Taking the bible literally

[alexamasan]

It seems to me that in order to be a good Christian, you have to take the bible literally, otherwise you are just making things up with nothing to back you up. However though, although you have to take the bible literally as I see it, you should also understand the bible in the context that it was written so you won't misinterpret the message of what the text is saying.

For example: 2nd John 1:7-10

7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

8 Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that we[c] may receive a full reward.

9 Whoever transgresses[d] and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.

10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him;

11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

If you read this, you may believe that what this is trying to say is that you should never let a non-Christian into your house. This is not necessarily true for these particular verses. At the time that this was written, people did not go to church in large groups like they do today in big buildings. People's homes were often used as places of worship. And the reason for John writing 1st-3rd John is to tell these home churches how to manage themselves. So what these verses mean is that while you're worshiping, don't let anyone who doesn't intend to worship God into your home(church).

As I see it, there is no other way but to take the bible literally, but more importantly, in the right context. This is why I think it's important that if you want to learn about any religion, you have to go to studies of the text where people who have studied the history of the text can teach you what the text really means. Any thoughts on this?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

That's right. Sometimes the context supports a non-literal interpretation, though, for example in Christ's parables.

 

[ebia]

It seems to me that in order to be a good Christian, you have to take the bible literally, otherwise you are just making things up with nothing to back you up.

The idea that non-literal is "making things up" and that literal is somehow a superior mode of communication is at best extraordinarly naive.

 

[Coralie]

I've just answered another one of your posts, where you made similar assumptions. Now I understand where you're coming from.

1. In order to be a "good Xian" (whatever that is), you should not take the Bible "literally". That's folly, since you couldn't understand the context and the nuances of translation and linguistic devices/styles (like allegory, metaphor, prophecy, etc.) without decades of study--i.e., you couldn't comprehend what the actual literal meaning is, you'd just place your own contemporary assumptions onto the text, thinking you are seeing the meaning plainly where actually you've missed it completely. (I think this is what you're saying already. I'm just clarifying.)

2. You're right, people do need someone to help them interpret the Bible correctly. That's why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (as well as some Lutheran and Anglican Churches) have continued the Apostolic Tradition. So they look to the original writers of the Gospels, and their disciples, to explain what they mean by their words.

3. The Bible is concerned with spiritual truth, not purely physical truth. In Xianity, spiritual truth is true reality. It's the influence of hyper-reductionist science that's made many Western Xians focus too much on the physical (see Creationism, legalism, "God hates homosexuals") and not enough on the true reality, the spiritual/metaphysical realm.

I'm still gobsmacked that you hold opinions on what a "good Xian" is... that's just strange to me. Personally, I feel it would be arrogant of me to say what a good Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan or Hindu someone was. Or what a bad one she/he was.

Whether someone is a good or bad Xian has very little to do with how they interpret the Bible, and everything to do with how loving and humble they are. Or am I just misinterpreting the premise behind these questions, maybe? I'm not sure.

Anyway, I hope you find the answers you're looking for.

 

[alexamasan]

I've just answered another one of your posts, where you made similar assumptions. Now I understand where you're coming from.

1. In order to be a "good Xian" (whatever that is), you should not take the Bible "literally". That's folly, since you couldn't understand the context and the nuances of translation and linguistic devices/styles (like allegory, metaphor, prophecy, etc.) without decades of study--i.e., you couldn't comprehend what the actual literal meaning is, you'd just place your own contemporary assumptions onto the text, thinking you are seeing the meaning plainly where actually you've missed it completely. (I think this is what you're saying already. I'm just clarifying.)

2. You're right, people do need someone to help them interpret the Bible correctly. That's why the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (as well as some Lutheran and Anglican Churches) have continued the Apostolic Tradition. So they look to the original writers of the Gospels, and their disciples, to explain what they mean by their words.

3. The Bible is concerned with spiritual truth, not purely physical truth. In Xianity, spiritual truth is true reality. It's the influence of hyper-reductionist science that's made many Western Xians focus too much on the physical (see Creationism, legalism, "God hates homosexuals") and not enough on the true reality, the spiritual/metaphysical realm.

I'm still gobsmacked that you hold opinions on what a "good Xian" is... that's just strange to me. Personally, I feel it would be arrogant of me to say what a good Buddhist, Muslim, Wiccan or Hindu someone was. Or what a bad one she/he was.

Whether someone is a good or bad Xian has very little to do with how they interpret the Bible, and everything to do with how loving and humble they are. Or am I just misinterpreting the premise behind these questions, maybe? I'm not sure.

Anyway, I hope you find the answers you're looking for.

I just have to say I appreciate your well thought out answers and you make much better posts than many people here. It's just that as I see it as a non-Christian, I don't quite understand how some people can pick and choose what they think should be taken as it says, and other things should be seen as a more symbolic message.

I understand some of the text is purposely written in symbolism, like in revelation, John purposely wrote it cryptic language so the Romans wouldn't know the actual message.

And it is true that the bible has several areas that are hard or almost impossible to translate form the greek due to the differences of the ancient and modern language, and also due to the fact that the original copies of the scriptures that make up the bible don't exist anymore as they were written before paper was invented, and they had to write on leafs and animal skins, so miscopies are even possible.

So as to questions to your post, because much of the bible is possibly mistranslated, how would you know what should be true and what is not? How would you know if Jesus actually did die on the cross to pay for man's sins, perhaps that was a mistranslation too? Is there scholarly evidence of some parts of the bible being more likely the real truth than others?

And about the bible being spiritual truth and not necessarily the physical truth. Is that what certain churches or denominations teach? Or are there many scholars that believe that? Or are there other reasons how we would know that the bible is the spiritual and not physicall truth?

 

[MLEN]

Hi Alex,

You have some very valid questions here. In my opinion , the evidence that Jesus actually did die on the cross to pay for man's sins is the life-transforming experience one encounters once they actually accept this. Accepting that Jesus died for our sins is certainly a leap of faith, but it is one which God draws each one of us to at some point in our lives. Then we have the choice to either accept or reject it. When we sincerely accept it with all of our hearts, we become new in Christ. By this I mean things change. We don't see the world like we used to. We become much more aware of the good and evil that is around us and we genuinely have a desire to do what is good and right in God's eyes. Whereas, before we gave our hearts to Christ we didn't really care about that stuff as much. It was almost like we were blinded to it.

If you have ever seen a drug addicted transformed into a clean life or a depressed person become naturally happy after accepting Jesus Christ into their lives, then you have seen how the power of Christ dying for our sins rings true.

Like the wind, we cannot see it, but we can see the forces/effects of it on ourselves and on other things and we just cannot deny its existence. This is why one of the greatest testimonies to the saving power of Jesus Christ's death on the cross is the way Christians live their day to day lives. The key lies in staying connected to that source of life-transforming power which is found in Jesus Christ.

 

[Van]

Which reflects the truth, much of the Bible is possibly mistranslated or much of the Bible is probably translated with sufficient accuracy?

Does anyone say that 2 John 1:7-10 is teaching that Christians should never let a non-Christian into their house? How about today never letting a holocaust denier into our house. Do many non-Christians deny that Jesus was a historical figure, that he existed in the flesh?

A person can gain a sufficient understanding of what the Bible says, just by reading a version they can understand, like the NIV or the Living Bible. Now as a Christian matures, he or she studies the bible and learns more of what it says, and these studies can certainly be aided by learning from others. But as a noble Berean, we are still obligated to test what others say to see if it actually reflects God's word.

 

[Coralie]

It's just that as I see it as a non-Christian, I don't quite understand how some people can pick and choose what they think should be taken as it says, and other things should be seen as a more symbolic message.

I understand that it seems strange. The thing is, you can't understand Xianity by simply reading the Bible and hanging around with a few Xians--that method is fraught with problems of ego and culture, which end up clouding the real issues.

A better way to do it is by going to visit an Orthodox priest--that's what I did. Someone like you, who is asking searching questions, would benefit from this rich tapestry of knowledge that supports and explicates the Bible--this tapestry is called Apostolic Tradition. A lot of that knowledge is experiential and liturgical, but you need it in order to comprehend Xian practice.

A less effective way is to use the internet simply because everyone is different, and a flowing dialogue is the quickest and least problematic way of finding an individual's root questions and answering them. Also, priests are usually learned men, and they have heard all the questions you might have. I'm just a stupid layperson, what on earth do I know?

And it is true that the bible has several areas that are hard or almost impossible to translate form the greek due to the differences of the ancient and modern language.

Some areas are very hard to translate into English, particularly those in Greek. They're not impossible to explain, though. I'm doing Bible study with an Egyptian-Greek monk, and he and I spend many happy hours discussing the original Greek.

and also due to the fact that the original copies of the scriptures that make up the bible don't exist anymore as they were written before paper was invented, and they had to write on leafs and animal skins, so miscopies are even possible.

This bothered me during my road to Xianity too. I asked the same questions and simply would. not. convert. until I was satisfied with that answers, so I get it. Please ask a priest--I am not fully qualified to answer this, since I'm not a scholar. I'll offer you what I remember from the explanation that satisfied me:

As you know, there are a variety of texts (Septuagint, Masoretic, Vulgate, etc.) that scholars cross-reference to create translations of the Bible. These are written versions of an oral tradition that were carried in all directions across Asia and the Near East for a few hundred years (i.e., before they were written down). And guess what? The written versions all match nearly perfectly. What does that tell you about the fidelity of the oral tradition? Well, it's near-perfect.

Linguists, too, will tell you that an original, earlier text exists "beneath" the gospels, which informs all of them. Slowly but surely they are piecing together that original using forensic linguistics. Happily, so far there are no contradictions (last I heard anyway).

Also, you know the small inconsistencies that occur in the Gospels in particular? Things like what Jesus' exact last words were. Now if people were effing around with the text, trying to make it "convincing" and so forth, they would have changed those details in a heartbeat. But they didn't. They kept the text bumpy and a little inconsistent, because that's how it came to them. The bearers of Xian oral history were painstaking in their efforts to remain true to what the original witnesses said, even when it was a little embarrassing, and could have easily been changed to save embarrassment.

There's a reason God prepared the Jews with thousands of years of scholarly tradition to carry Scripture into the world. Back then, Jewish boys memorised the whole Torah and often parts of rabbinical writings too. They were even prepared culturally to believe that bearing false witness was a grievous sin. So they preserved an even more perfect oral tradition than most cultures would. (Side note: remember that many went to their deaths defending the truth of the tradition they were given. This wasn't something that they took on lightly.)

So as to questions to your post, because much of the bible is possibly mistranslated, how would you know what should be true and what is not? How would you know if Jesus actually did die on the cross to pay for man's sins, perhaps that was a mistranslation too? Is there scholarly evidence of some parts of the bible being more likely the real truth than others?

See my previous points, but besides that: you need to ask a scholar or priest these questions. I asked the same ones, and be comforted, there are intelligent answers for them, only I don't have a few days to compile the references I would need to show that to you.

The short answer is: the areas of the Bible that are difficult to translate, or which differ slightly across the various versions that I mentioned above, are not areas that deal with issues of salvation. They're things like "did Jesus really write in the dust before he spoke to the Pharisees that one time?", etc. Not things like "Did Jesus really die on the cross?" or "Did he die on the cross for a different reason to what we think he did?"

And about the bible being spiritual truth and not necessarily the physical truth. Is that what certain churches or denominations teach? Or are there many scholars that believe that? Or are there other reasons how we would know that the bible is the spiritual and not physicall truth?

I'm an Orthodox catechumen. I can't speak for every denomination, but certainly in Orthodoxy the teaching is that spiritual reality is the only 'true' reality, and that everything should be looked at through the lens of the soul. Note: there's a chance that I don't understand your question. The concepts we're approaching here are very deep and complex, so please keep in mind that I many be misunderstanding you. I apologise if I have. Please ask a priest.

Here's an example that may clear up a little whether we are understanding each other correctly: I've been told that ancient saints' lives should be read as spiritual tales, given by God, that hold meaning on many levels. Every time you read them, something new emerges to nourish you. Because I'm a Xian, the Holy Spirit is infusing me as I read, constantly revealing new things.

So it doesn't matter that St George's dragon never walked on the Earth: God is speaking through symbolism of a higher spiritual reality--so the dragon may symbolise George's sinful impulses, which he defeats.

Conversely, if something did occur in the physical world, like a martyrdom, the saint's story is not trying to tell you that you'll only be a good Xian is you are physically martyred; God is calling you to martyr yourself spiritually, to sacrifice your egotistical nature and trust him completely.

Please note, I am really a dumb***, so you need to ask a priest about this.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the "literal-ness" or not of someone's interpretation of Scripture does not make them a good or bad Xian. If it did, it would make a severely retarded person, or a pre-literate child, in danger of hellfire.

"By their fruits will you know them": are they loving, joyful, peaceful, faithful, gentle, self-controlled, filled with loving-kindness, long-suffering, and all that jazz? That's how you judge a Xian, if you must make any judgement at all.