Some parts of the Bible are metaphorical, what isn't?

[Guest]

I'm not a strong believer in the Bible (for any of those who are wondering), nor am I a believer of anything associated with the Church(es). With that put forth, I would like to asks some questions about the Bible, as simple as I can put it:

If some parts of the Bible are metaphorical (or subject to interpretation), then which parts are NOT metaphorical and how does one judge that?

Moreover, who's interpretation of the Bible is correct?

My views are as such:
1. There are some parts of the bible which are considered metaphorical, and the meaning of these metaphors is subject to interpretation.
2. If some things are subject to interpretation, then that puts doubt on the meaning of many other things in the bible due to the trickle-down effect.
3. I believe in God, but I have a hard time believing in everything that the Bible says because of #1 and #2.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

doGoN,
The best advice I can offer is that you ask God for yourself. If you don't have a relationship with Him personally, it would make no difference at all if someone were to convince you of things literal and metaphorical. When one has a relationship with God, through Jesus Christ, then it is easy to simply ask God your questions. The answers come in countless ways.

 

[cyberjosh]

Some passages have dual import: the litteral account and yet at the same time a shadow (what is called in Biblical terms a 'type') of future things to come, like how Paul used the literal account of Abraham having children by Hagar and Sarah as representative of the law (Ishmael) and the new covenant (Issac) [Galatians 4]. Is this what you are asking for? I personally have delt with skeptics in apologetics debates for years, so I am generally patient and understanding, while still more than equiped to give a good defense. I'd be happy to oblige if would clarify what you are getting at or asking in specific.

~Josh

 

[ChristineES]

I am one of those Christians who believes that part of the Bible may be in parable form. I am convinced that the Book of Job is a parable and not a literal account. My husband is a Bible literalist and believes the whole Bible is literal. Sometimes I think that the Adam and Eve story may be a parable about how humans separated from God. I am not sure of this, but I do suspect it.
(By parable form I mean that it is true, just not an literal account of an event).

 

[Imagican]

I'm not a strong believer in the Bible (for any of those who are wondering), nor am I a believer of anything associated with the Church(es). With that put forth, I would like to asks some questions about the Bible, as simple as I can put it:

If some parts of the Bible are metaphorical (or subject to interpretation), then which parts are NOT metaphorical and how does one judge that?

Moreover, who's interpretation of the Bible is correct?

My views are as such:
1. There are some parts of the bible which are considered metaphorical, and the meaning of these metaphors is subject to interpretation.
2. If some things are subject to interpretation, then that puts doubt on the meaning of many other things in the bible due to the trickle-down effect.
3. I believe in God, but I have a hard time believing in everything that the Bible says because of #1 and #2.

Your postulations are correct in that if one were to simply read The Word, there is MUCH that is practically IMPOSSIBLE to understand through the words themselves.

The Word itself STATES that to 'the world' that it is 'but foolishness'.

But, my friend, with a 'bit of prayer' for guidance, I believe that you would be AMAZED at what definition CAN be offered BY The Spirit.

And in answer to you direct question; The ONLY TRUE interpretation IS through The Spirit. And the MORE one studies the 'myriad denominations' the MORE one is lead to NO OTHER conclusion. For there can ONLY BE ONE TRUTH. And the 'differences' simply point to a 'misinterpretation'.

But, if you are trying to decipher Revalation or even some of the OT offerings concerning prophecy, understand this; MOST prophecy wasn't written for us to KNOW the 'exact' nature of the future, (so far as 'time' and 'place' are concerned). The purpose isn't for us to KNOW that it's coming so much as to RECOGNIZE it AS prophecy WHEN it takes place.

To further illustrate: NO MAN could be 'convinced', (except in his own mind and heart), that what has been offered concerning the future IS indeed TRUE prophecy. BUT, once the events foretold TAKE PLACE, then it's OBVIOUS to any that read of it's prediction to realize and ACCEPT that the ONLY way this could have been accomplished was THROUGH divine intervention. That it would have taken an 'entity' , (God to most), able to SEE the future in order to accurately predict it. And there is NOT a single prophet in The Word that takes credit for these things of themselves. Each clearly offers that the information 'given' to them was BY GOD.

So, if you are struggling with 'prophecy' and this is what you refer to concerning metaphos, don't 'hurt' yourself. People have been MOSTLY unsuccessfully attempting that since it was written. Issac Newton, Thomas Jefferson are just a couple of examples of those that 'believed' that it was 'up to them' to decipher the mystery of this work.

MEC

 

[cyberjosh]

I am one of those Christians who believes that part of the Bible may be in parable form. I am convinced that the Book of Job is a parable and not a literal account. My husband is a Bible literalist and believes the whole Bible is literal. Sometimes I think that the Adam and Eve story may be a parable about how humans separated from God. I am not sure of this, but I do suspect it.
(By parable form I mean that it is true, just not an literal account of an event).

No offense but the book of Job wouldn't have had so many precise cultural references or even a historical situation if it were an allegory. The story specifically mentions (for but one example) a tribe of raiders that existed only in the Patriarchal period that attacked Job's servants and took them captive (reminds one of the 5 Kings that came down and stole Lot and his family in Genesis), further more Job is clearly a real and righteous person as evidenced by his mention again in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 and in James 5:11 which in no way imply an allegorical approach to Job. In Ezekiel especially because Job is listed among those rightoues with Noah and Daniel, two other men who had real historical circumstances surrounding them. I believe your husband is right to take the Bible as literally as possible, though obviously allegorical figures are present, such as in prophecies & also descriptions of creatures in books like Daniel & Revelation. Job is real and the story is real as well.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Orion]

I am one of those Christians who believes that part of the Bible may be in parable form. I am convinced that the Book of Job is a parable and not a literal account. My husband is a Bible literalist and believes the whole Bible is literal. Sometimes I think that the Adam and Eve story may be a parable about how humans separated from God. I am not sure of this, but I do suspect it.
(By parable form I mean that it is true, just not an literal account of an event).

I tend to agree with your assessment of Job, Christine. I find it to read quite parable-ish, actually, right from the beginning with "Satan making a bet with God".

cybershark, just because a story incorporates some "current events", so to speak, doesn't make the story factual, though. :-?

Having said that, though, perhaps this topic should be for another thread because I would rather read an exchange between doGoN and Gabby.

 

[GraceBwithU]

I'm not a strong believer in the Bible (for any of those who are wondering), nor am I a believer of anything associated with the Church(es). With that put forth, I would like to asks some questions about the Bible, as simple as I can put it:

If some parts of the Bible are metaphorical (or subject to interpretation), then which parts are NOT metaphorical and how does one judge that?

Moreover, who's interpretation of the Bible is correct?

My views are as such:
1. There are some parts of the bible which are considered metaphorical, and the meaning of these metaphors is subject to interpretation.
2. If some things are subject to interpretation, then that puts doubt on the meaning of many other things in the bible due to the trickle-down effect.
3. I believe in God, but I have a hard time believing in everything that the Bible says because of #1 and #2.

It is obvious that you lack the relationship with God to interpret and know some of the things you speak of as being open for interpretation.

The difference in interpretation of some scripture is largely related to scripture that has not yet been totally revealed. The gospel of the bible is plain. All Christians can easily come to an agreement quickly on the good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and what it means to the world.

The way to salvation is clear...not metaphoric. Start there, my friend before you make judgment on the word of God. Until then you have not one micro-bit of understanding that makes you worthy to even comment.

 

[cyberjosh]

cybershark, just because a story incorporates some "current events", so to speak, doesn't make the story factual, though

That's an inadequate rebuttal of my position Orion. I gave other examples as well, and good ones in my mind. Also the word of God is rather straight forward in that it should at no point be decieveing to those who read it as it is. Context is important ofcourse for allegorical approaches (which the reader could discern), but I see no such context for Job, and Satan coming before God is not an adequate reason to treat it as allegorical or as a parable (and much stranger & awesome things in the Spiritual have been spoken of in the Bible that were literal accounts). This is also why I object to (or atleast doubt) the allegorical approach to the Song of Solomon as being Jesus loving the Church (His bride). It might in some aspects foreshadow it, but I take the account as literally being Solomon and his bride and have no reason to think otherwise.

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

It is obvious that you lack the relationship with God to interpret and know some of the things you speak of as being open for interpretation.
...
Until then you have not one micro-bit of understanding that makes you worthy to even comment

Let's be a little more careful and sensitive in our words when it comes to correction. The Bible says to correct one in patience and love. Stern reproof unjustified, or not in a spirit of love, can drive one away rather than reconcile. On top of that you do not feed one who is "weak in the faith" with meat but rather the milk of the Word until they mature in God's Word by the Spirit and are able to handle the meat. Shoving meat down a baby's throat would most certainly choke and suffocate it (thus why they require milk at that stage), so lets go easy until we can truely discern the real level at which the person can accept or comprehend God's word.

Thanks.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[stovebolts]

Ahh the book of Job. Tis certainly one of the books of the Bible that I truly enjoy.

Some say that the book of Job was written to encourage Israel when they were exiles in Babylon, while others place the writing of Job early in the Iron Age. To make such a fuss over disputable matters as such certainly takes away from the essence and beauty of the message contained within the book of Job.

To say that the account of Job is a literal account may raise more questions than we could offer, while stating that the story of Job would be entirely allegorical would also miss the mark as there are many real situations, thoughts, actions and idea’s that I’m sure many of us have thought or asked at different times of our life.

Theologically, Job is part of the wisdom literature, and complements the canon quiet well in regard to wisdom. To argue over its authenticity completely misses the point. If it were part of the historical writings, then dates and times would matter. However, whether one looks at the story of Job as a literal account or if one looks at is as “An expressive style that uses fictional characters and events to describe some subject by suggestive resemblancesâ€Â, it would be hard not to come out of the book of Job knowing that even a man righteous in the eyes of God, could lack all the answers, endure unmerited suffering, be falsely accused by his close friends and still maintain his faith in the one true, sovereign Lord of all creation.

Peace

 

[Orion]

cybershark, just because a story incorporates some "current events", so to speak, doesn't make the story factual, though

That's an inadequate rebuttal of my position Orion. I gave other examples as well, and good ones in my mind. Also the word of God is rather straight forward in that it should at no point be decieveing to those who read it as it is. Context is important ofcourse for allegorical approaches (which the reader could discern), but I see no such context for Job, and Satan coming before God is not an adequate reason to treat it as allegorical or as a parable (and much stranger & awesome things in the Spiritual have been spoken of in the Bible that were literal accounts). This is also why I object to (or atleast doubt) the allegorical approach to the Song of Solomon as being Jesus loving the Church (His bride). It might in some aspects foreshadow it, but I take the account as literally being Solomon and his bride and have no reason to think otherwise.

~Josh

I fully agree with you on the Song of Solomon. It was a love letter. . . or series of love letters to express human intimacy. But then, I don't recall any "supernatural occurances" in the Song of Solomon though. However, when you have an event (that NO human ever witnessed or ever COULD have witnessded) such as this "bet between Satan and God", I tend to find it less literal and begin moving the story into the relm of alegory. But to each his own, I suppose. I'm not saying it couldn't have actually happened, but I don't see it as such, and the whole premise of it makes no sense.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything that is.
I believe He formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him.
I believe that when man sinned against God, that God made a way back to Him.
I believe that Jesus Christ bore my sin on the cross, died, and rose again on the third day.

Believing all of this, I find it difficult to believe that God would resort to metaphors to make His point. 8-)

 

[stovebolts]

My views are as such:
1. There are some parts of the bible which are considered metaphorical, and the meaning of these metaphors is subject to interpretation.

Absolutely, this is why we must study scripture at more than simply face value at times. It’s good to look at things like, who wrote it? Who was it written to? What event occurred to drive the scripture to be written? What was the social setting, what ideologies existed, what did day to day life look like to the receiving parties?

]2. If some things are subject to interpretation, then that puts doubt on the meaning of many other things in the bible due to the trickle-down effect.

All of scripture is subject to interpretation. It always has been. However, the object of scripture is to internalize it and make it your own under the right interpretation normative in Judaism by becoming scripture through Mitzvah. In days of ancient, children, by the age of 7 or 8 would memorize the entire Torah for the purpose of doing Mitzvah, and have the entire Tanakh memorized by age 12 or 13 if they were good at it. From there, they would seek to a Rabbi’s yoke (interpretation) of the deeper realities found in scripture.

]3. I believe in God, but I have a hard time believing in everything that the Bible says because of #1 and #2.

If I could describe what being a Christian is like, I’d describe it as seeking, asking and knocking… Instead of disbelieving, perhaps you simply need to dig a bit deeper.

Luke 11:9 "So I tell you: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you."

 

[stovebolts]

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything that is.
I believe He formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him.
I believe that when man sinned against God, that God made a way back to Him.
I believe that Jesus Christ bore my sin on the cross, died, and rose again on the third day.

Believing all of this, I find it difficult to believe that God would resort to metaphors to make His point. 8-)

Have you read John 6? I do hope that you don't take all of Revelation literal cause I don't think that Jesus is coming back with a literal sword sticking out of his mouth...

 

[cyberjosh]

However, when you have an event (that NO human ever witnessed or ever COULD have witnessded) such as this "bet between Satan and God", I tend to find it less literal and begin moving the story into the relm of alegory.

Ok, fair enough point. But now I will point out why that is an incorrect assumption. And yes I don't wish any harsh dispute, I'm just after some sensible discussion, then I can be satisfied if necessary to also say "each to his own" (and just agree to disagree - I've ended many good discussions that way actually).

Ok, the whole premise behind the idea of the inspired content of the Scripture (whether one agrees with it or not) is that it describes things that no human could naturally know (given by revelation of God's Spirit - as mentioned in 1 Peter), because dozens of verses describe happenings before the world began, and what God has done in the very beginning, etc. Also the first 10 or so verses of John's Gospel no man could have witnessed of Christ and God, as it is speaking of Christ in the beginning. The same with the first 3 verses of Hebrews, which talk of the creation of the world. But if you want an even closer parallel (infact a very similar assembly of angels before God) of something no man could see with his eyes, yet involved angels and God, there was a vision explained to the King of Israel by a prophet who knew what had transpired in heaven because of the revelation of it to him:

""Micaiah said, "Therefore, hear the word of the LORD. I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.
The LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said this while another said that.
"Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
"The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'
"Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you."

1 Kings 22:19-23

Now I don't want to discuss the actual topic raised by this Scripture (because that's a whole nother topic altogether) but although this was a vision, it shows that a man can be given revelatory knowledge of things that transpire in Heaven, and the whole idea of the inspiration of the Bible is that God gives knowledge to the writer beyond their natural ability to record various things & truths, whether on Heaven or on Earth. Same with the creation of the earth, which man obviously could not know about otherwise.

That is my rather straight forward point. Do you agree that it is a fair arguement?

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Orion]

Although I have no idea what that passage in 1 Kings is saying (that is an odd sounding passage), I believe that there have been those who have accurately recorded something that men have not seen, and that God gave to them in some sort of vision or dream, so yes I can say that you make a fair argument (and I prefer nice discussions to trashing someone as well ), . . . . . but I personally don't see Job, or at least the FIRST part of Job as being literal. I see it as something added by men as something they thought must have happened to this man, Job, who was a great guy who had horrible things happen to him in a short period of time, "from riches to rags", so to speak. I just don't see a "Heavenly bet" taking place where God would allow all these horrible things to happen to Job just to prove a point to Satan.

Plus, it takes away from the power of God to have Satan, who knows that God doesn't lie, that God knows the future, to say anything other than the truth about whether or not Job would curse God's name if calamity happened! It would mean that Satan didn't trust God's word, which doesn't make sense, since Satan would KNOW that God doesn't lie, . . . that He knows the future, and that if God says that Job wouldn't curse His name, Job wouldn't. So the bet is nearly paradoxical, IF God is who we say He is. The bet makes no sense, then. It would only prove to show God letting Satan ruin a man out of Satan's own joy.

So, rather than that, I choose to believe the story to be a parable, made by men to make some sort of point about how we should trust God even if we loose everything. The moral being, if we do, better things will happen, as is seen at the end of this book.

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Orion,

Try and look at Job like this, and see if it changes your view at all.

Job was a righteous man in the eyes of God and was full of wisdom and knowledge. Often, when one feels that they have arrived and have figured it out per se, it’s our human nature to confine YHVH within our limited understanding of Him.

I wouldn’t say that YHVH bet anything with Satan, rather, YHVH knew Satan would take the bait per se and knowing Job, YHVH knew that Job would never curse Him. Why you may ask? Because Job understood that YHVH was the only God and regardless of what happened in his life, YHVH was still sovereign.

What occurs after Job is afflicted is a series of debates with the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of respected community leaders on whom and what the nature of YHVH was. Unfortunately, the highest wisdom of the land could not answer the question of why Job had to endure such a calamity and often missed the mark all together.

Often, our limited understanding of who God puts us in a position where we just sit back in agony and ask “Whyâ€Â… and like Job, the why has nothing to do with the what.

In perspective, Job understood that there is but one God and Job knows that there are no other Gods he can turn to. Luke 12:48b From everyone who has been given much, much will be required, and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked.

Job had been entrusted with much from YHVH, and much was expected of him. What YHVH required, was that his true nature be revealed. You see, Job and his friends thought that they had YHVH all figured out, and there are about 48 chapters that challenge the wisdom of those who believe they’ve got the nature of YHVH pegged.

Did YHVH make a bet with Satan? Not at all. Matter of fact, Job shows that Satan can only do with us what the Father allows. Romans 8:28 clearly states, And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose,

Certainly, Job was a solid man of faith who never wavered in his faith. Through his sufferings, he came to a new understanding of who his God was, which is certainly a theme throughout the Bible.

 

[stovebolts]

I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything that is.
I believe He formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him.
I believe that when man sinned against God, that God made a way back to Him.
I believe that Jesus Christ bore my sin on the cross, died, and rose again on the third day.

Believing all of this, I find it difficult to believe that God would resort to metaphors to make His point. 8-)

Have you read John 6? I do hope that you don't take all of Revelation literal cause I don't think that Jesus is coming back with a literal sword sticking out of his mouth...

Gabby,
That was a very rude reply by me. None of what you have posted would I consider metaphor. That being said, I believe that there are metaphor's in scripture that do point to heavenly realities.

Sorry if this has cuased you any misunderstanding.

Jeff

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

All is forgiven. :