If the Bible is metaphorical then perhaps so is the God of the Bible

For one thing, most who become Christians do so for a practical reason- because they have experienced a personal change for the better in someone else, a change that they quite often find difficult to explain. So the claimed source of that change, the Bible, becomes for them a source of interest, and in time becomes validated by 'the proof of the pudding', the eating of said 'dessert'. Let us call that personal experience Factor A.Now, as the Bible itself indicates, Christian faith may be considered futile unless there was a real person called Jesus who was raised from the dead to give hope for an afterlife. There is nothing in the Bible to give indication that Jesus was a fictional character, as is very obvious with literary (?) characters such as Bugs Bunny, a rabbit that talks. Now nobody takes that character's speech as a miracle, not even young children, who do not either expect their own pet rabbits to talk (ok, so you did). But turning water into wine, that could 'happen' where the Pink Panther is around, is meant to be an actual event, a miracle, when Jesus is around. So one is supposed to take that account literally, otherwise there is no point to it. That does not mean that the account is true; just that the author evidently intended the event to be considered miraculous. Let us call that, evidence that Jesus literally existed, Factor B.So, putting Factors A and B together, we can see the logic employed in believing that there was an historic Jesus. Now from the existence of Jesus, as believed, there must be more historical fact to be accepted, because Jesus did not exist in a vacuum, but in a well-defined context, that surrounds him chronologically. The accounts of Jesus' followers, that have been highly influential, the fact that the Roman Empire gave up its deities in favour of Jesus (or a caricature of him), support his reality. The existence of the Jewish nation (continuing, despite attempts to exterminate it) and the so-called 'Holy Land' with its identifiable historic locations, both intended to provide prophetic validation of Jesus as Messiah, tend to indicate his reality. They may not be considered proof of that reality, but they may be considered evidence adequate to explain Factor A, and to support Factor B.Now even the most determined fundamentalist cannot deny that there is figurative language in the Bible (though one never hears them admit that it exists). Obviously, even in their eyes, Jesus is/was not a door, or bread, and certainly not both at the same time. Quite where Bible allegory ends and where Bible history begins is a matter of opinion, and, dare one say it, of scholarship, though for those of us who have been around a while, archaeology and science are as subject to fashions and political pressures as anything else. It may be unwise to make categoric statements where these fields impinge on Biblical issues, as expert opinion on an issue can change within one's lifetime, and more than once! But precisely where the truth lies may be quite unimportant to a believer anyway, and perhaps should be. An account of an incident in the life of an Old Testament character may have spiritual importance that is quite independent of whether the account is historical. The believer reads in order to apply the moral or spiritual aspect of the story, literal or allegorical, to his or her personal life, and that aspect is the truth for that person. Such considerations are thought to have a life of their own, that relate to other parts of the Bible in a similar and convincing way, though on a spiritual level.Edited by ochaye, : Clarification.Edited by ochaye, : improved clarity.

quote:

---

How do you differentiate between "fictional" miracles and non fiction miracles? For instance, the Bible tells us that a snake talks to Adam and Eve. How would that be different that a rabbit talking?

---

It wouldn't be any different. That's the point. The difference comes only in the purpose. The fact of snake or rabbit talking is not an issue. What is important is what they say. The purpose of Bugs Bunny is, ostensibly at least, to entertain ("What's up, Doc?"), the purpose of the Edenic snake is to make a moral/spiritual point. Neither creature is intended to be thought of as having any actual existence. Both animals are used because they have anthropomorphic associations- friendly, harmless; sinister, dangerous, that provide ready assimilation of their respective legends.Now the story (true or otherwise) of the actual donkey that spoke to an actual prophet to warn him, that is intended to be understood as miracle. Obviously, may I add.

quote:

---

Many religions can claim the exact same thing. Muslims for instance also claim the Quran is a real record of events. The Greeks Mythology was based on events people wrote about and really believed happened. Why would the Biblical evidence be any better?

---

Why would one suppose that it is? Perhaps it isn't better. The reason for many accepting the Bible is because it produces Factor A, personal changes in people that are reckoned beneficial. No doubt other beliefs provide reasons for people accepting their source books also, but this thread is about the Bible, its use of metaphor in particular, and finding the solution to problems perceived due to the presence and use of metaphor. Anything beside that is properly placed in another thread, and when people begin to reach for other topics, the solution seems to have been reached.Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

'if the donkey speaking in the book of Numbers is viewed as a miracle then why cannot the speaking serpent in Genesis be viewed the same way ?'That can be done. I've never heard of anyone doing it, though.

Perhaps we can see how you arrived at this conclusion?

'By this time I could see that "the father" of lies who was a murderer and a liar from the beginning should refer back to the serpent in Genesis three.'So in your view, the serpent represents the Devil, and the story is an allegory, not literal fact.

History with allegorical significance? Then a real snake did speak?Yo-yo theology, or what?

'The writer of Genesis seems capable of technical detail'So where is the technical detail that makes you so certain that a talking snake was a miracle? Is it asking too much if you answer a teensy little question?Edited by ochaye, : No reason given.

'It is not asking too much.'If the snake taking was a miracle, whose miracle was it? God's? Or the other guy's?

So Eve, having witnessed Satan's amazing power, presumably supposed that Satan was at least as strong as, if not stronger than God. What reason was there for failing to believe the snake? Was she thrown out of Eden for believing in a miracle? Jesus condemned people for not believing them, did he not?

Copy and paste, poster. It's faster, and more reliable.'Jesus did not always entrust Himself to people who were impressed with signs and wonders.'That's no reason to [i]banish[i] poor Eve, though, who, in your unique version of events, witnessed a miracle and believed, as later commended and commanded by Jesus. She had no reason to suppose that the person you call Satan was not actually God, and good reason to suppose that he was God.It seems to me that a lot of religious people make that mistake.