The things in the Bible ain't necessarily so.....

[thereselittleflower]

 

I don't think Jesus necessarily spoke of Jonah as a real historical person .

If Jonah was not a real historical person, then Christ would not have said that He was greater than Jonah.  So why don't you read and meditate on what is actually stated?  One does not compare oneself to fictitious characters.  

Are you sure that's always true? Some fictional characters are so well-known that they can be used for comparison. We can say that someone is "richer than Midas" or "meaner than Scrooge", for example.

A fictional character is not a sign.   Only what actually exists or has existed can be a sign.

[Esther4:14]

The Book of Jonah.....It is impossible that Nineveh , the ruins of which have been explored , could have been a city of "three days' journey" .

A city of 120 000 infants implies a total population of over a million , far too large for Nineveh .

Our knowledge of Assyria , both from Assyrian and biblical records , leaves no room for a conversion of Nineveh to the worship of Yahweh . 

The title "King of Nineveh" never appears in Assyrian or biblical records . It is always "king of Ashur" .

The literary type of the book is didactic fiction or parable .

This in no way detracts from the truth of the book . It is truth in the form of a parable rather than truth in the form of an historical narrative .

In the same way the parable of the Good Samaritan is not truth expressed as an history narrative , rather truth as expressed in didactic fiction .

I don't know whether I agree with the rationale for considering that Jonah could very well be a parable; however, considering Jonah to be a parable actually makes a lot more sense to me.  It gives a greater purpose to the story than it had before especially since there is such a moral lesson given to Jonah illustrating the capacity for Yahweh to bring salvation to the Gentiles, along with including that Jonah was in the belly of the whale for 3 days, along with including the resistance Jonah had to the Gentiles repentance representing the Jews resistance to the conversion of the gentiles illustrated when they tried to encourage them to get circumcised too (Galatians 5:10-12).  

It actually makes a lot more sense to not see the story of Jonah literally, as the eye witness account of a prophet, but as a piece of wisdom literature like the book of Proverbs.  

The book of Job is another example that I have considered to not be literal for a while now because there are too many instances where the book of Proverbs seems to write the book of Job.  Therefore, I have long considered the book of Job to have been written by King Solomon rather than the actual translation of something that happened in antiquity.  There are debates over this, but I think that it is interesting how in both instances, there are all the markings of a story with beginning, climax, and conclusion that isn't a component of the historical writings of scripture.  

I think the parable of the Good Samaritan is another good example that shows that if the book of Jonah were not literal, this does not take away from the truth of scripture.  

Edited August 31, 2015 by Esther4:14

[Deborah_]

yeah, but that's not the same thing...    Jesus referenced Jonah as a real person more than once and the Bible always informs us when stories are parables or in some way not meant to be understood as actual history.   No such textual indicators are present for the story of Jonah.   Furthermore, the events of Jonah, including the part of the great fish are consistent with the notion of an all-knowing, all powerful God who can do as He sovereignly pleases.

Why is it not the same thing?

(btw, I don't necessarily disagree with you about Jonah - I just don't think that 'not comparing oneself with fictional characters' is a very good argument to use)

What I mean is that Jesus isn't comparing himself to Jonah, necessarily.   Jesus used Jonah  and the repentance of the Ninevites as a witness against the Pharisees and stated that just as Jonah was in the fish's belling for three days and nights, that his time in the grave would be the same length of time.

The story of Jonah is never referenced in the Bible as nonhistorical or parabolic or allegorical, nothing that liberals claim about it.   It actually happened, if the Bible is to be believed.  

Ah.. I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to Jesus' claim to be 'greater than Jonah' (Matthew 12:41)

[Deborah_]

I'm sorry Robin Hood, but I must ask, what is your point to all these topics where you have seemingly questioned the validity ( and / or ) authority of the Bible ? Please, for us simple folk, spell it out.

I don't believe that he is questioning either the authority or the validity of the Bible. What he is questioning is the unthinking and all-embracing use of the term 'literally'. Nobody here takes every single word of the Bible literally - even if they claim they do. We all make allowances for metaphor and poetic language - it's just that we disagree on the details.

[AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken]

Well, the topics have been phrased in that way ( from my perspective ). It would be helpful ( at least to me ) if their position was stated with the question, but I am simple-minded, so I'll just read instead, and wait for the great "reveal". 

[robin hood]

Painted Smile ,  I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

. Depends on what you mean by literally.  Can you explain that for me.

 

let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? 

A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word .

[robin hood]

I'm sorry Robin Hood, but I must ask, what is your point to all these topics where you have seemingly questioned the validity ( and / or ) authority of the Bible ? Please, for us simple folk, spell it out.

I don't believe that he is questioning either the authority or the validity of the Bible. What he is questioning is the unthinking and all-embracing use of the term 'literally'. Nobody here takes every single word of the Bible literally - even if they claim they do. We all make allowances for metaphor and poetic language - it's just that we disagree on the details.

Thanks for your understanding of what I have said .

Clearly you , unlike some , go to the trouble of reading what I write .

 

[Painted Smile]

Painted Smile ,  I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

. Depends on what you mean by literally.  Can you explain that for me.

 

let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? 

A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word .

 

Thanks.  Allow me one more clarification question.  To you,  taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used.  Is that correct? 

[robin hood]

Painted Smile ,  I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

. Depends on what you mean by literally.  Can you explain that for me.

 

let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? 

A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word .

 

Thanks.  Allow me one more clarification question.  To you,  taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used.  Is that correct? 

Painted Smile ,  I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

. Depends on what you mean by literally.  Can you explain that for me.

 

let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? 

A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word .

 

Thanks.  Allow me one more clarification question.  To you,  taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used.  Is that correct? 

Now that is a subject that brings forth many views .

It is correct that Jesus used that terminology .

Most Christians do take those words of Jesus literally .

Many Christians take them as being symbolic .

[Painted Smile]

Painted Smile ,  I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

. Depends on what you mean by literally.  Can you explain that for me.

 

let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? 

A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word .

 

Thanks.  Allow me one more clarification question.  To you,  taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used.  Is that correct? 

 

Painted Smile ,  I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

. Depends on what you mean by literally.  Can you explain that for me.

 

let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? 

A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word .

 

Thanks.  Allow me one more clarification question.  To you,  taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used.  Is that correct? 

Now that is a subject that brings forth many views .

It is correct that Jesus used that terminology .

Most Christians do take those words of Jesus literally .

Many Christians take them as being symbolic

a logical reading of the text would suggest you take them in them manner the writer desired.  Since Jesus did not cut off his arm or drain his blood anyone not looking for nits to pick would take the passage as a figure of speech.