How does one differentiate between parts of the bible that are meant to be literal vs metaphorical?

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@marvin

The problem in modern times is that the poetic language is encountering people who can not think.

Or who think Occam’s razor applies to figurative expressions and the excluded middle to metaphors.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Christy

@Klax

That ain’t the way round I expressed it and it’s not commutative. Metaphor is loaded with bias. Cultural if nothing else. And it’s a lot else.

Of course. But if they saw the stars as moving across the sky (your example of bias) because of their culturally (and geographically) biased perspective, it’s still not a metaphor.

No, it’s relative if not subjective, especially if you’re not aware of the relativity. Which puts metaphor in the same ballpark. No?

@Christy

@Klax

And there is every assumption that metaphors are literal with the historical-grammatical hermeneutic:

LITERAL DOESN’T MEAN TRUE!!! Literal means relying on primary sense meanings, not figurative meanings. “I’m starving” literally means I’m dying of malnutrition and figuratively means I’m very hungry. Both meanings could be either true or false depending on how the statement corresponds with facts. Figurative is the opposite of literal. It is an oxymoron to say metaphors are literal, because metaphors are figurative.

DIDN’T SAY IT DOES!!! Did I? I said that metaphors (like salvation (and sin and judgment and damnation), which are also allegories are they not?) are (assumed to be) literal (when used by,) with the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Klax

Which puts metaphor in the same ballpark. No?

No. Metaphor doesn’t mean “something subjective.” It means using one concept as a vehicle for describing or understanding a different concept. Electricity is a current is a metaphor that uses the vehicle of flowing water to explain/describe the behavior of electrons. There is nothing “subjective” about the idea. What makes it metaphorical is the linking of two unrelated domains because they have something in common.

@Klax

I said that metaphors (like salvation (and sin and judgment and damnation), which are also allegories are they not?) are (assumed to be) literal (when used by,) with the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.

Saying “metaphors are literal” doesn’t make sense. No, the historical-grammatical hermeneutic does not imply that Jesus “literally” paid money to the Devil (ransom metaphor), that people were “literally” held in physical bondage as slaves to a slave owner named Sin (freedom from slavery metaphor), that people were “literally” released from a guilty verdict in a court of law (legal metaphor). No one is assuming metaphors are literal.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Christy

@Klax

Which puts metaphor in the same ballpark. No?

No. Metaphor doesn’t mean “something subjective.” It means using one concept as a vehicle for describing or understanding a different concept. Electricity is a current is a metaphor that uses the vehicle of flowing water to explain/describe the behavior of electrons. There is nothing “subjective” about the idea. What makes it metaphorical is the linking of two unrelated domains because they have something in common.

Concepts are subjective. Current as metaphor doesn’t explain the behaviour of electrons. How do you subjectively imagine they behave? What do they have in common? The metaphor is linking one simple concept to another far more complex one and debasing it. Metaphor is fundamentally subjective. The process of metaphorization is. Can you demonstrate objective metaphor?

@Christy

@Klax

I said that metaphors (like salvation (and sin and judgment and damnation), which are also allegories are they not?) are (assumed to be) literal (when used by,) with the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.

Saying “metaphors are literal” doesn’t make sense. No, the historical-grammatical hermeneutic does not imply that Jesus “literally” paid money to the Devil (ransom metaphor), that people were “literally” held in physical bondage as slaves to a slave owner named Sin (freedom from slavery metaphor), that people were “literally” released from a guilty verdict in a court of law (legal metaphor). No one is assuming metaphors are literal.

Correct. Until the last sentence. Salvation is a metaphor. As I said. Damnation is a metaphor. As I said. Sin is a metaphor. As I said. What’s the grammatical, linguistic, philosophical term for linking, nesting two metaphors?

All of this is relevant to hermeneutics of course. The entire enterprise of the Bible and all belief based on it.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Klax

All of this is relevant to hermeneutics of course. The entire enterprise of the Bible and all belief based on it

Now there.s a sweeping statement (with venom) if ever I heard one. What are you trying to say that Hermeneutics is a con? (In some case I might even agree but not as a generalisation)

Perhaps you would prefer to read the bible as literally as Possible? I have heard people try to apply Ockham’s Razor to the bible. It doesn’t work. The Bible itself talks about parable and metaphor in relation to God’ dealing with us. And besides, literalism is the generator of YEC. And you do not support YEC do you?

Richard

[Bucky_Wood]

@SkovandOfMitaze

I don’t need the Bible to tell me how to be a decent human being

Good point. I have often wondered about a) conclusions we should draw from issues not proscribed by the Bible. Slavery is one, women’s suffrage another and b) what conclusions must we draw from issues clearly proscribed that today are considered in a different light? Such as homosexual behaviors, same-sex marriage.

If one lists the most common ~30 or so beliefs that Christians consider important to our faith, and view them in order of importance, we might all draw a different line between what is necessary and when it is sufficient. E.g. a Deist might stop after the first belief which is “the belief in God”, discounting the necessity to believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection and the many miracles reported. So the Deist would have no problem at all with the absence of revelation nor with the presence of a prescription. But others cling to even the ?last of one’s 30 beliefs? which might be biblical inerrancy.

Most biological geneticists now offer convincing evidence that our modifications of DNA associated with our evolution resulted in survival advantages manifested as altruistic behavior, so it is hard-wired into our DNA, as are so many other traits such as valuing honesty, fearing intrusion, and having diligent work ethics. We are a complicated machine indeed.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Bucky_Wood

what conclusions must we draw from issues clearly proscribed that today are considered in a different light? Such as homosexual behaviors, same-sex marriage.

I don’t recall any prohibition of same sex marriage. What about collecting firewood on a Saturday? Wearing cotton and wool? Eating oysters? Bacon?

[Kendel]

@Trippy_Elixir, I had a lot of driving to day yesterday and grabbed a handful of cds to refresh the music I had in the car. Happenend to have grabbed Michael Card’s “Present Reality” which I have been listening since college or high school (Pre-History, really. I wore out the original cassette tape). It doesn’t really answer your question, but the songs are outstanding, and the entire album is a contemplation of the entire theme of this thread. Maybe there’s something here for you…:

[Kendel]

Christy, these are good points. They’re the very kind of thing that force me to wrestle, not with the texts, but fundamentalism and the effect of a fundamentalist view on how to interpret the texts. So much bad reading ( and cultural upheaval) comes from these forced literalist readings that don’t take into account the rhetorical tools that writers use all the time, and the historical context of the tool set and methods.
Just reading your words is an encouragement.

[heymike3]

@Klax

All of this is relevant to hermeneutics of course. The entire enterprise of the Bible and all belief based on it.

And even language itself.

[beaglelady]

@Klax

I don’t recall any prohibition of same sex marriage.

That is true! But you are allowed to have multiple wives and even concubines.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@beaglelady

@Klax

I don’t recall any prohibition of same sex marriage.

That is true! But you are allowed to have multiple wives and even concubines.

Including slaves of course, war booty. Whilst you would not dare dream of companion planting. And always be ready to stone your teenage kids.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Bucky_Wood

what conclusions must we draw from issues clearly proscribed that today are considered in a different light? Such as homoxxxual behaviors, same-xxx marriage.

A different light. That of truth. Of the Spirit. Of intellectual integrity. It’s essential viewing, but 26:30-30:35 is a perfect taster.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Klax

A different light. That of truth. Of the Spirit.

That assumes

• 1. possession or access to the Spirit
• 2} Discernment of what the Spirit is teaching
• 3. Willingness to see past the more obvious viewing of Scripture

Richard

(apologies but the formatting of my answer does not match the formatting in my writing)

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@beaglelady

I’m sure gay couples know better than to visit your church.?

I am not a pastor or minister. I have no control over my church, that is down to the elders. As it happens, when we took a poll, the majority of the church voted against allowing single-sex marriages and the opinion was that the members share my views, We welcome them to attend with no criticism as long as they do not flaunt or try and encourage homo behavior.

@beaglelady

I assume you publicly condemn gluttony?

Once again I do not see the connection.

Richard

[Bucky_Wood]

@Klax

I don’t recall any prohibition of same sex marriage

I guess details matter, even if we are to pick-nits. So I should have said “same sex relationships”. But of course this issue devolves into hermeneutics. More to my original point, most of us have struggled to reconcile biblical behaviors and demands of the circa-Christ faithful with our convictions and beliefs of today, whether they are about sexual identities, marriage, slavery or even crime. If you allow this as an intellectual issue, one that demands thoughtful consideration, then the quick and easy answers that ignore the dilemma are not instructive. To reduce the philosophical thought process to “truth, spirt, and integrity” may be comforting to us all, but does not address the issue I raised.

[beaglelady]

@RichardG

Once again I do not see the connection.

Gluttony is a sin in the Bible. So is divorce. What do you think?

@RichardG

We welcome them to attend with no criticism as long as they do not flaunt or try and encourage homo behavior.

They probably know they are not welcome.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Bucky_Wood

@Klax

I don’t recall any prohibition of same sex marriage

I guess details matter, even if we are to pick-nits. So I should have said “same sex relationships”. But of course this issue devolves into hermeneutics. More to my original point, most of us have struggled to reconcile biblical behaviors and demands of the circa-Christ faithful with our convictions and beliefs of today, whether they are about … identities, marriage, slavery or even crime. If you allow this as an intellectual issue, one that demands thoughtful consideration, then the quick and easy answers that ignore the dilemma are not instructive. To reduce the philosophical thought process to “truth, spirt, and integrity” may be comforting to us all, but does not address the issue I raised.

Being

what conclusions must we draw from issues clearly proscribed that today are considered in a different light?

I strongly, fundamentally, intellectually, faithfully disagree. The intellectual stands alone. And serves, supports, underpins faith without compromise. It is faith that must therefore bend. Faith in the delusion of the three I’s - inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility - of Bronze Age morality is not faith in Love in Christ. He left all of that Gordian mess behind, nailed up on the Cross. All. As Paul and Junia understood. The Old Covenant, which is the ten commandments, is dead, along with all the other murderous, sexist, racist and other institutionalized, unenlightened evil of civilization’s infancy. We must expand the philosophical thought process to “truth, spirt, and integrity", i.e. to faith, which Evangelicalism utterly refuses to do. Evangelicalism is as cultic as my cult. As incapable of seeing that the Bible is not a flat cookbook.

Nothing in the transcendent New Covenant proscribes working out mature, loving, fair, inclusive, loyal, faithful, tolerant relationships. Absolutely nothing. Certainly not three woefully misunderstood Pauline verses.

The issue you raised is a non issue.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Klax

It is faith that must therefore bend

Does that include your faith?

I am not going to persue single-sex relationships again, having been sidelined by the Moderators, but… and I have been accused of this…

You seem to be discarding anything in the bible that does not fit with your own codes of behaviour or beliefs. I showed you the biblical precedent in Sodom & Gomorrah, take it or leave it.

Richard