This has been discussed many times on the Cafe.  But you are new here - welcome, we're glad you came - so I will give my answer:

No, it is not intended to be taken literally.  Oh, some part of it might be, but most is made up of story, poetry, metaphore, vision.  It contains some history but is not intended to be a history book.  It contains some literature.  It contains some geneology that was probably of great interest to the families involved at the time but can be rather boring now (just as the geneology of my family that I am assisting my sister with is probably very boring to outsiders). 

The Bible was written by many people over a long period of time.  Some things that were important then don't matter much now.  ie  it has detailed laws about who is responsible and what should be done if your ox falls in a pit that the neighbour has dug, or if you ox gores another ox, or a person.  But it doesn't say one thing about if your automobile scratches or dents another in a shared driveway or parking lot.

Many of the stories in the Bible were passed down over years, perhaps over centuries, in an oral tradition before being written down.  Sometimes different tribes or geographic areas developed different versions of the same story.  Later when these people came together, their stories were combined.  The Bible story of the Flood (Noah and the Ark) contains elements of several different stories (also discussed before on the Cafe).

Sometimes writings from different people, at different periods of time, were put together in a single scroll or book.  Later people came to refer to that book as though it had a single author.  The Book of Isaiah is a good example.  A prophet named Isaiah living in Judah urged the people to change their ways because if they didn't they would be conquered by a foreign power.  Half way through the book, the tone changes and careful reading will show that it was written much later, after Judah had been conquered and destroyed and the people deported.  The final chapters seem to have come from a third source (or sources).

I would say that the Bible contains truth, but it is not factual.  It is not a history book.  It is not a list of rules.  It is inspired, but it was not dictated by God.  It is not, and never was, intended to be taken literally.  Seriously?  yes.  Leterally? no.

What seeler said. Telling stories involves a lot of imagery and it always has. Those who take the Bible literally might say that Aesops fables have nothing to do with morality because animals don't talk. Of course, we don't consider Aesops fables the Word of God, so that wrench can easily get thrown into this argument. What I mean to say is that using imagery to convey important moral truths has been popular with humans in different cultures for many years. I believe that those who wrote the Bible were trying to convey the truths that they new in a form that they believed would speak to others best.

seeler is teh smrt.

Which ones?

Here, free book for you:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

.

I believe there is much that can be taken literally in the Bible, along with much that  cannot be or should not be.

There is much that is historical, archaelogical discoveries may find the Bible among the main literary references that they existed. There is also much that is not historical.

One needs look no further than actual history textbooks to find that "to the victor goes the spoils" often included recorded history. Even history textbooks can fail where accuracy is concerned. James W Loewen wrote a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" that showed how inaccurate and biased history can be.

Add to that, what we think is history...Columbus certainly did not "discover" America and he never thought the earth was flat. Washington Irving wrote about a flat earth it and it became part of the "history" of Columbus. Sir Isaac Newton never told an apple story, someone did about 50-60 years later and it stuck. Washington and that cherry tree, Franklin a kite and a key in a thunderstorm .... certainly historical people, but the stories around them may not be.

I believe that one must discern what is meant as literal, historical, metaphorical, allegorical...

I'm in a Masters program and really don't have much time to read books other than those required for my courses. Just give me a few examples for goodness sake. Are there Cole's notes for this unbiased book?

People who do not believe in the authenticity of the bible, is their argument with me because I believe the bible to be true or are they questioning the integrity biblical writes, and those who have translated it over the ages. I do not know the names of those who translated the bible’s down though the years but the authors who wrote it are clear. Take Peter, Paul ,John Mark ,Luke, Mathew and others did they not research what they wrote. Did they not approach it through pray and understanding.

Were they not careful in what they wrote. Or did the just make up the stories, adding here and there to make them more interesting. If they did I would say they failed by the amount of people who do not believe them. Would any one be willing to take them to court for being untruthful.

A person once told me that the Bible explains how the sprit and physical worlds interact. For one who does not or is unable to believe in sprits, will have a very difficult time with the Bible. There are things that I am unable to understand but that does not mean it did not happen.

What is written is a permanent record of what was said or done. And to question it one would have to go back to the original writer and ask them.

Nope, and nope.

The writers are not particularly clear.  We don't know who Mark was, or Matthew, or Luke.  We know of A Mark, A Matthew, and A Luke, but we don't know for sure that the ones we know of are the ones who wrote (Luke is probably true, though).  For one thing, it was very common at that time for the students of a teacher to write what the teacher said, and then put the teacher's name on it.  That alone raises some serious concerns.  The scriptures are a frequently amended and changed record of what several people wrote down many years later.  None of those who wrote were thinking that they were writing an unbiased history, either.  They were arguing their case, seeking to bring people to faith, not presenting a neutral account.

And there are lots of ways to question to text without time travel.  We can compare various parts of the text to each other.  we can compare the text to other secular sources of the time.  We can compare the text to the historical record.  We can use the methods of literary criticism to analyse the writing.  Heck, we can even use our own brains, creativity, and inspiration.

We don't really know much about the writers of the Gospels. Most scholars agree that the people whose names the Gospels bear were not the writers. Considering that it is highly unlikely that the disciples could read or write at all, that conclusion is not surprising.

Moreover, how could we draw conclusions regarding the writers aapproach, if we don't even know who the writers are? Furthermore, since we don't have the original manuscripts, or even any close to original manuscripts, we have no way of knowing how theose intents may have changed over the years.

Literalism is a fairly recent phenomena in Christianity. before that there was no question that much of the Gospels may have been illustrative as much as reality based. Which was which did not seem to be very important to Christians, until the rise of literalism in recent times.

Do you really want to go there? Fallacy of popularity goes both ways. Are you seriously trying to say that the Bible is true BECAUSE of how many people don't believe it? Puh-leese.

Furthermore, the "court" fallacy is also old news. The fact is that if you took the Bible to court to have it declared "truth", it would be thrown out for lack of evidence.

Fallacy of false dichotomy. There are billions of people who believe in the sspiritual, but don't believe in the literality of the Bible. Most Christians even do not believe in the literality of the Bible.

Fallacy of begging the question. It also does not mean that it did happen.

Actually, what is written is what some people believe is a permanent record of what was said or done. It is also what some people believe illustrates a concept the autheor was trying to convey. It is also what some other people believe is mythology, for which the facts have become lost over time. It is also what still other people believe is fiction.

If you seriously want to declare that it is actual historical records with perfect accuracy, you'll need to come up with some actual objective evidence to show it. Considering that apologeticists have been trying to come up with such evidence for 1640 years, and have thus far completely failed, you've got your work cut out for you.

Nice try. Actually to prove it literal one would have to go back to the original writer and ask them. The burden of proof lies on the one cliaming literal veracity, not on the one who questions it. The default position for any claim is unproven, which is what your claim is presently at. if you have any proof to present, please do.

Oh and by proof, I don't mean the same old apologist crap that has been dealt with a hundred times before.  I'm referring to actual, verifiable, objective evidence.

I won't be holding my breath.

seeler/RevMatt

Absolutely-right on.

Shalom

Mate

"God is a thought, God is a name, God is an idea, but its reference is to something that transcends all thinking. The ultimate mystery of being is beyond all categories of thought. The best things can’t be told because they transcend thought. The second best are misunderstood because those are the thoughts that are supposed to refer to what can’t be thought about. The third best are what we talk about and a myth is that field of reference, metaphors referring to what is absolutely transcendent. What can’t be known, or can’t be named, except in our own feeble attempt to clothe it in language. And the ultimate word in our language for that which is transcendent is God."

--J.Campbell

freckleballek,

here are some rhetorical questions for you to munch on:

1) do the Bible's words have meaning without anyone to read them?

2) where do the words in the Bible get their meaning from?

3) what does it mean to sit in a chair? is there really something called a 'chair', in that there is some inherent 'chairness' in the chair? what traits does a chair have/not have? if I break the leg off of a chair, is it still a chair?

Procreative,

Inannawhimsey

A good book to read is "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman.   Finkelstein is recognkized as the top archaeologist in Israel.

Many parts of the OT and especially the Pentateuch were passed on as oral tradition for centuries.  It was finally written down during the Babylonian Exile.  Much of the rest of the OT is midrashim.  That was a style of writing the ancients used in which important former events were used to define or present newer events.  It was also a style of interpretation.  For example the story of Joshua crossing the Jordan on dry land was written using the Reed Sea story as its basis.  This was to show how important the story was.

Now for some of the stories that are not historical as written.  The exodus ne ver happened as written.  In all probability it arose out of the story of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta.  There is not one shred of evidence that the exodus happened as written.  It may have stemmed from the expulsion of a few hundred people or even just a family.

Joshua did not bring down the walls of Jericho.  At the time Joshua was supposed to have lived Jericho was an abandoned derelict city.

It is known that David existed but his kingdom was never as large as that described.  The story is well imbellished.  David was a local war lord.

The story of Adam and Eve is a borrowed story, a myth, from Sumeria.

The Noah story is a combination of a couple of stories and it to was borrowed.  It is a best a legend.

The story of Ruth is a short story, a work of fiction.

However, to say that since these stories are fables and are unimportant is to fail to understand the nature and purpose of gthe ancient writings.  Something does not have to be historically accurate to present truth.  Truth can be presented in many ways.  Any good teacher can tell you that.  This idea that a story had to be historically accurate to be true is a fallacy arising from the enlightenment.

Now to the New Testament.  A good book to read here is "The First Christmas" by Borg and Crossan.  The Christmas story is not historical it is basically midrash.  All that it has to say comes out of the OT.  It was designed to present truth not history.  The Christmas story is a later addition to the writings.  This was done to fill in the birth of Jesus. 

The gospels were written from oral stories, history remembered and history metaphorized.  The followers of Jesus had decided as a result of their experience of Jesus of Nazareth that he was indeed the Messiah.  Having decided this they then went to the OT and sought out prophesies they thought could be applied and wrote the story up as such.  None of this denies the historicity of Jesus or that he was indeed the Messiah.  It was and is the nature of midrash.

Do not ask did this really happen this way but what did it mean then and what does it mean for us today.  Look for truth not history.

Shalom

Mate

Inanna

Excellent quote and good post.

Shalom

Mate

Hi freckleballek:

Yes, I would say that God is a metaphor, but I wouldn't say that IT is just a metaphor.

God is a metaphor for the transcendental quality or innate creativity of the natural universe.

It seems to me that any language we use to define or describe the Divine has to be and is metaphor.  We do not have the language capability to otherwise.

Shalom

Mate

Thank you, Mate. It seems I'm a bit of a Campbell fan. He started me on delving into Myth...

Emerson called language fossil poetry. Words were made to describe the essentially indescribable, taking a snapshot, a cut-down part of the Whole...and then, over time, these words can mutate.

So, one of the root words for the English verb, 'to be', comes from the Indo-European word which meant 'lost in the forest'.

So, I say, all words are metaphor.

All perceptions are choices, best-guesses.

We desperately want things to be, when they only probably are, or are not at all.

And these fossil poems with their sheer weight continue to influence us and the world.

Calling us to co-create,

Inannawhimsey

Yes, Inanna, all words are metaphors, calling us to co-create.

In the beginning was the word,

The word was Odin,

Odin was poet.

Mate

You offer two books to read, which you must consider factual and true. In two thousand years what who would you say to someone who says the books do not tell the truth.

Fred

Truth is indeed very illusive.  It could be as you suggest or otherwise.  However, for now it seems to me they are heading in the right direction.  These books are based on years of study, research and scholarship.  Could they be wrong?  Yep they could but for now I am satisfied with them and that is based on years of study and research.  Could I be wrong?  Yep, I could be.

Shalom

Mate

The simple answer to the literal Bible question is No. Why bother pontificating on such a question? It's worn out.

Is God then a metaphor? A more critical question. My opinion would be yes, for now, but later the meaning of the metaphor will likely be revealed if we are conscious enough to see the revelation. Most of our language is metaphoric, standing for some concept of idea, so there is no reason why the word "God" would not be the same.

So much of the struggle about what is real and what is not, I find tiresome. All that is real for me is experiential. If I experience God, It is real; if I don't it is not. The Bible has little to do with it. It is not autobiographical and therefore cannot be correct.

Well, now you are telling Mate to put his books up to a level of scrutiny that they may have already survived against. Archaeology is a social science, and while it is risky at times, when done right it can be very trustworthy.

And also, I don't think Mate is saying that the bible is wrong, I think he is arguing that it was not meant to be read literally (at the parts where things happen that are quite obviously fictional). Have you ever heard of Midrash?

Rev Matt

Could you give me your opinion on what the writers say, Jesus Said. Did they quote Him correctly in the Bible?

That's a hugely broad question.  The short answer is - sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Fred, based on the fact that the gospels were written long after Jesus was dead, and based on the fact that the apostles were not literate, and therefore probably didn't go around recording what he said like Plato did to Socrates, I would assume that none of what Jesus actually says in the bible is a quotation. It may be accurate to what he taught, but I think it's very safe to say that none of it is quotes of what he actually said.

Actually, all of the Old Testament, and probably some of the New Testament as well, was written as "midrash," and meant to be discerned as such.

Not fiction in the modern sense of the word, midrash is nevertheless metaphorical. It points so the sacred truths in a literary way, much like the sacred stories of other cultures and religions, and is meant to be discerned rather than taken literally. And our discernment of the biblical stories evolves along with our growth in knowledge and wisdom.

Literal interpretation of the Bible is a fairly recent phenomenon, a counter-reaction against science, which doubted religious truths when it emerged at the beginning of our modern age.

It's to be taken, not literally, but internally.

More to the point Fred, what would you say to someone who insists, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, that their sacred text, far from being a rich tapestry illustrating a multi-millennial journey of faith, was little more than a shallow story that required a suspension of all modern scholarship to believe?

For me, that is what the literalists' insistence on the historical "truth" of the Bible amounts to - a gutting of the faith that I find in it, cover to cover - to be replaced by kindergarten recitation and childish understanding.

Anyone who tries to make God into some magician who conjured up the world (young or old, I don't care), who relishes bloody vengence (whether one calls it "redemption" or anything else), and who decides from the outset that most of Creation, far from being "good" is so bad that it needs to not just be thrown out but burned for eternity, does a violence to my faith that, quite frankly, makes my blood boil. (In case that wasn't clear in the context of my post).

David

oh you diplomat you. Bah.

Wouldn't that involve eating One's words?

I am in general agreement with the posts above.  I take the Bible seriously but I do not take the Bible literally.

I am in the process of reading "The First Christmas" by Borg and Crossan and it is an excellent example of midrash and well worth the read.  They are able to show where the events in the story came from in the OT.

Shalom

Mate

Like any good medicine, eh, Mike?

How do you know the Apostles were illiterate?

Arminus could you please explain the word "midrash" to me.

Looking it up in my dictionary I had to look up two words.

Mid meaning middle

Rash means without due deliberation and caution or undertaken with to little reflection.

Do you mean it to be use as ,

1. In the middle of being well deliberated over and reflected on and not deliberated or reflected on.

2. In the middle of little deliberation and little reflection on

Hi Fred:

"Midrash" is a Hebraic and perhaps even Aramaic term refering to the literary way of writing and discerning sacred scripture.

The OT in particular was written as midrash, and was meant to be interpreted as midrash. It would not have occured to the ancient Hebrews to interpret their sacred scriptures literally, as little as would occur to other "primitive" cultures to interpret their sacred stories literally.

To take scripture literally is a peculiar phenomenon of modern-day Christian fundamentalism, and perhaps Judaic and Islamic fundanemtalism as well, and probably is a backlash against modern science, which seems to deny ancient religious truths.

Assuming that the apostles had the jobs that they were said to have had in the gospels, I forget which, but only two had any possibility of being  literate. One was the former tax-collector. I forget who the other was. And when you consider that Jesus attracted (for the most part) the poor and not the rich, it would be safe to conclude that he had few literate followers (beyond the apostles).

And since you bring this line of questioning up, how do you know that Jesus was literally risen from the dead? How do you know that he literally turned water into wine? How do you know that he walked in a desert for 40 days and actually saw Satan, and not an haloucination (or that the encounter even happened at all, whether real or haloucinated)?

At that time in history, and in fact for many hundreds of years to come, practically everyone was illiterate.Harris (Ancient literacy: William V. Harris Harvard University Press, 1989) esttimates that literacy in Greece, probably the most literate country on the area at the time of Christ) at the time was between 5 and 10 percent. Estmates of Egypt at the time, the site of the world's largest library, range from 3 to 5 percent (Baines 1983; Baines/Eyre 1983; Lesko 2001). Reading and writing were skills that were not required by the vast majority of peasants artisans and tradespeople, and thus it was not taught. Along with the lack of need, there simply was nothing to read. Without priniting presses, everything to be read had to be copied painstakingly by hand. In Jesus time, the only thing to read would be the scrolls in the tabernacle, perhaps only one copy in all but the largest of cities.

The lack of literacy is also evidenced by the existence of a particular trade  whose only function was to read and write, the scribes. These were people who you paid to do your reading and writing for you, in the rare event that you required it, such as for complex contraacts and such. Once the printing press was invented, the guilds of scribes died. Until then, and particularly in Jesus' time, Scribes occupied a very high status in society due to their skill in doing what no one else could. They could read.

Well your biggest problem here is that you went to your dictionary. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but in this day and age, use the friggen internet. Wikipedia has an article on midrash that you can use as a start. There should be plenty of other resources out there that you can use if you find that article to be lacking anywhere.

Are you being deliberatly obtuse? Or are  you simply ignorant of the fact that you need a Hebrew dictionary to look up Hebrew words?

Mashing together two similar sounding small words from an English dictionary to try to define an unrelated word in another language is patently ridiculous.

1) Still an assumption.

2) I have faith (I know, it's a dirty word). Can you have faith that someone is illiterate. Do the gospels say that the Apostles were illiterate? At least the gospels I believe testify about Jesus. We can read what Jesus said and did. I believe that caliming that the Apostles were illiterate is just another way people try to discount what the Bible says...ESPECIALLY about Jesus Christ.

Witch. But that still is based on assumption, is it not? I mean, it's ancient history and there is no way to prove or test history in the same sense we can for science.

It's a conclusion based on evidence and probability. It's also an assumption that less than 1% of ancient Hebrews knew how to build a nuclear reactor, but that's where my money would go. In this case, it's not a 50/50 guess. To discount a logical conclusion because we don't like what that might mean to our beliefs is hardly a logical position. Claiming that the conclusion drawn by respected scholars and historians is merely a biased attempt to discredit the Bible due to some agenda against Christianity is a much bigger assumption, which is not based on any particular evidence that I can see.

To assume that some fishermen from the slum province of Galillee knew how to read and write is so far outside the probability of what we know that it is hardly worth considering.

PS

it is a science(s). It's called anthropology and archeology.

Hi Freckleballek,

Is the Bible meant to be taken literally?

Is it metaphorical?

Read the ten commandments.

Read the Sermon on the Mount.

Read the story of the Good Samaritan

Read Jesus' proclamation that a key rule in right living is to treat your neighbour the way you want to be treated.

Read the miracle of the loaves and fishes.  Not for the miracle part, but for the part where Jesus says, "They don't need to leave," when referring to hungry people.

If you read these and so many passages like them, passages that point you to living a life of caring, love and compassion in a cold, dark world, you might find yourself answering the question of literal vs. metaphorical with another question - who cares?

God bless,

The problem my friend is that faith is not a dirty word for most of us. That's why the misplaced attempt to don the martyr hat simply doesn't work.

cf, although we seldom see eye to eye, I respect the sincerity with which you hold your position. So I hope that you'll take the following as its intended - in the spirit of discussion.

What you and others don't seem to understand is that when you make statements like the one above you're not defending your faith. You're simply, totally, unequivocally destroying any shred of credibility you may have had. Read witch's argument. (there are others. His is succinct and without hyperbole). It is based on logical, reasonable, historically accurate scholarship.  Scholarship that's verifable against other sources and other study of the Middle East in the first century. When your response to this type of scholarship is, in effect, "you're just saying that cause you hate Jesus", you don't damage witch's credibility. You simply make yourself look like a child sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting lalala to drown out something he doesn't want to hear.

It does absolutely nothing to strengthen the case for Christianity. You would be amazed at the number of people who, before I can say anything to about Christianity, I have to convince that we're not all nutbars like ibby. All because they make statements that are so patently preposterous that people just roll their eyes and move on.

I've seen enough of your posts to, I think, reasonably conclude that you're capable of following a Christianity that doesn't require you to believe the moon is made of green cheese.

Be Well

David

Now THAT, ny friend, deserves a hearty AMEN.

doh. duplicate

1) Really. Are you still throwing the martyr hat accusations around? Where have I worn that here? Faith is a dirty word for atheists. Ask them. Faith is not allowed. It was the athesists that I was addressing that post to.

2) Scholarship and research are tricky things when we are talking about history is it not?  Archeology and anthropology are "soft sciences" are they not? Interpretation is often left wide open, unlike say, physics or chemistry. If I am wrong let me know.

3) Yes. The Christianity I follow tells me that the moon is not made of green cheese.  It tells me that God created it billions of years ago.

ah, too sad for words cf. No one can let you know you're wrong because you refuse to hear. But so be it my friend, so be it.

Be Well

David

killer_rabit79/witch

In your terms I would be classified as illiterate. Spell check on the computer helps me greatly. My school years were not easy for me (1946-1957) I was unable to finish grade 12. Even though I wanted to badly. Reading and writing were the subjects that held me back. After school I found electronics easier and worked on aircraft all my working years. I am now 70. Reading and writing held me back in my trade, I was unable to advance at far as my technical ability would have allowed even though I worked to improve. I had to rely on my dictionary my whole life.

For criticizing me for asking a definition of a word is feeling less. I thank Arminus for taking the time to explain it.

Hi Fred. Sometimes the discourse here gets a bit rough and tumble. Don't take it too much to heart.  Actually, your comment about literacy makes a good point. As you have first hand knowledge, it is not something that always comes easily, and the modern (very modern actually) assumption of universal literacy is something that becomes a stumbling block for many people studying Scripture. Because they start from the belief that it can be understood as a simple historical text with no subtleties, they end up thinking that someone actually wrote down word for word what Jesus said - or witnessed the walls of Jericho come tumbling down and the sun stand still in the sky.

Much as it pains me to say it, there were some good reasons why the priests in most faiths, including early Christianity, were opposed to the average person reading sacred text. We didn't understand how "myth" could reveal truth, or how "midrash" could reveal a God more subtley than just "history" could.