pre-determined point of view, but to let the Bible speak for itself. I believe that when used under the direction of the Holy Spirit, it still speaks to us today and gives guidance as to the nature and character of God, how we are to live in relationship to God, and the proper way to live in relationships with one another.