Literal interpretations

[Tom 1]

I came to Christianity, and study of the bible, later in life. I don’t think at least that I brought any intellectual baggage to that process, I try to study the scriptures with an open mind and with an eye to the historical context and literary style etc.

I have some questions about literal interpretations of biblical texts, including the idea some people have of the whole bible being dictated word for word by God, as follows -

1) Does this include personal greetings, comments and so on, for example Paul’s words of salutation and the beginning and end of his letters, or John’s occasional comments about himself in his gospel?

2) Does it also include references made to things we don’t have, e.g Paul’s references to other letters he wrote to the Corinthians.

3) What are the deciding factors for what is meant to be literal and what isn’t? For example in the Genesis narrative is the passage stating that ‘the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters’ taken to mean that a literal, physical manifestation of the Spirit was literally hovering over some water?


Edit: also, what is the thinking about edits and revisions, e.g in Genesis and some parts of the gospels? How about some of the minor discrepancies between surviving copies of scripture?

Thanks

 

[Radagast]

I came to Christianity, and study of the bible, later in life. I don’t think at least that I brought any intellectual baggage to that process, I try to study the scriptures with an open mind and with an eye to the historical context and literary style etc.

I have some questions about the idea of the whole bible being ‘dictated word for word’ by God, as follows -

A typical high view of inspiration is the Chicago Statement. It still views exact word choice as reflecting the personality of the authors.

1) Does this include personal greetings, comments and so on, for example Paul’s words of salutation and the beginning and end of his letters

They are seen as inspired, and thus providing divine guidance on writing letters.

3) What are the deciding factors for what is meant to be literal and what isn’t?

That depends on what you mean by "literal."

For example in the Genesis narrative is the passage stating that ‘the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters’ taken to mean that a literal, physical manifestation of the Spirit was literally hovering over some water?

I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that.

 

[Tom 1]

That depends on what you mean by "literal."

I suppose what I mean is just taking the words as they come, e.g 6 days = 6 24hr days, or some variation of that, or ideas of literalness over meaning, e.g did Jesus fast for 40 days or was the traditional use of 40 meaning ‘a long time’ being used - things like that.

 

[Tom 1]

I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that.

To clarify my question is more about what criteria do people employ to make the distinction, between God ‘hovering over the waters’ and Eve being fashioned from a rib, or interpretations of ideas like that of God ‘resting’ and what that is taken to mean in a literal translation of the passage.

 

[Radagast]

did Jesus fast for 40 days or was the traditional use of 40 meaning ‘a long time’ being used - things like that.

40 was a number of special religious significance. It still is -- fasting in Lent is exactly 40 days.

To clarify my question is more about what criteria do people employ to make the distinction

Top of the list is: what is the genre of the passage in question?

Genesis 1 is the subject of much debate, but elsewhere it's mostly quite clear what's metaphorical.

 

[Lost4words]

For me, you cant take all of the bible 100% literally.

Look at Revelation as an example.

 

[Tom 1]

For me, you cant take all of the bible 100% literally.

Look at Revelation as an example.

What sort of criteria do you use to get at the meaning of a passage?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You must read in context though. For instance, Hebrew days don't start at midnight, birds in Bible translation rather means flying thing, and the ilk. You must not forget you are dealing with a text that is both familiar and foreign - many ideas are culturally specific to when it was written, and it is sometimes hard to translate Culture from one to another. What we read into it, might not be what it would mean to a reader then - and our own cultural familiarity might have a subtly different shade of meaning. This happens even today, as when people that both speak English, make mistakes as to the other's meaning on regional variation.

I am not going to pontificate on whether or not such shades of different meaning are less or more valid, but it needs to be accounted for.

 

[Carl Emerson]

At the end of the day the bible is provided by Him as a means of divine communication.

The way to the truth is to meet Him and let His Spirit interpret for you.

Technical issues can be useful but only His spirit can convey the fresh Word He wants you to hear as you read.

 

[Radagast]

What sort of criteria do you use to get at the meaning of a passage?

This would all make a lot more sense if you nominated a passage or two.

I would suggest not the first few chapters of Genesis, for now.

As to criteria, genre is important, as I said before. Also, it's a good rule that any interpretation that's logically impossible is an incorrect interpretation.

 

[Tom 1]

This would all make a lot more sense if you nominated a passage or two.

I would suggest not the first few chapters of Genesis, for now.

As to criteria, genre is important, as I said before. Also, it's a good rule that any interpretation that's logically impossible is an incorrect interpretation.

Sure. I'm interested in gathering people's general thoughts about it more than anything else.

 

[Radagast]

Sure. I'm interested in gathering people's general thoughts about it more than anything else.

I know. But it's easier to talk about a concrete issue. And the responses are often better than if you leave it totally abstract.

Take a look at this current thread, for example: How do literalists explain 4 legged insects in Bible?

 

[Concord1968]

Wondering: Where the does the plenary-verbal theory of inspiration fit in?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The further back we go chronologically in the Bible the more cautious we need to be about taking things literally. Someone mentioned genres. That is probabaly the rm,st important consideration. See the traditions about "the eye of the needle" for example. Eye of a needle - Wikipedia

Naturally there are many disagreements about what to interpret literally and figuratively. That is probably what divides Christians more than any other issue. Thank you for raising it here.

 

[Radagast]

Wondering: Where the does the plenary-verbal theory of inspiration fit in?

My understanding is that plenary verbal inspiration is exactly what the Chicago Statement articulates.

 

[Tom 1]

I know. But it's easier to talk about a concrete issue. And the responses are often better than if you leave it totally abstract.

Take a look at this current thread, for example: How do literalists explain 4 legged insects in Bible?

Sure I might develop it more. Basically I'm just curious what people's general thoughts are about it. I have some useful and thought provoking responses here.

 

[Willie T]

I came to Christianity, and study of the bible, later in life. I don’t think at least that I brought any intellectual baggage to that process, I try to study the scriptures with an open mind and with an eye to the historical context and literary style etc.

I have some questions about the idea of the whole bible being ‘dictated word for word’ by God, as follows -

1) Does this include personal greetings, comments and so on, for example Paul’s words of salutation and the beginning and end of his letters, or John’s occasional comments about himself in his gospel?

2) Does it also include references made to things we don’t have, e.g Paul’s references to other letters he wrote to the Corinthians.

3) What are the deciding factors for what is meant to be literal and what isn’t? For example in the Genesis narrative is the passage stating that ‘the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters’ taken to mean that a literal, physical manifestation of the Spirit was literally hovering over some water?


Edit: also, what is the thinking about edits and revisions, e.g in Genesis and some parts of the gospels? How about some of the minor discrepancies between surviving copies of scripture?

Thanks

Even your opening question shows that you are not reading the Bible for what it says. There is not a word in the Bible about "the idea of the whole bible being ‘dictated word for word’ by God".

 

[Tom 1]

Even your opening question shows that you are not reading the Bible for what it says. There is not a word in the Bible about "the idea of the whole bible being ‘dictated word for word’ by God".

True, yes sorry should have been clearer, that was something I read on another thread here, not in the bible (as it isn't in the bible, as you point out).

 

[Radagast]

There is not a word in the Bible about "the idea of the whole bible being ‘dictated word for word’ by God".

There are a few people who hold to a "dictation theory" of Scripture. That goes well beyond plenary verbal inspiration, however, and runs into a bit of trouble with the differences in personal style in the different books.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Even your opening question shows that you are not reading the Bible for what it says. There is not a word in the Bible about "the idea of the whole bible being ‘dictated word for word’ by God".

So where it says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness... Do you feel that the writers were urged by Him to write, and expressed the impressions from the Holy Spirit in their own way? And does that mean, you believe inerrancy is true for the general themes and not the exact words?