Bible Study Do you take the Bible literally?

[Elijah674]

You have to take the entire Bible literally except if it's a parable, a vision or a dream.

'i' find Isa. 8:20 with just two testing's for facts. The 'testimony' part of the Bible even with it being Inspired as Truth, is still the truthful testimony of many pennman.

And even with these ones in some instances writting on the same subject somewhat different. Such as the four Gospels that were seen needed & do actually differ some as each writer of the four himself 'testified' in his own understanding. And this 'testimony' we find needing Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16's ALL TESTIMONIAL FACTS to come to our required verdict.

Simply put, the Godhead has allowed Theirself to be put on trial on earth by using Their creation. And even USA was built upon that principle! Even for the 2/3rds majority booting Lucifer out of heaven, huh!

Just one of a few different 'testimonies':
One testimony finds both thieves gnashing on Christ with their teeth, (you can look it up for the exact rendering) and then during the trial I believe that Christ's testimony was believed & we see another 'acurate' testimony recording in another Gospel of this thief's repentance.

And this surely agrees with Isa. 28:10!

--Elijah

 

[Jethro Bodine]

i think taking it literally will just confuse you...
as it is said, you need the Holy Spirit to guide you in order to get the message.
Without it, you would interpret in with your own knowledge...

Yes. Many false doctrines in the church find their source in overly literal, unspiritual interpretations of scripture.

Samson's story is not a literal teaching about hair. Nor is it a teaching about sharing your weaknesses. It is a story about maintaining the covering of God's glory (symbolized in scripture as hair) and not surrendering that covering, and the strength of that covering, to the enemy through the deceits of the flesh.

 

[Nathan Alterton]

You have to take the entire Bible literally except if it's a parable, a vision or a dream.

I think there is a problem with terminology in most discussions of this question. As Christians we shouldn't be arguing whether we "take the Bible literally or not," we should be striving to take what was written in the way the author intended - which is what is generally meant when we say we're "taking the Bible literally." No one actually takes the whole Bible literally - heck, we don't even take the sports page in the paper literally! We take in the manner it was intended.

When it's reported the Oakland A's "killed" the Yankees (I know, I know, "In my dreams"), we don't think, "Why didn't anybody try to stop them! At least there were a lot of witnesses..." Nor do we ask ourselves, "He clearly doesn't mean NY killed AZ, so I wonder what metaphorical principle the author is trying to communicate?" No, we understand that writter is communicating the historical facts of the game using hyperbolic and poetic language, an American colloquialism.

When reading the Bible, we can't forget that the writers are Ancient Near Easterners who write from that point of view and using their own expressions and turns of phrase, just like we do.

It helps to be clear on the type of literature your reading. When I'm reading history like Chronicles, Kings, or Judges, I take it as such - meaning mostly literally but understanding that even contemporary historians will occasonally use hyperbole to get a point across. The ancients did the same, it's just harder to spot because we aren't as familar with their lanugage and culture. When I read poetry, like Psalms and substantial portions Isaiah and other prophets, I know that real values, lessons, and events are being communicated, but in highly picturesque language; just like poetry today.

Similarly, the writers of the epistles often write directly, but just like all men, occasionally make use of sarcasm and humor, as well as common turns of phrase and expressions which we would never dream of "taking literally" if we were familar with them. To do so would be like taking me literally if I told you that it was "raining cats and dogs" today. No one here would actually think cats and dogs were falling from the sky, but would understand I was telling a truth about a physical reality in the world using descriptive or picturesque language.

The same goes for the Bible.

 

[reba]

Nathan I really like your post.

El dorado is beautiful country.....

 

[decent orange]

I have the impression that the Bible is indeed literal. It seems to me, that the things written in scripture did intact physically happen. At the same time, these happenings have a spiritual significance or prophecy as a reason for happening. For example, Absalom violating the 10 concubine on the roof top that David left behind to "keep" his house did literally happen. It also could have a spiritual and prophetic significance of the violation of the 10 commandments/laws that God issued to "keep his house tidy while away". Absalom hanging from the tree and pierced in the side also probably literally happened. Then David screams that he wishes he could die in Absaloms place if only he could live again. Jesus died in our place so that we may live again. It sort of puts us in the position of Absalom I think. We want to be greater than our Father, ruling in his place, ignoring His mercy, grace, and love. We are destined to lose the battle in the war against our Father. Ya gotta repent and surrender to God. Society as a whole constantly tries to united itself over and over, building up more and more, searching for knowledge and ways to prolong life, and conceive babies in tubes, and abort babies with needles. Attempting to possess powers of God, so that maybe they could elevate humanity to a God like status so that they don't need God. People want to make God obsolete, but that's impossible.

I've detected that I'm off on a tangent and will therefore end this post... LOL

BLESS GOD

 

[Free]

I think there is a problem with terminology in most discussions of this question. As Christians we shouldn't be arguing whether we "take the Bible literally or not," we should be striving to take what was written in the way the author intended - which is what is generally meant when we say we're "taking the Bible literally." No one actually takes the whole Bible literally - heck, we don't even take the sports page in the paper literally! We take in the manner it was intended.

......

The same goes for the Bible.

Those were my initial thoughts as well. I believe your post is speaking to another term used which is "literalistic," and I think that people often confuse the two and think if someones doesn't take a certain portion of the Bible literalistically, then they are wrong in their interpretation or even called a "liberal Christian."

To take the Bible "literally," means exactly what you have stated--to take what was written in the way the author intended. "Literalistically," on the other hand, is what some people mean by the use of "literally." It is to take what is said exactly as it is stated and that is to be our understanding of what is written.

For example, in John 10:9 Jesus says "I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." (NKJV)

To take that literalistically would be to understand Jesus as being an actual talking door made of wood. But of course that is absurd. What that is literally saying, is that in some way he is the means by which we enter the "sheepfold" (verse 1), meaning salvation and eternal life. So, Jesus being a door is a metaphor but it stands for something real. Nor are we actual sheep.


And while this all may seem obvious to everyone, it actually is something that we need to be aware of as it does come up often. We must be careful in using a term such as "literal."

 

[Nathan Alterton]

Thanks for the appreciation, Free and reba. I must say, occasionally it is nice to feel like you've said something valuable (And reba: yes it is, and my family and I absolutely love living here).

Free, I completely agree, and thanks for expanding on the idea.

While I agree, as I wrote in my previous post, that when we Christians talk about taking the Bible literally we generally mean that we're taking the authors seriously. The problem is, I have seen skeptics use the idea of "taking the Bible literally" to hamstring Christians who say that and make them look silly. I realize that it's a dirty tactic and that they probably know they're only using a linguistic trick to score cheap debate points, but why give them the opportunity? If we were just a bit more careful or precise in our use of lanuage take that ability away from them.

While it takes a little more time to explain, I think that representing our understanding of the Bible in a more accurate way makes us and it look more serious to those who may actually be seeking the Truth.

 

[Destructus86]

Obviously not all of the bible is to be taken literally. Jesus often spoke in parables. Many of the stories are true in the bible however.


Though...to be honest...I do have a hard time believing that Noah could fit thousands of animals AND their multitude of subspecies onto a single ark based on its size. They would have to be laying on top of each other

 

[P31Woman]

New to the forums, so sorry if this post is in the wrong spot!

But yeah, are you supposed to take the Bible literally

We should view scripture the same way Jesus did.

 

[farouk]

Obviously not all of the bible is to be taken literally. Jesus often spoke in parables. Many of the stories are true in the bible however.


Though...to be honest...I do have a hard time believing that Noah could fit thousands of animals AND their multitude of subspecies onto a single ark based on its size. They would have to be laying on top of each other

Why are you sure that all the species of today were replicated exactly as they were then? and why do you then made your determination the basis for rejecting what the Scripture says?

(Or maybe I've missed something of your meaning? I'm only a simple fellow.)

 

[farouk]

We should view scripture the same way Jesus did.

And they way Paul did, exactly, too.

 

[Vanguard]

I do not.

However, that answer is not as simple as it seems. As others have stated, some Bible stories are literal accounts, others are parables, metaphorical or even allegorical. Each one has to be looked at in context and individually. Furthermore, you need to try and find out what the Classical Hebrew and Koine Greek actually say (easier said than done). You lose idioms and cultural practices when translating.

 

[Matthew G]

You have to take the entire Bible literally except if it's a parable, a vision or a dream.

This is also the way I see it. Scripture is full of dreams and visions, and Jesus taught in parables. However, in my opinion the other stories told in Scripture (particularly the books of the OT) are literal and true events that did happen.

 

[farouk]

MatthewG: The bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus, central to the Gospel, cannot be understood as anything other than literally. So although there are dreams and visions, it's far more than dreams and visions, as well.

 

[Matthew G]

MatthewG: The bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus, central to the Gospel, cannot be understood as anything other than literally. So although there are dreams and visions, it's far more than dreams and visions, as well.

Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply I saw it that way. If the resurrection of Jesus didn't actually happen, then we are simply wasting our time. Apologies if that's how I came across. I guess I tried to over simplify things.

 

[farouk]

Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply I saw it that way. If the resurrection of Jesus didn't actually happen, then we are simply wasting our time. Apologies if that's how I came across. I guess I tried to over simplify things.

MatthewG:

Amen!, and no you didn't seem necessarily to imply the other.

Blessings.

 

[Pizzaguy]

I think there is a problem with terminology in most discussions of this question. As Christians we shouldn't be arguing whether we "take the Bible literally or not," we should be striving to take what was written in the way the author intended - which is what is generally meant when we say we're "taking the Bible literally." No one actually takes the whole Bible literally - heck, we don't even take the sports page in the paper literally! We take in the manner it was intended.

When it's reported the Oakland A's "killed" the Yankees (I know, I know, "In my dreams"), we don't think, "Why didn't anybody try to stop them! At least there were a lot of witnesses..." Nor do we ask ourselves, "He clearly doesn't mean NY killed AZ, so I wonder what metaphorical principle the author is trying to communicate?" No, we understand that writter is communicating the historical facts of the game using hyperbolic and poetic language, an American colloquialism.

When reading the Bible, we can't forget that the writers are Ancient Near Easterners who write from that point of view and using their own expressions and turns of phrase, just like we do.

It helps to be clear on the type of literature your reading. When I'm reading history like Chronicles, Kings, or Judges, I take it as such - meaning mostly literally but understanding that even contemporary historians will occasonally use hyperbole to get a point across. The ancients did the same, it's just harder to spot because we aren't as familar with their lanugage and culture. When I read poetry, like Psalms and substantial portions Isaiah and other prophets, I know that real values, lessons, and events are being communicated, but in highly picturesque language; just like poetry today.

Similarly, the writers of the epistles often write directly, but just like all men, occasionally make use of sarcasm and humor, as well as common turns of phrase and expressions which we would never dream of "taking literally" if we were familar with them. To do so would be like taking me literally if I told you that it was "raining cats and dogs" today. No one here would actually think cats and dogs were falling from the sky, but would understand I was telling a truth about a physical reality in the world using descriptive or picturesque language.

The same goes for the Bible.

^^^ THIS ^^^

 

[Mellontes]

New to the forums, so sorry if this post is in the wrong spot!

But yeah, are you supposed to take the Bible literally

It depends upon what your definition of "literal" is...

It used to be that "literal" was part and parcel of literature, and how one's literacy dealt with the cultural aspects of knowledge. It used to be literary in nature, that is, according to the literature at the time.

But now it seems to mean an actual, physical meaning according to present-day standards.

So, if your definition is the last one (actual, physical according to present-day), then absolutely NO.

 

[Mellontes]

I think there is a problem with terminology in most discussions of this question. As Christians we shouldn't be arguing whether we "take the Bible literally or not," we should be striving to take what was written in the way the author intended - which is what is generally meant when we say we're "taking the Bible literally." No one actually takes the whole Bible literally - heck, we don't even take the sports page in the paper literally! We take in the manner it was intended.

When it's reported the Oakland A's "killed" the Yankees (I know, I know, "In my dreams"), we don't think, "Why didn't anybody try to stop them! At least there were a lot of witnesses..." Nor do we ask ourselves, "He clearly doesn't mean NY killed AZ, so I wonder what metaphorical principle the author is trying to communicate?" No, we understand that writter is communicating the historical facts of the game using hyperbolic and poetic language, an American colloquialism.

When reading the Bible, we can't forget that the writers are Ancient Near Easterners who write from that point of view and using their own expressions and turns of phrase, just like we do.

It helps to be clear on the type of literature your reading. When I'm reading history like Chronicles, Kings, or Judges, I take it as such - meaning mostly literally but understanding that even contemporary historians will occasonally use hyperbole to get a point across. The ancients did the same, it's just harder to spot because we aren't as familar with their lanugage and culture. When I read poetry, like Psalms and substantial portions Isaiah and other prophets, I know that real values, lessons, and events are being communicated, but in highly picturesque language; just like poetry today.

Similarly, the writers of the epistles often write directly, but just like all men, occasionally make use of sarcasm and humor, as well as common turns of phrase and expressions which we would never dream of "taking literally" if we were familar with them. To do so would be like taking me literally if I told you that it was "raining cats and dogs" today. No one here would actually think cats and dogs were falling from the sky, but would understand I was telling a truth about a physical reality in the world using descriptive or picturesque language.

The same goes for the Bible.

Nathan,

I agree. Let's test if you agree with what you wrote. Do you believe that anything technological in nature (bar codes, laser implants, helicopters, Mendeleev's Periodic Table of Elements) could be valid interpretations for parts of Revelation?

Do you believe Matthew 24:29 represent actual physical objects in space?

Do you believe the stars (plural) that fall from heaven in Rev 6:13 are similar in manner as our sun is a star?

Here is a related question: Was it always possible that after the completion of the canon (1st century) that anyone in possession of the completed canon could understand the Bible? For instance, could individuals in the year 192, 788, 1066, 1492, 1598, 1611, 1789, 1856, 1904, 1976, and 2013 ALL have the same ability to understand the Bible's contents, or did they have to wait until some kind of technology or something else had to be invented or made known. I think most people take the latter position; I don't.

 

[Destructus86]

Why are you sure that all the species of today were replicated exactly as they were then? and why do you then made your determination the basis for rejecting what the Scripture says?

(Or maybe I've missed something of your meaning? I'm only a simple fellow.)

Animals from then to now didn't change. If you mean that most subspecies didn't exist then, then what you are saying is that they evolved over a short period of time into seperate subspecies.

Also, what about animals that were designed by God to only eat meat? How were they fed all that time on the ship?