Bible, literal or not

[Yytz6]

Is there a system in Christianity (any "sect" of it) as to which part of the bible are literal and which aren't or which stories are true and which aren't?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Is there a system in Christianity (any "sect" of it) as to which part of the bible are literal and which aren't or which stories are true and which aren't?

A sect that says some of the bible stories are not true... I think that's called liberalism.

 

[Tone]

Is there a system in Christianity (any "sect" of it) as to which part of the bible are literal and which aren't or which stories are true and which aren't?

It's called exegesis of the Scripture.


*
Exegesis (/ˌɛksɪˈdʒiːsɪs/; from the Greek ἐξήγησις from ἐξηγεῖσθαι, "to lead out") is a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, particularly a religious text. Traditionally the term was used primarily for work with the Bible; however, in modern usage "biblical exegesis" is used for greater specificity to distinguish it from any other broader critical text explanation.

Exegesis includes a wide range of critical disciplines: textual criticism is the investigation into the history and origins of the text, but exegesis may include the study of the historical and cultural backgrounds of the author, text, and original audience. Other analyses include classification of the type of literary genrespresented in the text and analysis of grammatical and syntactical features in the text itself.

The terms exegesis and hermeneutics have been used interchangeably.
Exegesis - Wikipedia

 

[hedrick]

The term "literal" actually combines a couple of things

• historical accuracy
• application of instructions to us without reexaminaton.

No one applies both to all passages. E.g. no one thinks all of Jesus' parables are historical, and no one applies all of the OT rules. Almost every community has rough agreement on places that they take literally, in both senses, and places where they don't.

But I'm not aware of anyone having a list. Some annotated versions of the Bible give judgements on most of this in introductions to the books and footnotes. That's probably the closest you'll come.

 

[Not David]

Usually the mainline or the European Protestants.

 

[d taylor]

The Bible should be read literal and taken literal.
Only the Bible should define when a passage should not betaken literal.

Adam and Eve a literal account of God creating the human race.

The sun and moon are created lights and are for lighting the earth.

Noah built and ark and the earth was flooded by God as the Bible states.

God confused the language of the builders of the tower of babel and dispersed them through the earth.

God through Moses parted the red sea.

Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stop moving.

Jesus's star guided the wise men to His birth place and then the star stood over where the child Messiah was.

Jesus states stars will fall and we know in/from Revelation that they will fall to earth like figs falling from a tree.

Non of the above mention parts of the Bible are ever stated in the Bible, to not, to be taken literally. The Bible speaks of theses as actually happening as the given account in the Bible.

 

[hedrick]

Usually the mainline or the European Protestants.

Actually evangelicals also take some commandments / advice literally and not others. The OT is the simplest example, but most evangelicals today accept that divorce can be the lesser evil, and prohibit slavery. Every community has approaches to this problem. Similarly, evangelicals have traditions on how to harmonize accounts of events that disagree. The most obvious example is making Gen 1 and Gen 2 agree, even though obviously they don't.

 

[Tone]

Hebrews 11...is literal.

 

[Not David]

Actually evangelicals also take some commandments / advice literally and not others. The OT is the simplest example, but most evangelicals today accept that divorce can be the lesser evil, and prohibit slavery. Every community has approaches to this problem. Similarly, evangelicals have traditions on how to harmonize accounts of events that disagree. The most obvious example is making Gen 1 and Gen 2 agree, even though obviously they don't.

True, also the idea of God regretting an action or not knowing where Adam and Eve were.

 

[hedrick]

True, also the idea of God regretting an action or not knowing where Adam and Eve were.

Any conservative commentary will tell you what parts of Gen 2 not to take literally. But I’m not so sure they would all talk about this. It may simply be understood. I’m not sure critical commentaries would either. It depends upon your doctrine of God, and I don’t think there’s agreement on this aspect.

 

[Yytz6]

The Bible should be read literal and taken literal.
Only the Bible should define when a passage should not betaken literal.

Adam and Eve a literal account of God creating the human race.

The sun and moon are created lights and are for lighting the earth.

Noah built and ark and the earth was flooded by God as the Bible states.

God confused the language of the builders of the tower of babel and dispersed them through the earth.

God through Moses parted the red sea.

Joshua commanded the sun and moon to stop moving.

Jesus's star guided the wise men to His birth place and then the star stood over where the child Messiah was.

Jesus states stars will fall and we know in/from Revelation that they will fall to earth like figs falling from a tree.

Non of the above mention parts of the Bible are ever stated in the Bible, to not, to be taken literally. The Bible speaks of theses as actually happening as the given account in the Bible.

But it's scientific fact the earth was never flooded as a whole.

Were Adam and Eve neanderthals?

 

[Not David]

But it's scientific fact the earth was never flooded as a whole.

Were Adam and Eve neanderthals?

Is the Flood present in Islam?

 

[hedrick]

Any conservative commentary will tell you what parts of Gen 2 not to take literally. But I’m not so sure they would all talk about this. It may simply be understood. I’m not sure critical commentaries would either. It depends upon your doctrine of God, and I don’t think there’s agreement on this aspect.

Then there's a ultimate in what to take literally and what not to: the Revelation.

 

[Jeshu]

The bible is first and foremost a spiritual book. God's Spirit is trying to excess our hearts with the truths of the word so that we can be build into His Kingdom with it. 1 Peter 1:23-25

For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For,


“All people are like grass,
and all their glory is like the flowers of the field;
the grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of the Lord endures forever.”

And this is the word that was preached to you.

For example; when the bible says that snakes and scorpions will not hurt us for example then The Spirit means first of all that the evil lies from satan cannot harm us any more when the truth of God lives within us. To think that being bitten by a deadly snake will not kill you because you are a Christian however is going to far in our reading though. For more than likely you will die if you try that out. Though God can protect us from snake bites, as we see with Paul for example, such miracles usually only happen to establish the kingdom of Christ or write the bible and ought not to be used to prove the bible right or test God with it.

The same is true for Jesus' saying that when you see sin to pluck out your eye or cut of your hand. Jesus doesn't want us to walk around physically maimed fighting our sin but means to say don't look at sin and don't handle sin but stay free from it by cutting out your evil desires and needs. This is a spiritual message which Paul teaches to mainly mean that we ought to look at Christ for our salvation and not be staring at or handling our sin in our own ability, but giving our hearts for Him to handle.

See also Jesus' promise that He will come soon. Literally it has been two thousand years since He been in His skin down here and it could easily be another 1000, or more, before He returns. From that perspective the Scriptures seem to speak an untruth that He would come soon. Yet spiritually He always comes quickly when we call out to Him in our moment of need. Usually within minutes of fighting temptation in the Lord and His Spirit of love and truth comes and relieves us of our struggles in S(s)pirit. Jesus has faithfully come and rescued me from countless spiritual battles, He has never been late. His loving truth displacing the lying misery that had hold of me. Jesus lives in my heart. He came from Heaven and made His Home within me!

i know that all of Scripture is spiritual and written to the spiritual in us. To read the Word of God literally, often imposes the laws of nature up against it, and more often than not brings us realities like legalism, unbelief, doubt, fear, confusion and other misunderstandings of God's loving truth.

However to read the Word with our hearts exposes the strongholds of satan and reveals the darkness living within us and rescues from it time and again and its truths sets us free from religion and all other opposing forces against God's kingdom growing within us. The power of the word is in the Spirit.

So yes the bible is true, but it was written for the spiritual us much more so than our physical reality. For Jesus told us that those who believe in Him cross over from death to life and shall never die again. Yet literally this is not true at all for we do die physically and our flesh - human aspirations will rot even like our worldly ways. Still spiritual we live forever the moment we are born again in Christ's truth and begin to grow into His Kingdom. Just to prove our Lord's words truer than true.

Peace.

 

[d taylor]

But it's scientific fact the earth was never flooded as a whole.

Were Adam and Eve neanderthals?

Jesus states science is lying
But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
Peter states science is lying
by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
and again
and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

Also Paul
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

 

[Tutorman]

Is the Bible literal? Good question

 

[Lost4words]

Not everything in the Bible is black and white.

Is everything in Revelation to be taken literally?

I believe the Bible can and is, grossly misinterpreted and misunderstood. Many wars have been started because of peoples 'literal' interpretation of the written word.

 

[Tone]

But it's scientific fact the earth was never flooded as a whole.

Were Adam and Eve neanderthals?

"Scientific fact" is overrated. It basically amounts to convention.

 

[Yytz6]

Is the Flood present in Islam?

Yes, but as a local flood according to the opinion of the majority of the scholars.

 

[Yytz6]

"Scientific fact" is overrated. It basically amounts to convention.

And your opinion basically amounts to denial.