Old Testament: Representational or Literal?

[Katy Lied]

I've been pondering some of the posts online, especially Solon's comments about interpreting the OT as representational. I'm starting to write something on it, but I would like to get your reactions first. Remember: this is your opinion of the Old Testament only, not the BOM or the NT etc.

[All-American]

I've been pondering some of the posts online, especially Solon's comments about interpreting the OT as representational. I'm starting to write something on it, but I would like to get your reactions first. Remember: this is your opinion of the Old Testament only, not the BOM or the NT etc.

In the beginning, almost exclusively allegorical, but less and less so toward the end.

[Indy Coug]

So what becomes of Noah and Adam, who many consider the accounts of their lives to be entirely allegorical, but their literal existence is essential for other scriptural accounts (that have theoretically been later enough to have successfully crawled out of the primordial allegorical soup) to be true?

[Moliere]

I believe most of the stories in the OT have some basis in reality but the stories were changed/embelished (not sure of the right word here) to create more of a parable or allegorical story.

For instance, I believe Noah existed (hard to deny that given that JS taught he was the angel Gabriel that talked to Mary) but I don't believe in a world wide flood. It was probably a regional flood.

Also, I guess Jonah was probably a real person but I doubt he spent 3 days in the belly of a great fish. Obviously this story is a type of the death and resurrection of Christ. But then again, Jonah may have lived and preached, thus making him possible a real person but most of the story may be allegorical.

That being said, Elijah was obviously real and those she-bears really did tear up those mean, snotty kids.

[All-American]

So what becomes of Noah and Adam, who many consider the accounts of their lives to be entirely allegorical, but their literal existence is essential for other scriptural accounts (that have theoretically been later enough to have successfully crawled out of the primordial allegorical soup) to be true?

I think there probably was a Noah, and there probably was a flood, but that it wasn't universal. Adam and Eve are tougher to reconcile. I'm okay with the idea that there came a point where a hominid species had evolved to the point that it could host a spirit of our kind, and that THIS guy was Adam. I dunno.

[jay santos]

In the beginning, almost exclusively allegorical, but less and less so toward the end.

To some degree, this is where I stand. My understanding is that the Pentateuch came together circa 1000 BC and put together by a few or even a team of scholars of the day, summarizing various written sources that probably summarized previously written sources that probably summarized previous oral legends.

I'm trying to have faith in scripture, but the older I get the more skeptical I am about a lot of the written word.

[Moliere]

I'm trying to have faith in scripture, but the older I get the more skeptical I am about a lot of the written word.

Skeptical about what? The reason for the scriptures is to teach us Gospel and help us live a life that will enable us to live with God. Whether that is done through the telling of literal events or through allegories/parables shouldn't make a difference. Even Christ used many parables to teach the people how they should live.

Now, if you mean you are skeptical about the written word in that you aren't sure if Christ lived, died, and was resurrected, then I get your point.

[Jeff Lebowski]

In the beginning, almost exclusively allegorical, but less and less so toward the end.

[jay santos]

Skeptical about what? The reason for the scriptures is to teach us Gospel and help us live a life that will enable us to live with God. Whether that is done through the telling of literal events or through allegories/parables shouldn't make a difference. Even Christ used many parables to teach the people how they should live.

Now, if you mean you are skeptical about the written word in that you aren't sure if Christ lived, died, and was resurrected, then I get your point.

Not skeptical about Christ. Skeptical about how much communication there was/is between God and man. i.e. is the doctrine in scripture any more valid than writings of any random, pretty good man trying to be close to God.

[Solon]

To some degree, this is where I stand. My understanding is that the Pentateuch came together circa 1000 BC and put together by a few or even a team of scholars of the day, summarizing various written sources that probably summarized previously written sources that probably summarized previous oral legends.

I'm trying to have faith in scripture, but the older I get the more skeptical I am about a lot of the written word.

I think most scholars would say the earliest writings are from ca. 700 - King Josiah. While the Hebrews were definitely wriiting stuff down (inscriptions) as early as 1000, nothing of substance (and certainly nothing like history) has survived.

"Literal" history is largely an invention of the Greek Thucydides, who wrote in the late 5th century BC.

In a way, it's an unfair question, since "the Bible" is really several different types of documents that have been cobbled together, edited, and redacted over hundreds of years. Of course some of these texts (Chronicles) are going to seem more "literal" than others (like Job). However, we call this compilation "the book" as if there existed some type of original thematic or subjective unity, when this clearly is not the case.

PS, thanks for the shout-out, KL.

[SeattleUte]

The poll is too binary.

[creekster]

The poll is too binary.

Agreed. I don't like any of the choices.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I struggle more with what I think about the OT than the NT. It comes across as much like the mythology of the Hebrews as an explanation of their origins. Similar to the Greek and Roman Gods, in that those civilizations used the Gods to explain the world around them.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I think there probably was a Noah, and there probably was a flood, but that it wasn't universal. Adam and Eve are tougher to reconcile. I'm okay with the idea that there came a point where a hominid species had evolved to the point that it could host a spirit of our kind, and that THIS guy was Adam. I dunno.

My beliefs are similar to this, but I view Adam and Eve more as allegorical representatives of a larger group of hominids.

[All-American]

The poll is too binary.

Most polls are.

For the record, I chose the "translated correctly" option, partly because I think it's the best answer and partly out of the compulsion to toe the party line. You have to do some major violence to the term "translate" to make that statement a reflection of my idea. If by "translate" you mean rendering it into English from the best Hebrew texts (or even the non-existent "manuscripts"), that's not really what I believe. If you understand "translate" in light of its etymological origins as a participle of the Latin "transfero" and incorporate in the term the transmission and reception of the text from the original event to its current depiction in the bible, including the multiple cycles of emission and reception, then sure, that works.

In other words, the bible is correct as far as the text is a correct depiction of actual events. I guess I'm really going out on a limb by saying that the bible is true to the extent that it is true, aren't I?