christians and non-literal understanding of the bible

**Malaikah** · 11-06-2007

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!

**barney** · 11-14-2007

Originally Posted by Grenville

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

Great!
Can you therefore defend the assertion that God made the universe in 6 days and that Mankind came from two people.
One made out of clay, Like Morph.
mainmorph03 1 - christians and non-literal understanding of the bible

mainmorph03 1 - christians and non-literal understanding of the bible

and the other one ripped out of his ribcage.

**Grace Seeker** · 11-14-2007

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!

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?

Originally Posted by Malaikah

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.

**جوري** · 11-14-2007

Originally Posted by barney

Great!
Can you therefore defend the assertion that God made the universe in 6 days and that Mankind came from two people.
One made out of clay, Like Morph.

and the other one ripped out of his ribcage.

How do you measure 6 days? If God created the universe does he have to commit himself to earth's laws of physics? Can he commit himself to Jupiter's laws of physics or uranus for that matter?

We don't know what the measure of 6 days is, by divine laws.. that is in 'ilm alghyeb' we have many verses in the Quran alluding to that measure of God's time being different than ours

you may read more on the subject here.

http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...=article&aid=4

As for the creation of Adam and his wife...well I'd gladly cast it aside if someone can give me a more sound alternative.

Some erudite member prior stated we'd all come from bacteria. I am game with that.. I'd like to know the process by which bacteria became human. And from that human it decided to 'bud' into not just male and female and tons of different species no.. it decided there should be at least six or seven different members all simultaneously at the same time as to avoid an incestuous relationship!

As for the clay part.. do tell when you die..do you not become a part of the earth or are you made of krypton?

cheers!

**Malaikah** · 11-15-2007

Thank you Grace Seeker!

I can see where you are coming from. I also understand why the first few example you gave would be methaphorical- because that is how they read.It is kinda obvious.

I guess I am not so convinced about creation being a methaphor (obviously- because Muslims believe it to be real) but I can see why many people would want to believe it is a metaphor.

Just one question, I thought the OT was meant to be the exact word of God, given to Moses? Or was I mistaken?

**Grace Seeker** · 11-15-2007

Originally Posted by Malaikah

Thank you Grace Seeker!

I can see where you are coming from. I also understand why the first few example you gave would be methaphorical- because that is how they read.It is kinda obvious.

I guess I am not so convinced about creation being a methaphor (obviously- because Muslims believe it to be real) but I can see why many people would want to believe it is a metaphor.

Just one question, I thought the OT was meant to be the exact word of God, given to Moses? Or was I mistaken?

And I'm not trying to convince you that the creation story is a metaphor. In fact, I don't think it is, because in a metaphor one thing is supposed to represent another thing, comparisons are being made, something I don't see in Genesis. But I don't think it is intended as either science or historical narrative either. That doesn't mean that I don't think that it isn't true, for it very truly identifies God as the author of all creation, and this is exactly what I believe.

On the question of "was the OT meant to be the exact word of God, given to Moses"? Clearly, No. Much of it was written after Moses. But perhaps you mean the Torah, the law which is contained in the first five books collectively known as the Pentatuech and individually as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Then save for the closing section of Deuteronomy where Moses' death is described, YES, that is the teaching of the traditional schools of thought. There are other schools of thought, both within Judaism and Christianity.

**Malaikah** · 11-15-2007

Oh, okay. Cool, thanks for your time.

**barney** · 11-15-2007

Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia

How do you measure 6 days? If God created the universe does he have to commit himself to earth's laws of physics? Can he commit himself to Jupiter's laws of physics or uranus for that matter?

We don't know what the measure of 6 days is, by divine laws.. that is in 'ilm alghyeb' we have many verses in the Quran alluding to that measure of God's time being different than ours

you may read more on the subject here.

http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...=article&aid=4

As for the creation of Adam and his wife...well I'd gladly cast it aside if someone can give me a more sound alternative.

Some erudite member prior stated we'd all come from bacteria. I am game with that.. I'd like to know the process by which bacteria became human. And from that human it decided to 'bud' into not just male and female and tons of different species no.. it decided there should be at least six or seven different members all simultaneously at the same time as to avoid an incestuous relationship!

As for the clay part.. do tell when you die..do you not become a part of the earth or are you made of krypton?

cheers!

I know the Quran says "period of time" rather than day, or at least thats what is claimed.
Since in the bible God was talking to people on earth and he used the term "Day", it was accepted by absolutly everybody that this refered to 6 earth days, rather than betlegeusian ones. Unless God is supposed to live on a different planet?
Is God up there looking at the discovery of scientific evidence and saying "Actually it's several billion years, I just said 6 days as a bit of a laugh"

The theories of development of life are easy to read up on if your so inclined, but when you say "I'd like to know the process" What you mean is " I'd like to attempt to mock something I know nothing about and cant find out about because it's Shirk to try"

We return to the earth? Well not strictly nope. If we are Frozen we will remain very much fleash and bones. Am i being pedantic? No, because the spirit has left the body and , ooh look , we are still flesh. This however is irelevent, because what does decomposition have to do with creation. I am as likely to be created from Cream Cheese as Clay. In actuality I am created from a cell from my mothers body. A lump of plastercine had nothing to do with it.
God created Adam out of his special magic plastercine? I'd rather go with science.

**Walter** · 11-15-2007

Hi Barney:

Can you therefore defend the assertion that God made the universe in 6 days and that Mankind came from two people.
One made out of clay, Like Morph.

I believe that we had this discussion already and simply agreed to disagree.

The Scripture says: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

When did God create the heaven and the earth? In the beginning.

When was the beginning? I do not know. That information was not provided. Perhaps it was 1 billion years ago. We would need to see whether we can determine this from any residual evidence on earth or in the universe.

When does the scripture indicate that life on earth was created? During 6 days approximately 6,000 years ago and there is plenty of defensible evidence for that.

and the other one ripped out of his ribcage.

Barney. Try for one minute to stop defending a position and simply want to know the truth. Look at the intricacies of life forms at both the macro and micro level. Does it not fill you with wonder. You can intellectualize that feeling of wonder, ignore it, or misinterpret it as some nostalgic emotion; however, it is actually a yearning or longing from your soul to worship your Creator.

Now regarding your specific concern about the rib. You must be aware that we can now remove a tissue from one part of one body and it becomes useful on another part of another body. If we have finally figured that out with our limited knowledge, why is it inconceivable to you that God with his limitless knowledge could not do even greater wonders.

Regards,
Grenville

**Walter** · 11-15-2007

Hi Grace Seeker:

As I mentioned previously, and which I am sure you agree, the Bible must be read with a fair degree of common sense.

I have never met what you term a “strict literalist”. I believe that such a term was invented to simply dismiss the opinions of those who believe the scripture in a common sense sort of way and to compartmentalise them as some fringe silly group to be ignored. Who else but one with very little knowledge, like an infant, would believe that sins are actually scarlet red? If you are aware of such persons, then they are clearly misled and are in need of a teacher.

As to Jesus’ commands; anyone with a modicum of common sense would know that Jesus is not instructing believers to gouge out their eyes if they happen to sin. Of all of the millions of people who were and are so committed to following the Messiah to the point of severe persecution and death, I have never heard of any person so lunatic to do such a deed.

We should therefore desist from inventing or using such labels which only serve to detract from the actual issue. Let us critically examine the evidence for life on earth occurring as the Bible has stated. However, let us not relegate those who believe that life on earth was created in 6 days to the category of infants and lunatics.

Regards,
Grenville

**جوري** · 11-15-2007

Originally Posted by barney

I know the Quran says "period of time" rather than day, or at least thats what is claimed.

Perhaps you should read, I have no time for your claims!

Since in the bible God was talking to people on earth and he used the term "Day", it was accepted by absolutly everybody that this refered to 6 earth days, rather than betlegeusian ones. Unless God is supposed to live on a different planet?

I don't care what the bible says. In the Quran Allah doesn't commit himself to our laws of physics, if that is hard for you to comprehend, there is not much I can do about it!

Is God up there looking at the discovery of scientific evidence and saying "Actually it's several billion years, I just said 6 days as a bit of a laugh"

I don't understand what that means.. but I suspect you suffer these bouts of cachinnation often and for no good reason!

The theories of development of life are easy to read up on if your so inclined, but when you say "I'd like to know the process" What you mean is " I'd like to attempt to mock something I know nothing about and cant find out about because it's Shirk to try"

That is a nice segue for I don't know.

We return to the earth? Well not strictly nope. If we are Frozen we will remain very much fleash and bones. Am i being pedantic? No, because the spirit has left the body and , ooh look , we are still flesh. This however is irelevent,

Agreed irrelevant indeed. It doesn't matter what you decompose into.. the material you are made out of is still the same!

because what does decomposition have to do with creation. I am as likely to be created from Cream Cheese as Clay. In actuality I am created from a cell from my mothers body. A lump of plastercine had nothing to do with it.

Frankly you are a simpleton who couldn't get into any deep debate without a caustic remark I suspect it because you are so assailable and unbelievably ignorant of both theology and science

God created Adam out of his special magic plastercine? I'd rather go with science.

lol.. if science will have you?-- too bad you can't hold out a detailed topic in any scientific field, You misrepresent every theory and oh so skillfully and in the end convey science and scientists as lampoon...

cheerio shmo

**Grace Seeker** · 11-15-2007

Originally Posted by Grenville

Hi Grace Seeker:

As I mentioned previously, and which I am sure you agree, the Bible must be read with a fair degree of common sense.

I have never met what you term a “strict literalist”. I believe that such a term was invented to simply dismiss the opinions of those who believe the scripture in a common sense sort of way and to compartmentalise them as some fringe silly group to be ignored. Who else but one with very little knowledge, like an infant, would believe that sins are actually scarlet red? If you are aware of such persons, then they are clearly misled and are in need of a teacher.

As to Jesus’ commands; anyone with a modicum of common sense would know that Jesus is not instructing believers to gouge out their eyes if they happen to sin. Of all of the millions of people who were and are so committed to following the Messiah to the point of severe persecution and death, I have never heard of any person so lunatic to do such a deed.

We should therefore desist from inventing or using such labels which only serve to detract from the actual issue. Let us critically examine the evidence for life on earth occurring as the Bible has stated. However, let us not relegate those who believe that life on earth was created in 6 days to the category of infants and lunatics.

Regards,
Grenville

Grenville, I don't think I relegated anyone to the category of lunatic. I spoke of strict literalists because it seemed appropriate to the way Maliakah had asked her question and to make the distinction between those who say things like, "God wrote it. I believe it. That settles it." and those who take a thoughtful but literal interpretation of large parts of the scripture. That first group seem to fail to realize that many non-literalists also acknowledge that God wrote it and they believe it becaue they cannot understand how someone might possibly come to a different interpretation than the one they themselves have adopted. What their mantra should probably be is, "God wrote it. I believe it. I have interpreted it. And I don't want to discuss it further unless you're willing to agree with my interpretation." Now nobody would be so ego-centered to actually say that, but I know many who mean exactly that when they talk about having a literal understanding of the Bible. Whether you fit into the first or second group of persons is for you to decide; I'm not trying to peg anyone in any hole.

**barney** · 11-15-2007

Originally Posted by Grenville

Hi Barney:

Barney. Try for one minute to stop defending a position and simply want to know the truth.

Now regarding your specific concern about the rib. You must be aware that we can now remove a tissue from one part of one body and it becomes useful on another part of another body.

So God is using science! Wild stuff!
I suppose in years to come, with sufficent increase in scientific knowlage we will be able to say to snakes, " Lo, Cursed were you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You used to crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life., but now with the appliance of science you can have your legs back!" Hey presto! Walking Snakes. Might need to work a bit harder on their voicebox though.

Heck we can make Bushes burn these days, just pop into the whitehouse and throw some petrol on him.

**Grace Seeker** · 11-15-2007

Originally Posted by barney

Since in the bible God was talking to people on earth and he used the term "Day", it was accepted by absolutly everybody that this refered to 6 earth days....

Well, not everybody. There are many who read "day" and then related it to where scripture says,

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (2 Peter 3:8)

There is also discussion in some circles that the phrase yom ehad in verse 5 "the first day" can be better understood as one age. (Sadly, as I don't read Hebrew, I cannot keep up with the depth of that conversation in my commentaries.) So, I don't think we can say that abosultely everybody accepted the idea that this referred to 6 earth days or any other specfic length of a day. There have been those through the ages that have read this as simply referring to ways of marking indeterminate amounts of time. But I will grant you that the vast majority of people accept the idea that the term "day" refers to just that, one earth day, the time it takes for the earth to revolve once on its axis. Now as to the trickier question which you didn't ask -- what is meant by the terms "beginning" and "earth" is quite another.

I am as likely to be created from Cream Cheese as Clay.

And God is equally as capable of doing this as well. What's your point?

In actuality I am created from a cell from my mothers body. A lump of plastercine had nothing to do with it.
God created Adam out of his special magic plastercine? I'd rather go with science.

If you are going with science, then you know that you are not created from a cell from your mother's body. First, it took two cells, one from your mother and one from your father to combine and create one brand new cell. (How do you like my math? 1+1=1, but the Muslims here don't generally like that type of math when we Christians add three 1s together to get one. Anyway, I digress.) But that is not really creation, anymore than saying that when I take a tree, cut it down, saw it into boards and hammer it back together that I have created a house. I have constructed a house, but I haven't really created anything. We have to go back, and in doing so we see that you were indeed made out of star dust. All life on earth is nothing but animated star dust. And the stars, how were they created?

Approximately 13.7 billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist. According to the prevailing cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion, trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang.

According to the theory you created from some pre-existant matter that occupied neither space nor time. Personally, I find it incredible that thinking men and women can believe in that concept, but cannot believe in a pre-existant spiritual being who created that matter.

**barney** · 11-15-2007

Grace, I actually beleive in a single creating force, and i even call it God. No worries at all these.
That we persist in thinking that it's still chatting away to us and is even aware that we exist is my leap of faith. To accept that it inspired the Bible or Quran is a Quantum leap. God wouldnt have written such nonsense. The early fathers (or mothers) who wrote it were trying to explain existance as we do today. But they hadnt our knowlage so they wrote of Fishes and Days and Clay and Ribs, and hey! It all made perfect sense to those who diddnt know better.

Nowadays we tend to warp the writings into a more acceptable " Its- a- metaphor " and the bible is a guide, kind of arguements.
It needs totally rewriting. For that we need a new messiah. If he dosnt arrive then just take the nearest pious person who seems to be talking sense and elevate him/her to godhood, like as a quartet instead of a trinity.

**Grace Seeker** · 11-15-2007

Originally Posted by barney

Grace, I actually beleive in a single creating force, and i even call it God. No worries at all these.
That we persist in thinking that it's still chatting away to us and is even aware that we exist is my leap of faith.

It sounds like your god is not a conscious being, perhaps not a being at all but, as you said, just a creating force.

**barney** · 11-15-2007

Well possibly. I can go along with the likelyhood of it being sentinent as the probability of this is IMO much greater than the coincidence theory, but both are valid.

I part company in this beleif with anyone who beleives or "feels" a connection with such a entity, wether they lived 4000 years ago or today.

**Grace Seeker** · 11-15-2007

Wouldn't a conscious, sentient creator want to have communication with its creatures if possible?

**barney** · 11-16-2007

Mayby, mayby not!

Is this force still around? How do we know that it's either omnipotent, omnipresent or eternal except that the fantasys that man has created in our poor orphan "Why are we here" state ,say that it is?

If it can communicate with people, and can effect things, it must be , by our standards , (and I think thats the standards to go by), Sick and insane.
It slaughters millions, It revels in conflict and blood, It slays for no reason, or the reason being a "Funny look" at their prophet.( Elijah) It drives demons ( LOL) into pigs instead of just banishing them. The list is endless. Why, I ask you honsetly, If you beleive in the Bible, would you want to worship a pagan based, animal sacrificing, human sacrificing, brutal, callous, unjust, dictatorial, murdering three in one deiety that, unless your a Mormon, stopped talking and interacting with people in 33AD.

If God wanted to communicate with us, he would just post a Vid on YouTube.

This may seem harsh, but i am fully prepared to back all of the accusations above.
I know religion does a lot of good, brings a lot of comfort, but we could do so much more without it. Simply connecting to that primal force ona personal level without the need for the dogma, the hatred and the slaughter.