Adam, Eve and the Apple.

[DrFaroohk]

So I recently read that that whole story is not so much literal as it is allegorical or metaphorical or something. How long has that theory been kicking around?

[the_std]

Uhm... I would say that almost any story in the Bible was written to be a metaphor or an allegory, but got sidelined by literalists throughout history who tried to push the Bible as "factual".

So I'll bet that this theory has been around since the Bible was written/the story was first told.

[Jaden]

Yeah, I'd say that's about accurate, or at the very least, since the Catholic church loosened its grip on society and government as a whole and stopped burning heretics. I know some people who refuse to believe anything in the Bible is allegory. To those people, I ask if Jesus is actually made of bread and wine, and if Revelation is actually talking about a 7 headed dragon rising out of the ocean to destroy us. Most people who say they take The Bible entirely literally actually pick and choose what they take literally, and also don't actually take even some of the things they take literally at all literally in any way. Revelation is the biggest offender for this attitude.

[Andara Bledin]

Considering the story pre-dates the Bible by centuries (at least), I'd say the concept does as well, particularly since in the Torah, the name "Adam" isn't actually a name, per se.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

Yeah, I'd say that's about accurate, or at the very least, since the Catholic church loosened its grip on society and government as a whole and stopped burning heretics. I know some people who refuse to believe anything in the Bible is allegory. To those people, I ask if Jesus is actually made of bread and wine, and if Revelation is actually talking about a 7 headed dragon rising out of the ocean to destroy us. Most people who say they take The Bible entirely literally actually pick and choose what they take literally, and also don't actually take even some of the things they take literally at all literally in any way. Revelation is the biggest offender for this attitude.

Allegory and symbolism aren't *quite* the same thing... but that's an interesting choice of examples. I can't think of anyone who takes Revelation literally who also believes in transubstantiation (which is not the belief that Jesus' body is made of bread and wine, but instead that bread and wine are, at least sometimes, Jesus' body. Sometimes "is" is a directional equality, and this is one of those cases. (since I can't remember the right term for those.))

[Jaden]

Allegory and symbolism aren't *quite* the same thing... but that's an interesting choice of examples. I can't think of anyone who takes Revelation literally who also believes in transubstantiation (which is not the belief that Jesus' body is made of bread and wine, but instead that bread and wine are, at least sometimes, Jesus' body. Sometimes "is" is a directional equality, and this is one of those cases. (since I can't remember the right term for those.))

I don't know you or know how cultured you are in fundamental Christianity, i.e., the kind of people who think things like Left Behind are actual prophecy, but it's pretty much the environment I was raised in. These people believe that The Bible should be taken "literally", so if you say "Well, maybe that's just symbolism" they'll call you out for daring to defy the perfect word of God. But when it comes to eschatology, they'll say the 7 headed dragon or "the beast" is some great world leader, or it stands for the UN, or this that and the other thing, which, last I checked, isn't the definition of literal. It's a strange double standard.

As for transubstantiation, I'd say if you were taking The Bible completely literally, like some claim to, it would actually have to be taken both ways, seeing as Jesus refers to himself as "the bread of life". And he also refers to the bread of the Last Supper as "my body, which was broken for you." So, if you actually took The Bible literally, you'd have to believe in both transubstantiation and my ridiculous comparison, that Jesus was made of bread

[HYHYBT]

Those I know who claim to take it all literally would mean that it's literally true that Jesus *said* "this is my body, etc.," not necessarily that he meant the statement literally. (As I heard one such preacher point out, he couldn't have meant it literally when he, body and blood and all, was standing right there.)

But I wasn't raised in a fundamentalist* and don't gather with them often. Too much of that makes my head hurt.

*In the modern sense... and that the word means what it now does is aggravating in itself. As I'm told, it used to mean what it sounds like: treating the fundamental or core points as vital, but not worrying much over the rest. For example, that God made the world and all that's in it, and that Jesus is his son and rose from the dead, would be fundamental matters. How God went about making the world, how long it took, how long ago that was, and whether it has changed since then (and many, many other things) would not be. If that were the current meaning of the word, I'd gladly claim the label. But it's not, and if there's a direct replacement then I don't know what it is. "Liberal" Christian doesn't cut it, as that usually includes those who believe Jesus was just a man who had some ideas worth holding on to. But this whole asterisk is a side road.

[Jaden]

Ok, fair enough on the Jesus/bread thing, I guess I'll let that slide. The idea that they're taking Revelation, or the second half of Daniel, or anything of the sort "literally" for the purposes of eschatology is still ludicrous, however.

I agree the term "fundamentalist" has been gravely misappropriated for this particularly group. I find it odd, myself. A lot of people I know could fall under than label. Hell, so could I few years ago. Not anymore, though. But, while I wouldn't describe my parents as fundamentalists, I was still raised largely in that environment and with that theology, via churches I went to and people I knew, until I started questioning those beliefs and thinking for myself.

[Anthony K. S.]

Over the years, I have sometimes been amazed at what some people will take from the Bible as literal fact.

There is actually a passage in Kings I that implies that the value of pi is not 3.14159..., etc., but an exact 3.

Because of this, believe it or not, some people have seriously advocated for schools to start teaching students that the value of pi is exactly 3.

Let me tell you something. My junior high school mathematics teacher was a nun, and there is no way that she would have been willing to teach her students that. She would have quit first.

[Hyena Dandy]

Let me tell you something. My junior high school mathematics teacher was a nun, and there is no way that she would have been willing to teach her students that. She would have quit first.

Reminds me of an old quote I heard somewhere

"Catholics are too sensible to go crazy every time a pope does."

The thing about the Left Behind types is that even 'literal' isn't 'literal'. When the great beast of Revalation creates a statue and breathes life on it, he LITERALLY appears on TV. When four guys arrive on horses they LITERALLY stand for election in various countries and don't ride anything.

[Andara Bledin]

There is actually a passage in Kings I that implies that the value of pi is not 3.14159..., etc., but an exact 3.

Perhaps, but more likely not. One current theory regarding this is that part of the word for diameter was not carried properly. In this case, the Hebrew was written with an additional character that would have represented a numerical value, and thus, the number in question is not 3, but 3.14150943..., which, while not quite Pi, is more than close enough for artisan purposes.

^-.-^

[SkullKing]

Since revelations is a vision of things to come, can it not be said that the guy literally saw all that, but that the vision itself was symbolically?

Ok, Adam and Eve literally existed, because that was the past, and the bible said it happened that way.

But revelations only says that one man SAW a vision in the way it is depicted in revelations.

And i believe the are tales in the bible of people receiving symbolic visions
.
i think that can account for people taking most things literally but not revelations.

[Gravekeeper]

Since revelations is a vision of things to come, can it not be said that the guy literally saw all that, but that the vision itself was symbolically?

Revelations, in a historical context, seems to be written by an exiled Jew ranting about the Roman Empire razing Jerusalem and wishing Jesus would smite Nero ( "666" = Nero and all that ). But not being able to say so directly for fear of presuection. It was written right after Rome razed Jerusalem and burned down the Great Temple and what not. Which would have been a big shock to Jesus's followers seeing as God didn't step in and smite them all for it.

On top of that, the dude that wrote Revelations ironically argues *against* Jesus's teachings. He was actually a Jewish fundementalist and doesn't seem to have any knowledge of the Sermon on the Mount or Jesus "dying for our sins" or anything like that. I would assume because he's in exile and isn't up to date. ;p

Try looking at Revelations from the prospective of an exiled, Jewish, religious fundementalist that just watched his own world end so to speak after he rose up against Rome's occupation only to be quashed, have his city razed and the temple burned down. Now he's ranting out anti-Rome propoganda and in total disbelief that Jesus didn't come abck and smite the Romans with the power of God to save Jerusalem. But he can't come straight out and say what who he's ranting against publically.

So he basically writes a crazy manifesto while he's in exile.

[draco664]

Because of this, believe it or not, some people have seriously advocated for schools to start teaching students that the value of pi is exactly 3.

Indiana tried legislating the value of pi as 3.2 in 1897. It passed the House of Reps, but was tabled in the Senate.

[Hyena Dandy]

Because of this, believe it or not, some people have seriously advocated for schools to start teaching students that the value of pi is exactly 3.

When and where? O_O