The Bible: Literal or Metaphorical?

Question

If literal, does proving one thing wrong, prove the entire text is unreliable?

If metaphorical, how do you know which parts are meant to be taken literally?

Answer 1

There are parts that are literal (like battle descriptions, however flawed...they still MEAN to be about something real). REMEMBER: "Literal" does NOT equal "True"! It is the intent that counts. IMO, most other parts are metaphorical, such as stories about miracles, or (good example) the "Prodigal Son", which is meant as a lesson to both parents and children. Still others are mythological (most of it, really), regardless of the writers' intent.

Just because you prove one part of the Bible wrong doesn't make ALL the literal parts wrong, from a strictly logical point of view (thought they are most LIKELY untrue), but I think you can take most of it with a HUGE pillar of salt!

btw, I see the Bible as mostly a story, NOT to be taken literally, esp. nowadays. Some of the NT, that documents Jesus' life, can be regarded as more or less factual, esp. the parts that coincide w/written Roman history...but that doesn't mean Jesus is automatically divine!.

Answer 2

Almost impossible to reconcile. To the literalists there is nothing that is, or could be, "wrong."
On of the funnier examples.
Let's say you pointed out that one verse says King X (Jehoiachin) was 10 when he started to rule, while another verse says that the same King X was 18 when he started to rule. The literalist will say it's a "smudge" that could've gone either way and was "transcribed" incorrectly. (No kidding! And that's not an "error"? How many more can there be then?) There are a bunch of these "incidental" errors, and there are some with a bit more substance.

The theologians of main-stream Christianity have ALWAYS taken the bible at least "somewhat" metaphorically. (E.g., the Catholics, having been burned too many times because of the "literal" approach, are definitely "metaphorical." They do NOT want another scandal like the one they had re Galileo on the structure of the solar system.)

Not being a believer, I cannot counsel of which parts you should take literally. I myself am fond of several Gospel passages wherein Jesus does battle with the powerful and defends children, the poor, and the common man.and woman against those that would abuse them.

Answer 3

I'd assume that the majority is metaphorical and/or allegorical(particularly the fantasy bits, like fruit giving knowledge and people living in the stomachs of fish and people rising from the dead).

Proving one thing wrong to a person who reads the text as literally true doesn't make the entire text inherently unreliable, but it DOES make it obvious that it is not perfect, inerrant, etc.

Answer 4

One must look at content. So yes, some is symbolic and metaphorical and most is literal-Context...a brain is all one needs.

The bible is an historical document that has been shown time and time again to be completely reliable.
Critics have been disproved time and time again,
Some scholars once said that Moses couldn't have written the first five books of the Bible (as the Bible says) because writing was largely unknown in his day. Then, archeology proved otherwise by the discovery of many other written codes of the period: the code of Hammurabi (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Lipit-Ishtar code (ca. 1860), and the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1950 B.C.).

Critics used to say that the biblical description of the Hittite Empire was wrong because the Hittite Empire (they though) didn't even exist! Then archaeologists discovered the Hittite capital in 1906 and discovered that the Hittite's were actually a very vast and prominent civilization. Archaeological and linguistic evidence is increasingly pointing to a sixth-century B.C. date for the book of Daniel, in spite of the many critics who attempt to late-date Daniel and make it a prophecy after the detailed events it predicts.

For the New Testament, Dr. G.R. Habermas points out that within 110 years of Christ's crucifixion, approximately eighteen non-Christian sources mention more than "one hundred facts, beliefs, and teachings from the life of Christ and early Christendom. These items, I might add, mention almost every major detail of Jesus' life, including miracles, the Resurrection, and His claims to deity." [4] Sir William Ramsey, one of the greatest archeologists to ever live, demonstrated that Luke made no mistakes in references to 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 islands.

Liberal scholars used to argue that a town named Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus, until archaeology of the last few decades confirmed its existence. The Gospel's portrayals of the temple, Pilate's court, Jesus' crown of thorns, and the mode of His execution have all also been confirmed. The list could go on and on.

The historical evidence clearly shows that the Bible is a reliable historical document. Since the Bible can be trusted in areas that we can check (its history), then this gives us a reason to trust it in areas that we cannot check (its claims for inspiration).
Prophecies:
There are hundreds of specific prophecies in the Bible which have been literally fulfilled, in many cases centuries after the completion of the Bible. Any attempt to late-date these prophecies is impossible--there is a copy of every Old Testament book but one from before 150 BC, and hundreds of these prophecies were not fulfilled until centuries later. For a detailed discussion of this area, see Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.

Some prophecies fulfilled by Jesus are Micah 5:2, which revealed where He would be born; Isaiah 53 detailed His suffering, work at the cross, and resurrection; Psalm 22 is striking prophecy of the crucifixion which had not even been invented yet! There are hundreds of prophecies that have come true-The fall of jerusalem in 70 ad for another-do a google search on this.

Has the text of the Bible Been Altered Over the Centuries?
One last test investigates whether or not the Bible has been corrupted down through the ages in its transmission. If it has been significantly changed, then it would not be relevant to us since inspiration does not extend to any manuscript copy. How can we know whether or not the Bible we have today is the same as what was written?

This question is answered by the bibliographical test. This test looks at the number of existing manuscript copies there are, their agreement with each other concerning the text that they are copies of, and the time interval between these copies and the date of the original writing. All scholars agree that this test has conclusively established that the biblical text which we have now is nearly identical to what was originally recorded (for both Old and New Testaments).

Sir Frederick Kenyon, who was second to none in issuing statements about manuscripts, said this about the New Testament: "The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest existing evidence [i.e. the earliest copies we have] become so small to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially has having been written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and general integrity of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." [7] He further said that "No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading."

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from 200 B.C. to A.D. 68, included a copy of every Old Testament book except for one. Comparison with the texts of a thousand years later shows little or no variation and change between them.

We also have non christian writers who have written about many in the bible including; Josephus, Tacitus, Pliney the younger and more.
These are all easily researched.

Answer 5

The Bible is always to be taken literally unless it becomes obvious by the context that it is figurative or a metaphor. This is plainly obvious to anyone who regularly uses speech in their daily life. If I speak to you about a message going out to the four corners of the globe, you would not begin to question whether I actually believed that the world was a big flat square, would you? However it must be added that the Bible in some cases has specialized language that it uses in referring to spiritual realities analogous with physical realities. Adam was told in the day he ate of the fruit of the tree of good and evil that he would surely die. He did not die physically on that day; but he did die spiritually, because his relationship with God was severed, and he ceased to perceive God as He truly is. The subject though is really true broad to address in this venue.

Answer 6

The bible is an allegorical guide, the messages of which have been misconstrued and interpreted in religious experiments that proved profitable to the physical church and resulted in the ensuing hypocrisies.

Answer 7

It's both, do I know the difference every single time which is which? No, not every single time.

But one thing I am sure of is that even the literal things have symbolic lessons for me today, and the most important thing for me, as an individual reader, is to find those symbolic lessons and apply them to my life as best I can.

thanks

Answer 8

I take the Holy Bible to be literal,but it must be read with a open mind.you have to discern for yourself,one must think,these were
ancient people writing,much which came in visions and dreams.
when I read they saw giant grasshoppers coming down from Heaven, I take that as a vision of the future, helicopters etc.
perfect example blue said people living in the stomach of a fish
a submarine.

Answer 9

The Bible: Literal or Metaphorical?

You forgot one other choice: ridiculous.

It's a ridiculous cult book of mythological fairy tales. Nothing more. Try to remember that it was edited and compiled by a pagan roman emperor, 300 years after the central cult myth figure, jesus, died. it isn't even accurate or complete -- Constantine's Nicaean Council threw most of the writings and books of the bible out!!

Answer 10

It is both, and the first requirement for valid exegesis is knowing which parts are literal and which parts are not. The only way of knowing this is through the guidance of the Church to which God gave the Scriptures, with full responsibility for interpreting them. This is why that Church and no other is referred to in Scripture as "the pillar and foundation of truth". Take away the pillars and foundation of any structure and it will weaken, distort, and eventually collapse. The rubble from that collapse is known as denominationalism, where everyone attempts to interpret the Bible for himself, and no-one can agree on what constitutes the truth.
.