Do you take the Bible literally?

[Kidd]

New to the forums, so sorry if this is the wrong spot! The never-ending maze of forums and subforums on here is so confusing. An absurd amount of categories.

But yeah! My question is are you supposed to take the Bible literally?

 

[granpa]

taking metaphors literally is where religion first starts to go wrong.

this isnt just a scripture thing either.
I think the same thing happens in ones head.
thoughts that should be interpreted symbolically get misinterpreted as literal.

religion started going wrong thousands of years ago and by now its become an outright joke.

 

[PaladinValer]

No.

You are supposed to take the Holy Bible seriously, not necessarily always literally. It is authoritative on matters of faith, doctrine, salvation, and morals; in those areas only is it inerrant and infallible.

 

[Jase]

New to the forums, so sorry if this is the wrong spot! The never-ending maze of forums and subforums on here is so confusing. An absurd amount of categories.

But yeah! My question is are you supposed to take the Bible literally?

Depends on what part of the Bible you're talking about. Despite it being bound as one book, the Bible is dozens of books. Some books or parts of books are literal, others are not. Which is which depends on who you ask. I believe the gospels are mostly literal (excluding parables/metaphor), whereas the creation story of Genesis is not. I also do not believe Revelation is literal.

 

[ebia]

New to the forums, so sorry if this is the wrong spot! The never-ending maze of forums and subforums on here is so confusing. An absurd amount of categories.

But yeah! My question is are you supposed to take the Bible literally?

Nobody in their right mind would take it all literally.

 

[OzSpen]

New to the forums, so sorry if this is the wrong spot! The never-ending maze of forums and subforums on here is so confusing. An absurd amount of categories.

But yeah! My question is are you supposed to take the Bible literally?

Kidd,

Welcome to the forum. Yes, there are way too many directories and sub-directories, IMO.

When you ask about taking the Bible literally, we need to define "literal interpretation". The general dictionary interpretation, and the one I learned in Bible College and seminary in hermeneutics is that literal interpretation refers to the exact meaning of what is written. See HERE.

This means that if a figure of speech is used (simile, metaphor, etc) or a parable is used, that is included in the meaning.

When it comes to translating from one language to another (I read NT Greek), it is impossible to use a word-for-word translation, in the order given by, say, the Greek NT and get meaningful structure.

Therefore, the ESV, RSV, NRSV, KJV, NKJV tend to give a more word-for-word translation where possible, but the NIV and NLT are dynamic equivalent in their translation approach, which is meaning for meaning. Whether one is using formal equivalence (ESV, KJV) or dynamic equivalence (meaning for meaning as in NIV & NLT), it is possible to get accurate translations.

However, what is the real issue you are driving at when you ask this question?

Sincerely, Oz

 

[CryptoLutheran]

New to the forums, so sorry if this is the wrong spot! The never-ending maze of forums and subforums on here is so confusing. An absurd amount of categories.

But yeah! My question is are you supposed to take the Bible literally?

We should take the Bible contextually. No sane person takes the entire Bible literally, or else we'd believe God is literally mineral with arms and wings.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OzSpen]

We should take the Bible contextually. No sane person takes the entire Bible literally, or else we'd believe God is literally mineral with arms and wings.

-CryptoLutheran

Crypto,

What is your definition of literal interpretation that causes you to make this kind of statement?

In Norman Geisler’s commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, he explains the meaning of interpreting the Bible literally:

The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed.

The Denial warns against attributing to Scripture any meaning not based in a literal understanding, such as mythological or allegorical interpretations. This should not be understood as eliminating typology or designated allegory or other literary forms which include figures of speech (Article XV).

I am a sane person and I interpret the Bible literally, with the common understanding of "literal interpretation" from hermeneutics (biblical interpretation) and the dictionary understanding of literal. I read the Bible literally as I would read the local newspaper literally. That does not make me an insane evangelical Christian!!

Sincerely, Oz

 

[SharonL]

I believe the Bible to be the true Word of God -

People make it confusing when they try to 'define what the meaning of is - is' and they try to make that mountain move into the sea.

Common sense and 1,600 years of culture and language goes into the makeup of the Bible. But the Word of God still stands.

Culture and language changes things - that mountain is your mountain in front of you - whateve that mountain is. Our problems are built into a mountain one thing at a time, just as a mountain is built one grain of sand at a time - remove those blockages one thing at a time and the mountain moves.

 

[CGL1023]

The Bible says of itself, 'the Bible is God breathed' and in another place it says that 'men, moved by the Holy Spirit', authored the Bible. God says he will see that His Word shall perform as He intends. Further God is not a liar, in fact God cannot lie.

If there is a problem with the Word of God, we know it cannot be a problem with God; so it must be a problem with man.

If the Bible is not true, people would have figured that out long ago and by now it should be completely abandoned. Instead the Bible is increasingly popular.

 

[Knee V]

Welcome aboard!

I believe that that phraseology gets thrown around too much (of biblical "literalness"). The Bible is a library of many different types of writings representing many different types of literary methods. We read each passage of Scripture the way we'd read anything else: we find out what kind of literature it is (as well as who the author was, the historical background of the work, the intended audience, etc) and we interpret it accordingly.

In other words, we must figure out what the individual author is saying. If I were reading Judges and the author said that the mountains skipped, I'd be inclined to think that the mountains skipped. But if I read that same thing in the Psalms, I'd be inclined to see it as a figure of speech and not think that the mountains actually skipped (it just so happens that the book of Psalms is exactly where we find that type of language).

 

[minidom]

The bible is both God's word and a historical document. It has been written down (on the whole) by man. No man can write his words or to talk of God's meaning without any influence of the authors own experiences . All of this should be considered when reading and quoting the bible.

When we read we read the bible we should engage both our hearts and minds. We should think about what we are reading question and learn from it. If we don't our faith could easily stagnate.

 

[Slaol121]

I believe that one can take the Bible as a set of literal Truths without taking it completely literally.

 

[Robert83]

What you read in the bible should be true unless it was altered by man. Which usually in most bibles the scripture is almost, I believe, unblemished.


God wants everyone to know about Jesus and you should read the New Testament. His words are more precious than gold. So I suppose you should take everything literally.

 

[rev.hewett]

Yes when dealing in fact only !

We may have found something we agree on...

To answer the OP, I tell people usually that the Bible in whole (the message) is to be taken literally in a sense that it is taken serious. We tend to mix up those two words & use them in a synonymously. In a lot of situations this can happen with those two words, but they do imply separate things as well.

I wouldn't expect anyone to say, although people do, that every single word of the Bible has to be taken literally. Some the language (Pauline Epistles for instance) hold language that is figurative. When we say we have to take the Bible literally some people get in their heads that means take the very words themselves literally & that's not always true given that some figurative language is used.

So what do we do? I personally think we should get down to the message of the Bible. That message of each verse, each passage, each chapter & Book of the Bible & the message of the Bible in whole should be taken literal & serious. Obviously, grammatically, everything should not be taken in a literal sense.

 

[Slaol121]

When they themselve no nothing of the language of their scriptures nor do they ever research anything . I have only been here about a week or so , And I see the above Already . Owell

I don't think this is a very fair statement to make. Many Christians on this site go to great lengths to ensure that their posts are backed up with evidence.

There are many excellent English translations of the bible that have years of linguistic research by many highly-educated scholars from around the world behind them. There are also good online sources, such as Strong's Concordance, to double check words and context.