So I am starting this thread to look at figurative, literal, and metaphorical language. It seems to be a running theme amongst the atheists that if the bible is not taken 100% literally word for word, and in the English context no less, that it would be impossible for anyone to ever understand anything in the bible or to be able to know what it is saying. So we will look as some examples here and I would like the atheists to try and answer the questions. Now I know this is going to be incredibly hard for you, next to impossible apparently, but just do the best that you can and we will evaluate after.

Please tell me if the following statements are figurative, literal, or metaphorical.

1. I laughed so hard I almost died
2. I laughed so hard my sides hurt
3. The doughnuts were calling Jonny’s name.
4. I am so hungry I could eat a horse
5. The way bobby’s life was going the whole world must be against him
6. If you touch the fire it might burn you
7. I was so nervous I **** a brick
8. Suzy has so much energy, she never gets tired
9. Ralphy is as fast a lightning.
10. When walking through the candy store the Snickers bar jumped out at me.

Now I know you do not have context to refer back to like in the bible but I hope this was not too tough for you guys. I will wait for the answers.

1. figurative
2. Literal
3. figurative
4. figurative
5. figurative
6. literal
7. figurative
8. figurative
9. metaphorical
10. figurative

27Allin has it correct if can only pick one, however most of them can be either literal or figurative depending on the context. For example #1 could be literal, if he actually almost died as a result (but perhaps not a direct result) of laughing too much. The same can be said for #8 as well, as maybe the context of the sentence is some imaginary world where someone could have an endless supply of energy.

etc, etc, etc.

It's hard for me to take anyone seriously that takes the bible seriously.

I agree with 27 allin if, as suggested, we are only allowed one answer. Shall we do this test with passages from the Bible now Jib? What exactly is your point again???

Jib - we should also mention that there are many many christians who are Bible Literalists. So a lot of people on 'your team' tell us that the written word of the Bible is to be taken literally and it is incapable of being wrong. (Along with this usually comes the belief that they know exactly what it means and their interpretation is the correct one... but that's another point)

The issue is that there is little agreement on what the correct interpretation is, what is literal and what is metaphorical. There's a huge problem when the people who support the Bible have been battling for centuries about what it says, what it means, what is real and what is metaphor, etc.

In this forum alone we have believer like Splendour saying one thing and then another believer (dknight for instance) immediately asking everyone to ignore pretty much everything she says. I've come across some Christians who believe many of the stories are metaphorical who would be considered blasphemers by the Christians who believe it is all the literal and historical truth.

But once you accept that there is room for interpretation... that some of the stories may be metaphorical... you have to leave room that ALL of it could be metaphorical.

blah blah blah... I could go on but this is all rathar obvious and has been said numerous times before in this forum.

I don't think any atheists hold that position.

See, I know a trap when I see one. But you have no leg to stand on. Because there are only two possibilities here:

1 - Atheists all come to more or less the same conclusion. This shows that if language is clear then it can be easily and accurately interpreted. Because everyone who reads the Bible comes to a different conclusion on it, the Bible is not written even as clearly as this little quiz of yours.

2 - Atheists come to different conclusion. This establishes that figurative language may result in differing interpretations. Which actually supports the straw man point you labeled earlier, if anything.

Incidentally, fig lit fig fig fig lit fig fig met fig

Looks like we're all in agreement so far.

Funny how, when two different people independently read the Bible, they almost always come to completely different conclusions about it. But when two different people read your list, they arrive at the same conclusion.

Could it be that your list is far more clear and coherent than the Bible?

jib, a two part question..

1- where the **** is amanda bynes?
and
2- bring the **** back amanda bynes

that is all

There are many reasons for this. And I never thought that people would come up with different answers. much was tongue and cheek, if that was not clear.

The reasons why it is not a problem for people to answer is many sided. For one the author, me, wrote it in his original tongue and the readers the same. All of the figures of speech are current and well know. And very importantly, no one here had any preconceptions of what they wanted it to say before they gave their answers.

These are just a few of the reasons why this is easier than the bible at times.

Many people just recently have said that if the bible is not to be taken literally then we could never know what to think.

lol. the wife made me get rid of her. She kept hounding me about it, so I gave up. I do miss her

I was surprised that no one has commented up until now. I was also hoping that someone would want to carry the torch on and take the gif for their avatar.

The issue isn't figurative vs. literal interpretation. It's more about how easy it is to change your interpretation when (and only when) you're faced with adverse information.

For example,

Noah's Ark Story: literal, literal, literal, literal, literal, literal...

[science jumps in to show why Noah's Ark Story is bs] You deny the contradictions and defend the story for as long as you can until you get backed into a corner and have no other option but to say:

Noah's Ark Story: allegorical...

This doesn't happen with the statements in the OP however. They get dismissed immediately when there's a contradiction. Why? (hint: they're not in an "inerrant" holy book)

Oh sure. You are definitely right about this. but that is not what we are talking about.

I agree that this is an issue. But imo it does not speak so much towards the clarity of the bible as it does the individuals. A little church history clears a lot of this up.

But I am not saying that it is as much up to interpretation as you are claiming. Take my meticulous examples in the OP. Someone could come along and say that in 3. that the doughnuts were actually possessed and that Jonny literally heard his name being called. But how plausible of an interpretation is that really?

This is my point. Just people someone is capable of saying the bible means one thing, does not mean that it is equally as plausible.

A few small obstacles for an omnipotent being.

In order to avoid post-hoc reasoning, it's necessary to consider the general position independently before applying specifics.

What would a book written by a supreme being, superhuman in every respect, look like?

I don't think the original language would matter much. The book would be of unbelievable clarity. It would have to be written with the greatest clarity of any work on Earth, if it were the word of a being orders of magnitude superior to humans in verbal and intellectual ability. As it is, the Bible is open to interpretation even more than older works such as the Annals of Confucius.

Furthermore, you are suggesting that the Bible is the ultimate source of guidance in the world today. Not in the world thousands of years ago. If the Bible's meaning has degraded as a result of the wearing down of language, then it is no longer a reliable source of anything.

First off can you show me that 2000 years ago everyone believe that it was a global flood?

Secondly, many people do not think of this story and base any doctrines off of it. This is hardly a staple for Judiasm or Christianity. If there is no reason to believe that the flood was not global, then why pay any more attention to it. It makes no difference. Also, I think that the people that say the story of Noah is purely allegorical are in a minority.

They are making the point that there is no reliable objective method for interpreting the Bible other than literalism.

Other than that, there is nothing you can tell two different people reading the Bible independently that will result in the both of them coming out of the experience with the same result.

That is just not true. People seemed to have no issue getting my little test right and all agreeing.

Sure some people will disagree, but that does not mean that there is no possible way to decide what interpretation is the most plausible.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

The bible has been translated many times what they mean then could be a bit different from what it is written as now. The message has stayed the same; with faith all things are possible.


People disgree about simple things and atheist have problem with people disagreeing with interpretation of ancient words?

This is an unbelievably good point and I would love to hear theists' take on it.

My stepdad once told me there is a passage in the Bible that specifically says that it is to be taken literally, something like "give nothing to and take nothing from this book". Anyone know what I'm talking about?

If he's right, this thread is auto-epic-fail

On your first point, you are completely over looking that the people reading the bible are not perfect but are fallen.

On your second, there are many ways to look closer at the bible and find out what the original context was. But it is up to the individuals to do this. I do this constantly.

One of the problems is, once someone comes to a conclusion they like, often times they never question it again and just assume that they must have gotten it right the first time. Many people are very dogmatic.

Because you're claiming this is the word of God. The divine, manifest here on earth.

Every jot of ink is worthy of a hundred years of devotion if that is the case. And if it were truly a divinely inspired work, then every word would have incredible meaning. There are human writers who can achieve something close to that, a divine writer would be able to accomplish it effortlessly. Are you suggesting that God threw something into his one great holy communication to mankind just for ****s and giggles?

If the Bible is a reflection of God, and if God must (according to your beliefs) be perfect, than a single error in the Bible is the destruction of your whole premise.

P.S. all metaphors are figurative...