Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

[BobRyan]

The topic often comes up about how to read the Bible when it contradicts the firmly held religious beliefs of atheists, or agnostics or some other group that prefers not to accept what the text appears to say to the unbiased reader.

Given that there are a lot of different denominations and doctrinal views an atheist or agnostic migh suppose that the Bible is very "plastic" in it's ability to be bent and wrenched to the usages and needs of any given individual .. however the entire system of objective methods (in what we call Exegesis) argues that such "bend-and-wrench as you please" abuses of the text are not acceptable at all and certainly not "required" if one is truly willing to let the text speak for itself.

So when people complain about a "literal reading" are they really complaining about "accepting what the Bible appears to say"??

Ot is interesting that those who DO accept the Bible for what it really says never argue that "Christ is wood" from John 10 "I am the door" or that "Christ is a plant" from John 15 "I am the vine". They all accept that these symbols can be used at times without turning all of scripture into a mismash of "everything is really just a symbol that we can bend and wrench anyway that pleases us".

Often those who find the "inconvenient details" of scripture to oppose their pre-bias will argue that the apparent REAL meaning of the text should be avoided by appealing to extreme absurdum examples like "Christ is not really a door so that also means we don't have to worry about Christ is the WAY the Truth and the LIFE" arguing for a more pluralistic watered-down meaning to the Bible .


Others will argue that obvious statements in legal code such as "FOR in SIX days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth" Ex 20:8 need to be "Bent and wrenched" to fit a more athiest darwinist doctrine on origins. If the Bible reallys "as plastic" as they suppose then maybe there IS a way to bend that text to the usage they need?

Or should we all just embrace Exegesis and be done with it?

What say you?

"A Literal Reading" is just "code" for "Letting the bible's obvious meaning stand as it is" when the term is used by those who like to accuse some Christians of having a literal view of the Bible"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DavidLee]

What say you?

"A Literal Reading" is just "code" for "Letting the bible's obvious meaning stand as it is" when the term is used by those who like to accuse some Christians of having a literal view of the Bible"??

I have always felt that if a literal reading makes sense, then it must be literal. Figurative words can be (and often are) used in a literal passage.
“I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.â€Â
(John 10:9 NASB)
The important part of this passage is that He is THE door. There is no other way to "the pasture".
It is a perfect example of figurative words in a literal passage.

There are some passages (parts of Ezekiel and Revelation come to mind) that can be read as figurative of OTHER literal truths.

I do not know how my mind discerns the figurative from the literal, but I know I could not tell apart from the light given by the Holy Spirit.

 

[BobRyan]

Very often the concept of "a literal reading of the bible" is used to argue the point that "there are many denominations" as IF one denomination would argue that "Christ is really wood in John 10's I am the door while others would not". -- The truth is nobody argues "Christ is wood" in John 10.

So that begs the question "what then is meaning of the phrase - a literal reading of the Bible?"

One thing it does NOT mean is that every time you see "I am the door" John 10 or "I am the vine" John 15 that Christ is really "wood" or is really "plant" since nobody actually endorses that straw man as their own firmly held belief.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dadof10]

The topic often comes up about how to read the Bible when it contradicts the firmly held religious beliefs of atheists, or agnostics or some other group that prefers not to accept what the text appears to say to the unbiased reader.

Bob,

I think it's extremely rare to find an "unbiased reader" of Scripture. We all bring baggage to our own interpretation. Whether it is from a church, a teacher, a friend etc, we all listen to others and either accept or reject their input, especially when we first start studying Scripture.

I've never heard of anyone who has simply picked up a Bible, started reading and came to the conclusion that it was the word of God.

God Bless, Mark

 

[BobRyan]

As it turns out there are millions upon millions who picked up their Bible and based on what they found - changed religions. (Sometimes for bad -- but often for good).

And there are millions upon millions of non-Christians that found the Bible to lead them to Christ. Lee Stroble is a rather famous example of one who first picked up the Bible to disprove the Gospel - only to be convinced that it was indeed - fact.

I also admit that many -- maybe even most - pick up the Bible with the subconscious notion "I don't care what I find in the Bible today to the contrary -- there are certain beliefs I have that are not subject to change. If the bible appears to challenge them - then I just assume that with more study it could be FIXED"

However "natural bias" is all the more reason to embrace objective methods. If you know you view of the world is likely to be skewed -- then have objective points of reference is a must-have not a nice-to-have.

If I know when I am swimming in a lane -- I always pull to the right -- I have to open my eyes to see the lines a the bottom of the pool "often" vs "never".

Exegesis is that much MORE necessary when we admit that we tend to insert bias into almost every discussion.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Orion]

If evidence is not there, or is against something, I don't really care what book says the error.

As for the bible, yes, it is filled with metaphorical language, some of which has already been discussed here. Completely non-literal imagery used to express an idea, some of which would have probably made more sense to ancient nomadic people. If the bible were written today, perhaps it would have been worded in a completely different way to make its point, and it would make sense to use, . . . . .and if it WERE written for today, at our level of scientific understanding, . . . . it would be doubtful that so much pseudo-science would be used. Perhaps it would have reached more people, too. We'll never know.

 

[Vic C.]

We must also define the difference between literal and literalistic. Basically, being literal is being true to the actual sense and meaning of the author. The prophetic books in the Bible written in the late BC/early AD apocalyptic literature style are perfect examples.

We are so confused by the language and visual images they represent because we try so hard to comprehend it in a contemporary fashion. instead, we should understand the fact that it needed to make sense to those who were initially intended to read (and understand) it.

 

[dadof10]

As it turns out there are millions upon millions who picked up their Bible and based on what they found - changed religions. (Sometimes for bad -- but often for good).

And there are millions upon millions of non-Christians that found the Bible to lead them to Christ. Lee Stroble is a rather famous example of one who first picked up the Bible to disprove the Gospel - only to be convinced that it was indeed - fact.

Right, but in all but a few rare cases these people were told that what they were reading was considered by Christians to be the "word of God". Once that happens, they are biased, either pro or con. I don't think people would come to the conclusion that the 66 (72 :-D ) books of the Bible are inspired if other people didn't call their attention to that fact.

I also admit that many -- maybe even most - pick up the Bible with the subconscious notion "I don't care what I find in the Bible today to the contrary -- there are certain beliefs I have that are not subject to change. If the bible appears to challenge them - then I just assume that with more study it could be FIXED"

I agree that when Christians read Scripture, there is usually some kind of bias. I thought we were talking about Athiest/Agnostics. :

Exegesis is that much MORE necessary when we admit that we tend to insert bias into almost every discussion.

Embroider that and hang it on the wall of every University in the world. There are countless stories of kids who go away to college with mom and dads money and a nominally Christian attitude and come back home an anti-Christian, Agnostic. And their major is business or agriculture or some other course of study that has NOTHING to do with Theology. Talk about BIAS...But, I digress...

i think most Christians attempt an unbiased reading of Scripture, I wonder how much outside influence actually comes in, though. I guess it varies by the individual.

 

[dadof10]

We are so confused by the language and visual images they represent because we try so hard to comprehend it in a contemporary fashion. instead, we should understand the fact that it needed to make sense to those who were initially intended to read (and understand) it.

I agree. I debated someone a long time ago who tried to make the point that once an inspired Gospel or Letter or even an OT book was written, it was recognized by the Author and the recipient to be the inspired Word of God. I disagreed and pointed to Philemon, but it did no good. A book may come to be seen as inspired and universally accepted as such, but even when that happens it still has the "accidents" of the time, place, writing style, Author, etc.

 

[Vic C.]

Well I wasn't arguing against inspiration, all scripture is inspired and I'd extend that a bit to NT scripture as well. My point was this: a thousand years from now, what would an image of a donkey and elephant or a bull and bear battling it out mean, without the knowledge of what those images meant back in the 20th. century?

 

[BobRyan]

Well I wasn't arguing against inspiration, all scripture is inspired and I'd extend that a bit to NT scripture as well. My point was this: a thousand years from now, what would an image of a donkey and elephant or a bull and bear battling it out mean, without the knowledge of what those images meant back in the 20th. century?

Good point -- which brings us back again to the importance of objective methods such as are required for proper exegesis.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

if it WERE written for today, at our level of scientific understanding, . . . . it would be doubtful that so much pseudo-science would be used. Perhaps it would have reached more people, too. We'll never know.

Step 1 -- what does the Bible actually say -- using objective methods to render it -- excluding bias whim and preference.

Step 2 -- what would you like to do about what it says.

Slice-and-dice? Cut-and-paste? Toss out the window? Accept as the Word of God?

Many different approaches to number 2 -- but we "should" be able to get number 1 right -- it is a simple enough text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We must also define the difference between literal and literalistic. Basically, being literal is being true to the actual sense and meaning of the author. The prophetic books in the Bible written in the late BC/early AD apocalyptic literature style are perfect examples.

We are so confused by the language and visual images they represent because we try so hard to comprehend it in a contemporary fashion. instead, we should understand the fact that it needed to make sense to those who were initially intended to read (and understand) it.

indeed - "literal" is often used to mean "accept what the Bible says vs try to get around it" -- accepting what is says is called "literal" even though those who are said to be using a literal model DO NOT take things like "I am the door" in John 10 and narrowly rendeer that as "Jesus was wooden".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As it turns out there are millions upon millions who picked up their Bible and based on what they found - changed religions. (Sometimes for bad -- but often for good).

And there are millions upon millions of non-Christians that found the Bible to lead them to Christ. Lee Stroble is a rather famous example of one who first picked up the Bible to disprove the Gospel - only to be convinced that it was indeed - fact.

Right, but in all but a few rare cases these people were told that what they were reading was considered by Christians to be the "word of God". Once that happens, they are biased, either pro or con. I don't think people would come to the conclusion that the 66 (72 :-D ) books of the Bible are inspired if other people didn't call their attention to that fact.

Ok - lets go back to 65 AD - Paul has written letters - almost all the Gospels are written - Peter's letters are written, James, Luke etc.

"IS anyone reading them" In 65 A.D or do they wait for a few hundred years?

Notice what Paul says (the guy who says everyone should be tested) in 1Thess 2.

13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

They were reading the letters then and there -- and Paul having been proven to be an Apostle was recognized for having the prophetic gift and Apostolic gift whereby God spoke and man became the means for conveying the message of God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Exegesis is that much MORE necessary when we admit that we tend to insert bias into almost every discussion.

Embroider that and hang it on the wall of every University in the world. There are countless stories of kids who go away to college with mom and dads money and a nominally Christian attitude and come back home an anti-Christian, Agnostic. And their major is business or agriculture or some other course of study that has NOTHING to do with Theology. Talk about BIAS...But, I digress...

i think most Christians attempt an unbiased reading of Scripture, I wonder how much outside influence actually comes in, though. I guess it varies by the individual.

I knew a religion and philosophy professor at Chappel Hill once who explained how it is that they are able to have such a high percentage of atheists and agnostice in the graduating classes when the Freshmen are coming in primarily from Christian families.

1. They discredit the Bible as "required teaching" with many forms of "some scholars believe" and "some scholars think" and "Scholars today believe"... which are all various forms of marketing propaganda making the reader think that serious Bible scholars have all come to agreement on some point. What they are in fact quoting are just-say-nay agnostics and in some cases outright atheists. But their point would have been ruined had they honestly said "agnostic Bible scholars believe..." and "Atheist Bible scholars guess..." etc.

2. The other way to discredit the Christians is to require that an otherwise informative science class on chemistry, biology or physics or... the weather -- insert as much Darwinism into it's subject matter as can possibly be done without being laughable.

That way the electives and even some of the core courses for engineers, business majors and english majors gets heavily peppered with "Bible is trash" course work. And you will not make high grades if you simply refuse to give the "Bibel is trash" answers on the tests and home work where it is called for --

Turns out -- that is pretty effective.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dadof10]

Well I wasn't arguing against inspiration, all scripture is inspired and I'd extend that a bit to NT scripture as well.

I wasn't either. I was just making a comment about recognizing what is and is not scripture.

My point was this: a thousand years from now, what would an image of a donkey and elephant or a bull and bear battling it out mean, without the knowledge of what those images meant back in the 20th. century?

I know what you mean, Vic, and it's a good point.

 

[dadof10]

As it turns out there are millions upon millions who picked up their Bible and based on what they found - changed religions. (Sometimes for bad -- but often for good).

And there are millions upon millions of non-Christians that found the Bible to lead them to Christ. Lee Stroble is a rather famous example of one who first picked up the Bible to disprove the Gospel - only to be convinced that it was indeed - fact.

Right, but in all but a few rare cases these people were told that what they were reading was considered by Christians to be the "word of God". Once that happens, they are biased, either pro or con. I don't think people would come to the conclusion that the 66 (72 :-D ) books of the Bible are inspired if other people didn't call their attention to that fact.

Ok - lets go back to 65 AD - Paul has written letters - almost all the Gospels are written - Peter's letters are written, James, Luke etc.

"IS anyone reading them" In 65 A.D or do they wait for a few hundred years?

Notice what Paul says (the guy who says everyone should be tested) in 1Thess 2.

13 For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

They were reading the letters then and there -- and Paul having been proven to be an Apostle was recognized for having the prophetic gift and Apostolic gift whereby God spoke and man became the means for conveying the message of God.

in Christ,

Bob

OK, remember, in the above quote, I thought we were talking about Athiest/Agnostics, and Paul is writing to the Church in 1Thess. Are you saying that the early Church immediately recognized the letters and historical accounts as Scripture or that everyone, including unbelievers with biases, should have?

 

[dadof10]

I knew a religion and philosophy professor at Chappel Hill once who explained how it is that they are able to have such a high percentage of atheists and agnostice in the graduating classes when the Freshmen are coming in primarily from Christian families.

1. They discredit the Bible as "required teaching" with many forms of "some scholars believe" and "some scholars think" and "Scholars today believe"... which are all various forms of marketing propaganda making the reader think that serious Bible scholars have all come to agreement on some point. What they are in fact quoting are just-say-nay agnostics and in some cases outright atheists. But their point would have been ruined had they honestly said "agnostic Bible scholars believe..." and "Atheist Bible scholars guess..." etc.

2. The other way to discredit the Christians is to require that an otherwise informative science class on chemistry, biology or physics or... the weather -- insert as much Darwinism into it's subject matter as can possibly be done without being laughable.

That way the electives and even some of the core courses for engineers, business majors and english majors gets heavily peppered with "Bible is trash" course work. And you will not make high grades if you simply refuse to give the "Bibel is trash" answers on the tests and home work where it is called for --

Turns out -- that is pretty effective.

in Christ,

Bob

It's a shame. Lying is the only way to get people to believe the laughable doctrine of Athiesm. It definately can't stand on it's own, people have to be indoctrinated with no opposing arguments or it'll fall.

 

[BobRyan]

OK, remember, in the above quote, I thought we were talking about Athiest/Agnostics, and Paul is writing to the Church in 1Thess. Are you saying that the early Church immediately recognized the letters and historical accounts as Scripture or that everyone, including unbelievers with biases, should have?

In 1Thess 2 Paul admits that the church at Corinth accepted his teaching "For what it is - the Word of God".

Peter says that some men distort the words of Paul "along with the rest of scripture" indicating that he knew Paul's letters were to be accepted as scripture.

I think we all agree that the church was actively engaged in reading Paul and Peter and John and Luke during the first century -- they did not wait for someone to come along 200 years later and say "OK start reading Paul".

In fact the church councils in later centuries were merely clarifying what was already established practice from the 1st century lest that practice should be confused and clouded by customs and practices that were arising "new" over the centuries.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Orion]

Step 1 -- what does the Bible actually say -- using objective methods to render it -- excluding bias whim and preference.

Step 2 -- what would you like to do about what it says.

Slice-and-dice? Cut-and-paste? Toss out the window? Accept as the Word of God?

Many different approaches to number 2 -- but we "should" be able to get number 1 right -- it is a simple enough text.

in Christ,

Bob

I understand that the church accepts all of it as the literal words of God.

I see no reason to "slice and dice" it. It is what it is. The writings of those in the Jewish religion. People who were, of course, hardly without fault.

So, if we look at "Step 1", if it seems to contradict what we know, . . . then we can automatically assume that the words were meant as allegory.