h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just in case the whole thing doesn't get into the title, here's the question again:

If the Bible is meant to be taken literally, did Jesus, the Lamb, have wooly hair and four legs with cloven hooves?

This is not meant to be trolling.

I don't expect that anyone will answer "yes" to the above question.

What I am interested in exploring is how people decide where to draw the line between the literal and the figurative in the Bible: whether there are rational bases for the distinctions; whether there is an appeal to authority outside of the Bible; whether it is just a question of what "feels right" to the individual.

I thought it ws "the other guy" who had the cloven hooves?

I would also like to know how people who claim the bible is literal interpret phrases like the lamb of god. What do they think it means to take it literally?

Where do poetry, proverbs and such like fit in?

For non believers like me ordinary language usage and common sense are usually sufficient determinants - which probably means mostly what "feels right", although either of the other two may underlie that feeling.

Noggin

I really do want to try to be impartial in this discussion, at least at the beginning. This doesn't mean I'm going to refrain from making comments, however.

here are my comments so far:

Common sense, it is said, isn't very common. And it seems to me that common sense is yet another can of worms on which there is not going to be agreement.

and

"ordinary language use" becomes complicated when we are referring to an ancient text in multiple translations into multiple languages.

So are you looking for a general "rule of thumb" or a verse by verse analysis?

I've had people tell me that Rome IS the "literal" meaning of the phrase "whore of Babylon" and that no interpretation is involved.

figurative n. representing by a figure; not literal; abounding in figures of speech.

What is the latter to include? or exclude? Perhaps a few examples for people to consider might be a good idea?

Noggin

I'm not looking for a rule of thumb or a verse by verse analyses. I'm just curious about how people feel about where they may stand on the spectrum which runs from "God literally created the world in six days" to "the first week is a metaphor but king David really lived". I once knew someone who said "I don't believe in dinosaurs because they're not in the Bible." Much later, after it was too late, I thought of the question "do you believe in trains?"

My question wasn't looking for anything specific. I'm just interested in how people deal with drawing the line. For me, there isn't a rule of thumb and if asked to do a verse by verse analysis I would have to fly by the seat of my pants.

As far as your aquaintance that said that "Rome is the 'literal' meaning of the phrase 'whore of Babylon'" I'd be interested in learning where that person's idea of the identity of the two came from. After all, there are other "literal" interpretations of the phrase. And, of course, is "Rome" the city, the empire, the church? and how does a person holding the idea of the identity answer such questions.

Maybe it's just going to be an impossible thread and I'm going to regret starting it. We'll see.

This thread could be interesting.

'I once knew someone who said "I don't believe in dinosaurs because they're not in the Bible." Much later, after it was too late, I thought of the question "do you believe in trains?'

I really feel that I should state again that I didn't intend this thread to be a Christian bashing forum. I am wondering about how people interpret their scriptures, how they arrive at their understanding of "truth" about what is said in those scriptures, and more specifically, how they determine when scripture is speaking "literally" and when it is speaking "figuratively" or metaphorically. I've got no axe to grind here: I really am interested in a civil discussion of differences. Not that it really matters, but if it ends up getting nasty, I'll just leave and the thread can carry on without me. I'm really hoping for civil discussion from all sides, though.

First things first. I am an atheist, but I respect other people's right to believe in what they want to believe. Just don't try to convert me. Secondly, I *did* read the Bible before deciding that I couldn't accept its contents as a belief system I could live by.

Thirdly, and moving back to the original question, some of what's in the Old and New Testaments is historically verifiable, even though large chunks of both were written well after the event. But there are also chunks of both that are figurative and, IMHO, not to be taken literally. The creation of the world in 6 days was just an attempt to explain how we got here, with the expulsion from Eden as an explanation of why things aren't perfect. Christ as the 'Lamb of God' is a metaphor for Christ's meekness.

How did I arrive at these verdicts? As I said, I'm not a believer, but I have read some books written by people without a theological axe to grind, and also seen some TV documentaries, which show that certain events in the Bible *could* have happened - although not necessarily in the way the Bible says. (I don't suppose for a moment that the walls of Jericho were knocked down by people walking round blowing trumpets!) My basis for the Bible being figurative is based on personal knowledge (I believe in evolution) and common sense.

One of the main reasons why the Church (and some educated people, for that matter) didn't want the Bible translated into the vernacular was that it would enable the common people to read it and start to form their own opinions. It was thought that only somebody with a religious education had the knowledge to 'interpret' the contents of the Bible and say what it all means. I guess that if it hadn't been translated, we wouldn't be able to have this debate.

Oh, and I'm with anhaga. I'm an atheist but don't believe in Christian-bashing. I also don't believe in Christians bashing people who don't hold their view that the Bible is 'gospel truth'. I will also leave if this thread gets nasty.

My apologies if anything I said above was interpreted as "Christian bashing." That was not my intention. Like Anhaga I am interested in

He also said that he didn't want to open those cans of worms labelled "common sense" and "everyday language use", and I'm not at all sure that the main topic can be accomplished without doing so at some point. Ordinary language use simply IS riddled with figures of speech (like, for example, the phrase 'figure of speech'.) The original question operates at lots of levels, and involves peoples understandings of the way language in general, and religious language in particular, actually works, and their understanding of how the world works - both physically and humanly - and all of this expressed entirely by means of signs and symbols.

Although general conclusions might be established later it does seem that some actual concrete examples of how people interpret specific items of text might serve to show what is at issue.

Noggin

It is always worth looking at the bible stories that get ignored. You never heard them saying much about Lot's daughters in church. The point being that it is what they take literally that is interesting. These things are generally

1. Supporting powerful people. How often do rich people take the sermon on the mount literally?

2. Intolerant and unpleasant. It is just an excuse for nasty people to be nasty.

The world is not certain. It is a design fault. Anybody claiming an exclusive grasp on truth should be treated with the same care as a dog foaming at teh mouth as they are often just as dangerous.

Sorry, Noggin, I didn't mean to imply you were Christian bashing. It was just a thought I had here at the beginning of the discussion.

As far as what common sense is, I simply meant I think it's a term that is completely slippery and personally defined. Was it common sense to the person you spoke of earlier that Rome was the Whore of Babylon? For some people it's common sense that species diverge through evolution, for others its a ridiculous fiction. Does "common sense" just mean "it seems right to me"? It's just me feeling that the terms "common sense" and "everyday language" don't have specific definitions; they mean different things to different people.

As far as examples, well, we've already had a few: Lamb of God, the Genesis creation account, the book of Revelation (why do so many people make it plural?), the identification of Rome with the whore of Babylon. But sure, go ahead with examples.

Okay, I'll address those examples.

The whore of Babylon: I think it does indeed refer to Rome, in this case the Roman Empire. My reasoning is based on the historical circumstances of the time, and a comparison with the the period of the exile in Babylon.

The lamb of God seems obviously figurative to me, as it does to both Anhaga and Cheerful Dragon.

The question with both of these two is what do the literalists take them to mean, or do they just take a *very* wide view of the term literal? (The point I was making earlier)


The Genesis account of creation. This may be taken as 1) Literal and true 2)Literal and false; or 3) A myth. In this instance the question is not what the literal interpretation MEANS, but how we judge its TRUTH.

And a fourth example. Ezekiel 38:3-4

"Thus saith the Lord God; Behold I am against thee, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. And I will turn thee back and put hooks in thy jaws..."

A friend of mine (yes, same friend) insists that this refers to Russia, Moscow and Tobolsk - and again insists that this is literal, not an interpretation. I think it refers to the political situation in Ezekiel's own time, and refers to Gyges king of Lydia. Again my reasons refer to the historical circumstances, coupled with a general disbelief in foretelling of the future.

Here, the problem is less one of truth or meaning, more one of reference.

Noggin

I think we need somebody else in this conversation. We need someone who can explain on what they base their understanding of the Gog and Magog bit. And if it's literal, does it mean that some guy named Gog is going to get hooks put in his jaws? And if not, why not? I hope you see my point: I suspect that even the most devout literalist will agree that certain parts are not strictly literal. I would like to know how such a strict literalist decides what is to be taken strictly literally and what is to be taken as a metaphor. Again, I think we need somebody else to join the conversation.

not that the people presently involved aren't inciteful! I just mean we really need input from someone with a more literalist bent. So far everybody seems to be reading from pretty close to the same page.

A summary of what I feel, but I don't in any way expect it to make sense:

I *am* a Christian. I am also an English student, and therefore trained in metaphor and similie and so forth, and I find this helps me some in my interpretation of scripture. I've found that just about everything can be taken both literally and figuratively - and I have a feeling it was supposed to be that way. However, sometimes the literal borders on the ridiculous, and I think then is the time for personal preference to chime in. As someone said above, a lot of the historical accounts are verifiable - those things meant as history such as the creation may or may not be literally true; as far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter. To take creation as an example, one could claim that the universe was created in 6 days, that humans are descended from two people who were cast out of a garden because they ate some "no-no fruit" (). It may well have been the case, though to modern minds this seems extremely unlikely. On a more metaphorical level, you see creation by a Creator (no matter how long it took), you see humanity being given a choice between eternal life and knowledge and chosing knowledge, causing them to be cast out of paradise (eternal life/oneness with God/etc) and entered into something of a cosmic battle for souls. Now, either way you look at it, whether figurative or literal, you'll get the basic picture of what was intended there, or so I think, and I find it works that way for most things.

I think it helps to put things into perspective of the time they were written and to realize a lot of description (especially in prophecies) is going to be as close as the writer could get to comprehension of what they were seeing.

I think what I'm getting at is that for the most part, things can be taken both ways. Common sense can be used to decide which is the more likely meaning, but seeing both possibilities opens up all sorts of interesting ideas. There are disadvantages to limiting oneself to seeing a religious text as only interpreted literally or only interpreted figuratively. As CS Lewis once said (and this isn't the exact quote), "When Christ said we should be like doves, I doubt he meant for us to sprout wings and lay eggs." It's far wiser to consider all possibilities in my opinion.

Hmm, that one post took me too long to type (multitasking slows things down).

Just reminded of one correction I meant to make- the referral to Christ as a Lamb is not to denote his meekness, but the fact he is a sacrifice. In Jewish custom, lambs were often offered to atone for sins.

Oh, and in my opinion, cities like the the ones you're talking about are used as metaphor. The prophet will probably cite a name in order to denote a city *like* the one he names, and then go on to talk about it as a person. Many literary devices.

didn't sound like a rant to me, Amy. It just seemed reasonable. If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that in many cases it simply comes down to what we've been calling "seems right to me" with a certain degree of reasoning behind the seeming. I've always felt that to be the only reasonable approach. I suspect Martin Luther would have agreed.

I don't know that it's all "feels right to me." I do honestly feel that maybe 99% of things in the Bible can be taken both literally and figuratively. The other 1% hedges on the ridiculous when taken one way or the other (like the dove thing taken literally to the extreme, or trying to argue the phrase "David was king" is only figurative). For me, I only find myself going "it feels right that this should be taken figuratively/literally" if it seems ridiculous to do anything else.

As far as what is the absolute truth, it depends on what the reader him/herself considers truth. Some people need empirical proof. Some people are more lenient. I've always found as much truth in a figurative reading as a literal reading.

but then I'm

A couple of points

If nothing would dissuade a christian about the truth of christianity and the bible then does any of this debate matter? As it is faith and not certainty you are dealing with evidence and proofs seem irrelevant.

Secondly many of my neighbours believe in the literal truth of the koran in which jesus gets the role of minor prophet. Are they wrong? Or are people who believe in other religions? Given the way our world is bahaving at the moment I can't think of anything worse than separate groups of people who are conviced of the absolute certainty and literal accuracy of their religions, and are entirely intolerant to those who are not.