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

Faith & Science Conversation
61

I think your reasoning here is confused at best.

No, but it was originally aimed at them. How could it possibly include modern thought and understanding?

But the truth is still available to today if you take into account the culture and understanding of those days. To just read it and expect it to apply in the same way is ridiculous.
For instance, there has been discussion about slavery. Do Paul’s comments about slave and master just get discarded? Or can we re-apply them to dynamics of Employer and employee, or leader and subjects? (The answer is yes, of course)

Not as a mediator, but maybe as an interpreter.

So you accept interpretation and adaption as far as science is concerned. Why is science different from any other concept or understanding?

in the present or the future? Christ does not save us from a car accident. And any concept of Heaven/Hell or any sort of afterlife is rooted in religion. Matthew’s Kingdom of God was almost certainly earth, not Heaven.

God’s slavation must be based on a futre of God’s making. IOW if Hell exists then God’s salvation must be from it. If Hell does not exist then Christ’s death becomes salvation from the consequences of death, be it good or bad. People are afraid of death because it is the unknown rather than a specific blessing or curse. All Christians are offering is comfort that there is more to life and that God is the master of it. Universalism is based on the human dislike of continued suffering, which, as I have said elswhere may not be a part of the actual Heaven and Hell. It may be that in terms of saftey there is no difference, only the state of mind at its conception.

Not going there. if you want to thrash it out perhaps this is another pm job.

Richard

62

Marvin, there was so much in this post of yours that I would dispute that it would not be practical to do so, Suffice it to say I cannot see why you are claiming that miracles must be some sort of magic, or deception, rather than a reality that you cannot measure.
Christians tend not to try and think beyond the event. Understanding or debunking miracles is not part of the Christian remit. They just accept them at face value. It is left to the skeptics and the non-believers to assess them rationally and use the results as justification for their positions.

Richard

63

As a confessed atheist you cannot claim this. If you do not believe in the Holy Spirit then you cannot judge either Him or any results you might perceive.
Suffice it to say that just because someone claims Holy Spirit guidance does not mean they actually have it. Other verifications like consensus and experience come into play.

I might claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit (actually I do) but the proof is still in the fruits as Christ puts it, not the claim. Sometimes we ignore it! (Or do not recognise or acknowledge it)

Human vanity and frailty are not justification for dismissing God or His guidance mechanism.

Richard

64

Sola Scriptura is an idea that comes from the reformation. It means that the ultimate source of doctrine comes from Scripture, not from any tradition. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches both have “Sacred Tradition” which they esteem as highly as they do Scripture.
(The two “Sacred Traditions” do no totally agree: e.g. the RC Church has Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, but the EO church does not.)

The Anglican Book of Common Prayer clearly explains:

HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

1 Like
65

The problem comes when sola scriptura is claimed upon things that the bible does not claim authority over or even has knowledge of. Science is obviously one area, but I have heard some doozies including what music I can listen to, clothes I can wear or person I can go out with.

Richard

66

Since the Bible didn’t exist two thousand years ago, I don’t see how that could be. If you mean various books and letters then yes they were written to the people of the times by those human authors. But I think there is another author involved and a more timeless message which is not so dependent on the culture of those times.

Certainly translators are needed. But no I don’t think the revisions of those who want to replace the content of the Bible with own message is needed.

Science simply reveals the objective evidence sent to us from the earth and sky by God Himself rather than from the opinions of sinful human beings.

In their own lives. That is where the concept of salvation comes from. Just because the threats to their well being changes doesn’t change the concept.

I do think an important question is, “who or what are they being saved from?” It is a bizarre distortion of Christianity that many think they are being saved from God, which would make their Christianity into a protection racket.

So you don’t believe in the resurrection? And you don’t think human sin is involved in these accidents? Because I would not say that…

I don’t accept your authority on the matter of the concepts in the heads of people other than yourself. Besides the concept in the head of Matthew is not something which greatly concerns me. Matthew is not the mediator between God and man any more than you are.

The future on the Earth has never been all that much of God’s making but mostly our own. I certainly believe God has participated but our response to Him has been somewhat lacking.

The existence of hell is a certainty because we can see it on the earth and Christ’s death is an example of it. It is of our own making. Salvation is of God’s making and Christ’s resurrection is an example of that.

People are afraid of death for many reasons.

  1. It is a biological imperative.
  2. Because their spirit is dead.
  3. They suspect their sins cannot be escaped so easily.
  4. There is usually an extension of the fear of loss of loved ones to oneself, though I suppose this can also be a Narcissistic terror of a universe where they do not exist.

Otherwise besides the suffering in the event of death, those who don’t believe there is anything afterwards don’t have much to fear because there is no reason to fear nothing.

You see Christians as offering that do you? LOL

What about the Pharisees? Did they not teach the resurrection? Do you think that Jesus saw the Pharisees as offering comfort that there is more to life?

Indeed. And so they would have God force people to shape up in order to eliminate that discomfort. Likewise annihilationism would have God euthanize people for the same reason. But I certainly don’t see God doing either of these things with people on the earth, so I doubt God does these things afterwards either. I don’t think either is very realistic anyway.

67

I am sorry but I can’t keep breaking down your argument the way you did mine. We will not only be here all week but it will completely dominate and wreck the thread.

We are so far removed from each other we wil have to agree to differ however.

I was using my knowledge of Biblical criticism and I have yet to see yours.
(Ad hominem be damned)

And I never called Matthew a mediator. I was referring to the way he begins most of the parables with “the kingdom of Heaven is like this…”

You convoluted other stuff but, like I said, I am not going to go through it here.

Suffice it to say you have some far out views about both Heaven and Hell let alone life on earth.

Richard

68

I am aware of it. It was addressed at seminary where I got my masters of Divinity. But I don’t think a great deal of it. Most of the arguments looked pretty thin to me.

Yep. So when I criticize this idea of needing an interpreter, that includes myself – to deny that my interpretations have any more authority just because of my own studies at seminary.

No you talked like we should think whatever Matthew thought for some reason. And I don’t buy into this tactic of projecting things into the heads of these authors in order to rewrite the Bible.

I’d much rather hear that than… you are parroting same old same nonsensical stuff religionists always keep pushing like good little Xtian robots.

69

I gave a thumbs up on your post, but I would modify this one part for it conflicts with John 5:39. So I would say instead that the Bible is the only authority given by God for the Christian religion.

I would also add that Sola Scriptura is following the same principle behind why we have written laws. Authority in the hands of sinful human beings and their organizations are too easily biased or even corrupted.

70

Not exactly. No one was getting a license to play fast and loose with intepreting Scripture. The principals that are expressed by those two words are these:

  1. Scripture holds authority over the church and its leaders, This was a corrective to the Roman Catholic tradition and practice. A continuation of the “discussion” with earlier Christian writers was part of the process of understanding Scripture.
  2. Scripture teaches everything needed for salvation. No supplementation was needed by the church in the forms of rituals or sacrements. This was in conflict with the teachings of the Catholic church.
  3. Any person could study Scripture him or herself and descover the way of salvation, although there may be parts of Scripture that are still unclear without the help of historical and/or linguistic information.

I referred to this brief article, which does a good job of fleshing out the details.

71

Who decides on the interpreting principles? Why should anyone follow the principles you quoted? Problem with Protestants is that “the real meaning” is just someone’s opinion, there is no ultimate guide on whether that opinion, that interpretation is correct.

72

There are sincere Christians who believe they have the Holy Spirit who are young earth creationists. Are they right? They interpret the Bible as teaching young earth creationism, and the theory of evolution, in their mind, contradicts revealed will of God.

1 Like
73

I think I covered this above

The problem with including consensus in verification is that sometimes there can be more than one person who has come to a false conclusion. That is just an extension of the above, and part of humanity and the system as a whole. Otherwise, everyone would hold identical views,.Like the notion that it is the difference in views that makes horse races. Without diversity of thought we would be automitons processing evrything the same.

Richard

74

Yep sola scriptura can and has been twisted, misused, and abused. So has the Bible. So has Christianity. So has science, and drugs, and… and… and…

Which is why we speak up about what it originally meant and how can be understood in a good and meaningful way.

1 Like
75

as I promised to continue:

When it comes to the appearance of ghosts, it is possible to conjure apparitions in people which we understand better why this happens https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982214012123 and having experienced auras I can understand what those experiences can do to you. The interesting thing here here is more what the story is telling us.

When it came to matters of reproduction and magic babies it appears things of that nature were taken quite seriously. After all, they killed people that had unsanctioned sex - let alone babies.

Another example that is worthy of interpretation is the first miracle of Jesus at the wedding in Canaan. “Sola Scriptura” at its best, as the way you interpret this story shows reveals what God you pray to and where your values lie. Is it materialism or spiritualism, is it philosophical understanding of the message or the willing interpretation of fake reality governed by our wishful thinking. Whilst this might sound a harsh judgement, the interpretation of the story results in a clear statement of ones value scale and ones relationship to God.

Does the text say that the water that became wine become physically alcohol or does it convey to you the message that this water was understood to be the more valuable than any wine you could ever drink. After all, it was the water sanctified for ritual purification, e.g. that which could make you clean as to approach the table of the Lord. Would Jesus as you understand him have defiled that water for the sake of impressing his followers? Would you as a potential follower of Christ - knowing what his instructions were - have followed him for performing an act of magic, admiring his power of deception to hide the fact that the groom was not rich enough to serve a greedy crowd who came to get drunk instead of celebrating a wedding, or would you follow him because he managed to stun the crowd by challenging their values serving them the cleanest of waters instead, combined with a lecture of honesty not to pretend wealth and shaming them for their greed. It might explain why he was responding so harshly to his mothers request. The choice is ours to read from the scripture what we think it says, as we are given free will to do so. You can probably tell how I read it :slight_smile:

1 Like
76

Wow I have never read such a convoluted attempt at exegesis in my life.

The wedding at Cana…
Jesus was reluctant to do anything at all but was persuaded to by his mother, why? because it was part of his extended family who were being embarrassed. So he chooses the most convenient materials. There would appear to be no reason other than they were there and could hold a lot of water. That they were used for ceremonial washing was nothing more than an explanation of why they were both there and why they were large. I have heard of people concentrating on the ceremonial significance of the water, but it is not part of the traditional understanding.
Most miracles in the Buble are taken at face value in terms of whether they occurred or not. They are part of the genre. A miracle is supposed to be physically impossible, That was the point for the Bible, there is no need to explain or debunk them for theological purposes. Jesus had mastery or authority over the physical elements of the world. That is the point of all the miracles. But most people were not even aware (or even cared) that it had happened. They just drank it! Mary did not need to know, she knew because she knew what Jesus was capable of, the disciples were suitably amazed and started to understand what Jesus was capable of.

Yes.

There is no ambiguity.

Richard

77

@Trippy_Elixir, as in the Tower of Babel topic, you’re asking the wrong, typical historical-grammatical question. All of the Bible is metaphoric - just look at those synonyms, regardless of what scant, if any, literal, factual, historical, correlated, disinterested, objective parts, reportage. One must start by dumping the intellectually useless historical-grammatical method and love God with our WHOLE mind. As He commands.

78

Thank you for sharing your understanding of and insights into Sola Scriptura.

1 Like
79

For me personally I don’t struggle with accepting the supernatural.

Take the already mentioned story of Jesus and wine. I believe the story is clearly stating Jesus turned the water into wine. Nothing was defiling. Alcohol is not evil. Water is not righteous.

Though I presented multiple options for the birth of Christ and I meant it when I said it could be anyone of them and not affect my faith , I still land on this one.

God supernaturally broke all the natural laws and brought the old myths into reality. Through the power of the Holy Spirit Mary got pregnant and gave birth to her son. I believe this son supernaturally , “ magically “ healed the sick instantly, cast out supernatural beings that are our enemies that were able to possess someone’s mind, and that he have this superpower to 11 of his original apostles and then to Paul and it died out with them. Thusly along the development of this story the son of god was murdered, and then his spirit came back to his corpse and it resurrected and he left this world, and possibly dimension behind and went to be with his father and that at some point everyone who was saved throughout time will be brought back self aware.

I’m ok that all of it sounds stupid. The Bible sounds stupid. Believing in Jesus, Yahweh, the story of Moses and ect is stupid. You will always sound stupid to the secular world explaining your faith no matter how much to try to dress it up unless you ultimately just say it’s all one big metaphor and not real. I think many struggle with knowing the world thinks they are dumb since we don’t want to appear dumb after all like the science deniers…. We are warned repeatedly we will appear foolish to the world and its true. Genre and accommodation , mistranslations and so on all play a role in how i view what’s being told. But science does not direct my faith in as far as accepting something miraculous.

1 Like
80

I tried to find a scientific explanation and i couldn’t really find one, well one for turning 20 to 30 gallon jugs of water into wine.