Holy Bible: literal or allegoric mystery?

Question

Scientific evidence seems to reveal the only thing common to man is a legend of the flood, which is evidence for the Bible being allegoric; But scientific evidence also seems to reveal there never was a world wide flood, which is evidence against taking it literal.

I'm favoring allegoric mystery, but not to make the Bible invalid.

Answer 1

I have seen the Bible both ways, and I can tell you that I get much more out of it the allegorical way. I used to believe in it literally, thinking that was the only right way to interpret it. But I missed out on so much that was there. I just couldn't see it because I was reading it like a science or history book, instead of a book telling me spiritual truths.

Answer 2

No evidence of the flood just proves how powerful God is.: The Bible is a spiritual mystery.

Answer 3

The bible has parts that are allegory, and others that are specifically meant to be taken literally, and must be taken literally for one to remain spiritually healthy.

For example, it is fine to accept that the flood, or the six-day creation myth are allegory or metaphoric (IMHO). It is quite a different thing to say that the ten commandments are allegories, or metaphors.

Likewise, it is fine to accept literal creation, the story of Jonah, or Noah's Flood as literal, but in Luke, Jesus commands His disciples to hate their entire family, or they cannot follow Him. Obviously, Jesus didn't mean that he wants us to hate our families, but that's what it says, and it isn't out of context. Either the writers of the bible made a mistake, it was mistranslated, Jesus contradicted Himself, or this statement was not intended to be taken literally. If it wasn't meant to be taken literally, then it is folly to say that the entire bible must be taken literally. Especially vaguely worded stories in Genesis whose validity is not really an issue as to our salvation.

Whether mistake, fiction, allegory, metaphor, or an evil plot by Satan, whether Noah's Flood is literally true is not relevant to me going to Heaven or not. My faith in God, jesus, and the bible is not so weak that I need these stories to be true. If there are mistakes in the bible (and I am not saying that there are), it doesn't mean that I can't believe anything in it.

I just have faith.

One only needs to have self-honesty, common sense, objectivity, and an earnest desire to be Holy to determine which is to be taken literally and which is not. The Holy Spirit helps us to do that. The Holy Spirit is not some mystical being that whispers into our ear every step of the way. The Holy Spirit GIVES us those qualities, so we can make the best decisions.

Answer 4

The Bible is many things, allegories, biographies, songs, proverbs, histories, political commentaries, and prophecies.

Catholic believe that the early chapters in the book of Genesis are an allegory. They tell religious truth but not necessarily historical fact.

This approach allows for both the complete inspired truth of the Bible and the emerging facts of science.

With love in Christ.

Answer 5

There's strong agreement among that The Flood was localized instead of a world event. And not all primitive religions dictate a flooding event of that magnitude.

Answer 6

If there was a flood, where did all the water go? I think it is a work of fiction

Answer 7

maximum persons do no longer understand this: in case you translate the earliest texts we've of the Bible word for word, you will desire to no longer even study it. there is alot greater distinction between languages than only diverse words. Direct literal translation, word by utilising word by utilising word infrequently makes any experience that any one would desire to stick to. The oldest texts we've of the recent testomony (in Greek) date from CENTURIES AFTER Christ even lived. confident, they have been derived from originals - so some distance as all of us comprehend - from that days for the duration of and presently after Christ. we don't have those ORIGINALS. by utilising the time of the earliest transcripts that we do have, there have been already various diverse interpretations/translations. Christian communities have been already struggling with approximately "fake coaching." The definition of what became fake relies upon on who you discover credible back then. in my view, i do no longer assert particularly that the Bible is actual or fake. evaluate in spite of the undeniable fact that, realistically, its meaning is interpreted thousands of diverse tactics. The previous adage many countless church homes make: "We pass strictly by utilising the Bible" is slightly conceited. What that fact is relatively asserting is that the interpreter is the only source who can likely be suitable, is rather infallible and, in all threat, for that rely, would desire to rule the wold.

Answer 8

Neither, a mythology of a desert people living in the bronze age.

Answer 9

Jesus believed it was to be taken literally...flood included ! I take His word on it.

Answer 10

Uh... with all due respect, why are you focusing on the flood? I don't know WHAT science says about the flood, but there are LOTS of ways in which the Bible is inconistant with science.

To answer your question, I agree with the mythologist Dr. Joseph Cambell. The Bible is a collection of myths and myths are metaphors. While I respect the rights of others to believe that the Bible is literally true, I disagree. Science is backed up by overwhelming evidence. It's a complete understatement to say that there's evidence for scientific facts. Science by definition uses the Scientific method, which has an extremely high standard for evidence. In short, I actually see there as being a reason to believe in science and a very, very, very good one. Despite all the brow beating that I've received from fundamentalists, they have totally failed to give me any reason at all to believe that the Bible was written by God. I can only conclude that it was written by the Jews.

If it WAS merely written by mortal Jews, as opposed to by God, than the entire infastructure of fundamentalist thought falls apart: the claim that God exists, the claims that Heaven and Hell exist and the claim that Jesus is our Savior all cease to have any credence. Any reason to fear for one's soul disappears. Even belief in the soul as being anything that outlives the body vanishes.

One lady on here said that we can't disprove fundamentalist Christianity. The problem with that, is that anything's possible. It's possible that flying pigs exist, but without evidence that they do, there's no reason to believe in them. It's possible that Dionysos is God and that many of us, the fundies most included, will burn in Hell for failing to have enough drunken orgies. They can't disprove that, either. But, for lack of evidence, we assume that Dionysos is NOT God and therefore we assume that drunken orgies are non-obligatory.

That being said, I think there are lots of good ideas in the Bible. Love your neighbor as yourself and do to others as you would have others do to you are two good ideas.

Personally, I think the world would be a better place if we separated out facts about the universe, which we can get from science and great ideas for how to make human society better, which we get from the great sages and myths of the world. But, before we can do that, we need to open ourselves up to the possibility that myths and scripture might be merely metaphor, alogory or simply good ideas.

The key, I think, is to realize that religions can be defined in terms of ethics, practices and myths rather than dogmatic beliefs. Myths can teach us wisdom. Religious practices can bring about changes in our consciousness that transform us and can, potentially, make us better people. Ethics can be practice without God, Heaven or Hell. They can be practiced simply because the world would be a better place if we practiced them. Though we must remember that if our myths teach wisdom as opposed to knowledge, then we have to be open to the possibility what we think is ethical may in fact hurt others. For example, the Bible contains homophobic passages that encourage people to hurt gays and Lesbians. I'm opposed to that. My values are that all people are equal, that each one of us is free to live our lives the way we want to provided that we avoid harm to others and that hurting others is wrong.

I think that a lot of fundamentalists are scared of uncertainty. But, I think it takes courage to live by ethics that are founded on reason and wisdom rather than on dogma. It takes courage to admit that we're all somewhat ignorant. If we can have that courage, we can understand that different people have different ethics and we can communicate about different ethical views. Fortunately, though, seeing myth as metaphor liberates us to improve on our ethics. Our ethics are then free to grow and adapt as we human beings learn new things about the world. For example, behavioral biologists have observed that homosexuality is EXTREMELY common among many species of animals. That's new knowledge that probably wasn't around when the Bible was written. It shows that, while people used to think it was unnatural, that it is in fact NATURAL. It's human nature to choose whom we love through sexual acts. With this new knowledge, then, we can improve upon our ethics and be more accepting and respectful of gays and Lesbians.

Understanding myth as metaphor and wisdom as opposed to as fact would also make the world more peaceful. People wouldn't need to fight holy wars. Instead, two cultures could communicate over the respective ideas of both culture's myths and alagories.