A note on the so called "metaphorical" interpretation of the bible.
I actually wrote this awhile ago, but simply forgot to post it here.
I have neglected to make a more clear note about what I think of the "metaphorical" interpretation people make of the bible, which in some cases, escapes certain criticisms of the literal interpretation of the bible. However, there are a few things that can be said about it. I am not going to tell people that the "metaphorical" interpretation of the bible is wrong or invalid, but there are still some things that I would like to say about it.
Whenever you are able to make more than one valid interpretation on a piece of literature, the piece is considered to be "ambiguous". We might suggest that if a metaphorical interpretation of the bible is less contradictory than the literal one, then perhaps it might be considered more valid, but the fact is that the contradictions still exist, and there might just be some problems with the way in which the metaphorical interpretations were conceived.
The problem with metaphorical interpretations is that some of them have been created to match the empirical facts that have been discovered in science. In other words, people who have read the bible before science began touching on the same "facts" being discussed in the bible would have no problems with going with the literal interpretation, if only because it would have been simpler to read and believe. Take, for example, the age of the Earth. The bible suggests that the Earth is 6000 years old, and people prior to radioactive dating and other methods in science for determining the age of the Earth would have no problems with believing that this literal meaning did mean that the Earth is exactly 6000 years old. They could not have known that this would be a metaphor for 4.5 billion years, as it could easily have been 600000, 5 trillion, or even 600 million--numbers that don't even fall close to 4.5 billion. To suggest that 6000 years is a "metaphor" for 4.5 billion years is erroneous, not only because this would have suggested that God created the world in proportionately (approximately) 20547 years when the formation of the Earth took millions of years (maybe even more), but because the implications of a 6000 year old Earth imply that the Earth existed shortly before the first man (Adam) existed--a fact which is considered to be scientifically inaccurate, for the Earth existed long before humanity and its ancestors did.
Another example would be the "metaphorical" existence of heaven and hell. When reading the bible about the concept of heaven and hell, most people who read the bible before airplanes existed or before Galileo learned that the Earth wasn't flat (you may also suggest that the Christians in the Medieval Ages simply ignored the Greeks' discoveries about the shape of the Earth because they were considered to be heathens) assumed the literal interpretation; that the Earth was oriented in only one way, and that everything above the sky was literally heaven and everything below the ground was literally hell. They had no way of knowing that the Earth was round and that there was no physical heaven or hell above or below the Earth they lived on--people after the wide acceptance of the real shape of the Earth only continued to pose that there was still a heaven and hell because it was metaphorical, and not physical. Once again, as displayed by some of our more scientifically ignorant (and I might add religiously intolerant) ancestors, it could not be known from reading the bible that the existence of heaven or hell would be metaphorical. One cannot suggest that a physical heaven and hell are more ridiculous than a metaphorical heaven and hell irrespective of what science says about what's directly "above" the Earth or inside (below) it. One thing is clear, however. Because a metaphorical interpretation of a bible cannot be made without reference to science, a man made (ie, not divine) concept, it cannot be considered to be a more valid interpretation of the bible, and would not have existed had science not made claims about natural phenomena also touched on by the bible, and such a "fact" as suggested by the bible cannot be universal or meaningful.
Now if you want to continue believing in a metaphorical interpretation of the bible, or to continue making them, by all means, you are free to do so. But if there is one thing that is true, it would be that we may never know what kind of an interpretation the original writers had meant, or what the "word of God" really means, if it means one thing and one thing only. And if you must make a metaphorical interpretation based off of knowledge that has been obtained external to the bible, like science, then you are not reading the bible for what it is; you are reading it for what you want to see in order to try to make it fit reality, when it might just have no merit because you know the things that the ancients who wrote the book had no knowledge of. In which case, it might just be redundant to try twisting the interpretation of the bible to something it probably wasn't meant to be (or would have been so farfetched that there would be no way to make that interpretation without outside knowledge not related to religion), and as Thomas Paine has put it, there is no revelation in reading the bible because there isn't anything there you don't already know; you're simply twisting the reading of the bible into a metaphorical interpretation of stuff you already know, possibly because the "new" information the bible is telling you doesn't match what you already know. Furthermore, because you are relying on the criteria of science for the more empirically concerned bits of information that the bible also touches on, you must also concede that you are putting some faith or acceptance into the credibility of science, otherwise it would mean absolutely nothing to you at all, and therefore, would have not much of a reason to make a metaphorical interpretation, and to some degree, you are also accepting even logic because a metaphor better explains something that might otherwise be considered contradictory if taken literally.
I have neglected to make a more clear note about what I think of the "metaphorical" interpretation people make of the bible, which in some cases, escapes certain criticisms of the literal interpretation of the bible. However, there are a few things that can be said about it. I am not going to tell people that the "metaphorical" interpretation of the bible is wrong or invalid, but there are still some things that I would like to say about it.
Whenever you are able to make more than one valid interpretation on a piece of literature, the piece is considered to be "ambiguous". We might suggest that if a metaphorical interpretation of the bible is less contradictory than the literal one, then perhaps it might be considered more valid, but the fact is that the contradictions still exist, and there might just be some problems with the way in which the metaphorical interpretations were conceived.
The problem with metaphorical interpretations is that some of them have been created to match the empirical facts that have been discovered in science. In other words, people who have read the bible before science began touching on the same "facts" being discussed in the bible would have no problems with going with the literal interpretation, if only because it would have been simpler to read and believe. Take, for example, the age of the Earth. The bible suggests that the Earth is 6000 years old, and people prior to radioactive dating and other methods in science for determining the age of the Earth would have no problems with believing that this literal meaning did mean that the Earth is exactly 6000 years old. They could not have known that this would be a metaphor for 4.5 billion years, as it could easily have been 600000, 5 trillion, or even 600 million--numbers that don't even fall close to 4.5 billion. To suggest that 6000 years is a "metaphor" for 4.5 billion years is erroneous, not only because this would have suggested that God created the world in proportionately (approximately) 20547 years when the formation of the Earth took millions of years (maybe even more), but because the implications of a 6000 year old Earth imply that the Earth existed shortly before the first man (Adam) existed--a fact which is considered to be scientifically inaccurate, for the Earth existed long before humanity and its ancestors did.
Another example would be the "metaphorical" existence of heaven and hell. When reading the bible about the concept of heaven and hell, most people who read the bible before airplanes existed or before Galileo learned that the Earth wasn't flat (you may also suggest that the Christians in the Medieval Ages simply ignored the Greeks' discoveries about the shape of the Earth because they were considered to be heathens) assumed the literal interpretation; that the Earth was oriented in only one way, and that everything above the sky was literally heaven and everything below the ground was literally hell. They had no way of knowing that the Earth was round and that there was no physical heaven or hell above or below the Earth they lived on--people after the wide acceptance of the real shape of the Earth only continued to pose that there was still a heaven and hell because it was metaphorical, and not physical. Once again, as displayed by some of our more scientifically ignorant (and I might add religiously intolerant) ancestors, it could not be known from reading the bible that the existence of heaven or hell would be metaphorical. One cannot suggest that a physical heaven and hell are more ridiculous than a metaphorical heaven and hell irrespective of what science says about what's directly "above" the Earth or inside (below) it. One thing is clear, however. Because a metaphorical interpretation of a bible cannot be made without reference to science, a man made (ie, not divine) concept, it cannot be considered to be a more valid interpretation of the bible, and would not have existed had science not made claims about natural phenomena also touched on by the bible, and such a "fact" as suggested by the bible cannot be universal or meaningful.
Now if you want to continue believing in a metaphorical interpretation of the bible, or to continue making them, by all means, you are free to do so. But if there is one thing that is true, it would be that we may never know what kind of an interpretation the original writers had meant, or what the "word of God" really means, if it means one thing and one thing only. And if you must make a metaphorical interpretation based off of knowledge that has been obtained external to the bible, like science, then you are not reading the bible for what it is; you are reading it for what you want to see in order to try to make it fit reality, when it might just have no merit because you know the things that the ancients who wrote the book had no knowledge of. In which case, it might just be redundant to try twisting the interpretation of the bible to something it probably wasn't meant to be (or would have been so farfetched that there would be no way to make that interpretation without outside knowledge not related to religion), and as Thomas Paine has put it, there is no revelation in reading the bible because there isn't anything there you don't already know; you're simply twisting the reading of the bible into a metaphorical interpretation of stuff you already know, possibly because the "new" information the bible is telling you doesn't match what you already know. Furthermore, because you are relying on the criteria of science for the more empirically concerned bits of information that the bible also touches on, you must also concede that you are putting some faith or acceptance into the credibility of science, otherwise it would mean absolutely nothing to you at all, and therefore, would have not much of a reason to make a metaphorical interpretation, and to some degree, you are also accepting even logic because a metaphor better explains something that might otherwise be considered contradictory if taken literally.