What parts of the Bible do you take metaphorically and literally?

Which interpretation?

The problem is that some interpretations are so far off-base that the only way to treat them is as metaphorical.

The concept, for instance, that the earth was created in six, 24-hour days is messed up, mostly because the earth, whose rotation is the basis for the 24-hour day, didn't exist as an entity for the first few days of the creation. That is further demonstrated by the use of "morning" and "evening" as demarking a 'day' when the Jewish tradition (the source of the Genesis story through Moses, its author) says that a 'day' is from sundown to sundown ('evening' to 'evening' in Genesis language).

The problem really stems from us making our English translation the basis for our beliefs (ignoring the context of the original language and customs) and therefore, much of it must be taken as metaphorical, instead of recognizing that the original did not say what we say is says... LOL

I have no problems with the creation story as I understand it. I see the first chapter of Genesis as a perfect blueprint for creating a habitable planet in a new solar system. In fact, the sequence more or less follows current theory on the formation of new stars and their related systems.

I particularly like the cherry-picking that goes on with certain passages of scripture.

Take the stoning of Stephen as described in Acts. While he was being stoned to death, the historian (traditionally considered to be Luke) reports that Stephen looked into heaven and declared that he saw Jesus Christ standing at the right hand of God (the Father). That sequence blows away the concept of the Trinity (as do several others) and therefore, the only response I got was that Stephen was speaking metaphorically.

Traditional beliefs, more than anything else, determine how people view various passages of the Bible. If a literal interpretation (taking into account the original meanings of the words and the context of the story) does not fit with their doctrines/dogma, then it must be metaphorical.

And people wonder why atheists and agnostics reject religion.

The Bible contains a wide array of literary genre, including poetry, folk tale, narrative, history, wisdom literature, apocalyptic literature, and of course law.

One should interpret each passage as one would interpret any other writing of the same genre. The important thing about interpreting the Bible is this -- read the Bible just as you would any other book.

When you study hermeneutics you learn the first rule, which is to "interpret the Bible by the Bible." A furtherance of that process includes making sure you interpret narrative by the didactic and the obscure passages by those passages that are clear.

Christianity has historically taught that the Bible is God revealed word. The language used is provided to accommodate man's inability to comprehend God on God's own terms, and so it uses normal phenomenological language, the kind we use in everyday speech. We say the sun sets, even though we know it does not set at all. The Bible naturally uses that same form in many instances.

I'll rumple a few of my fellow Christian's feathers with this, but would dare to say that some books are fiction -- not historical narrative, such as the Five Books of Moses, but Job seems very much to be a folk tale -- that's its genre, and although it contains much fascinating discussion of the omnipotence of God, it doesn't seem to fit that the events described actually happened as described. The Bible contains poetry, it also contains fiction. Job is a prime example. This doesn't discredit the Bible, it just shows that the Bible uses many forms to make its points plain.

I find no mythic characteristics in the four Gospels, but a good deal of reported narrative material which we must take great care in interpreting. Certainly the Pauline letters are not metaphor, but are as they seem -- didactic letters from a great teacher of theology.

I think the six days of creation refer to six great ages -- as it is easily shown that there were many different uses of the word "day" even in the first few pages of Genesis.

And God did not cause the sun to stand still for Joshua (obviously the sun is already still, and hailstones killed more enemy than did Hebrew arrows -- so it seems unlike God would interfere with cause and effect in the Heavens on a mere whim). The Hebrew word dom seems to mean the heat of the sun was "silenced" for a day.

You ask a good question. I take the Bible very literally, but I take it for what it is, not what I want it to be.

Oh, and the the great monsters in Job? They are likely not dinosaurs, but more than likely referring to creatures of Ugaritic Myth, much the same way would would talk about Godzilla.

I have no problem taking Jonah literally, however, and certainly do belive in the virgin birth of the Christ Child. Once you posit God (the Supernatural), miracles are not a problem. Accpeting the virgin birth is as easy accepting Genesis 1:1 -- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Once you agree on that, any other miracle -- walking on water or rising from the tomb, become possible -- literally so.

I believe in god and that jesus died for our sins. I do not however, believe in a specific religion. As odd as that sounds. I think that if god wanted us to believe in a specific religon he would tell us. I do not take the bible literally but instead metaphorically. But who knows? things could have been different back then. Some things may seem completely impossible to us because we have grown up in an enviroment which make them sound impossible. Anything could have been possible back then and even before we existed. Instead of being brainwashed by todays customs and "rules" think outside the box and have no regulations on possibilities. Sorry, my answer is basically just an overall opinion of all religon.

I look to tradition for my answer.

The creation account in Genesis was always considered to be largely allegorical, so I take that as allegory.

The story of Jonah and the big fish may or may not have happened; I personally think it's metaphorical, or simply a myth meant to teach a lesson.

The story of Noah and the ark is probably also metaphorical.

Beyond that, I think it's all pretty much literally true, except for the parts that are parables and poetry.

Seems to depend a lot on what branch of Christianity you're part of.

Two categories you could use are "Old Earth", which tend to be a bit more metaphorical, and "Young Earth" (sometimes called "Flood Geology"), which take everything literally.

If anything at all, and I believe it is, the bible is a manual of humanity that was meant to last and be meaningful for centuries. That means that it's all metaphorical. Anything that sounds like it shouldn't be a parable was likely just badly translated. Perhaps it's not clear because it's not SUPPOSED to be clear. Perhaps we're not SUPPOSED to understand it completely.

Whatever claim, when taken literally, will undermine belief, is turned into a metaphor. Maintaining belief is the point not having a sound basis for belief. That's why it's called "apologetics", because truth is not the point.

1) What parts of the Bible do you take metaphorically and literally?

I take literally everywhere **except**

* where the bible itself indicates otherwise

* where metaphor is indisputable (e.g. "I am the vine, you are the branches")

Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

if you're a christian you are only to take the bible literally

and only literally...

if you take it metaphorically that means you do not believe that it is the true word of god

atheist..

Literally: there is a time for everything

Metaphorically: the "virgin" birth. its just too far fetched for me