the literal interpretation of scripture

Bramblewild

Active Member
Apr 16, 2019
298
183
52
Kentucky
✟47,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
This seems like something that should be non-controversial: scripture should be interpreted literally. I guess it's understandable that there are biblical passages that could pose difficulties, but some of the controversies are rather strange.

For example, the people who seem to think that if the Bible uses a metaphor, then that somehow refutes the notion of literal interpretation. I guess closely tied to that is the idea of "wooden literalism", that literal interpretation means we have to view all clearly metaphorical language in its most literal sense.

Literal interpretation does not mean that the Bible doesn't use literary devices, such as metaphors, similes, stories such a parables, and hyperbole. Very often, though, the non-literal character of this device will be clear. So, for example, when Jesus calls himself the door to the sheep fold, we would not be smart to think of him as a something like a hinged wooden plank. But the metaphor does give us some truths about him, that he protects his sheep.
 

David Kent

Continuing Historicist
Aug 24, 2017
2,173
663
86
Ashford Kent
✟116,777.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
There is no such thing as a literal interpretation If it is literal it is not an interpretation.

The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimonysays that scripture should be read as it is and not interpreted.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There is no such thing as a literal interpretation If it is literal it is not an interpretation.

That is brilliant. I have not heard that before.

Edit: I should say I disagree with your second statement, but the first is brilliant nonetheless.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel9v9

Christian Forums Staff
Chaplain
Supporter
Jun 5, 2016
1,928
1,714
38
London
Visit site
✟393,838.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Not to be pedantic, and not that I expect anyone to object to this, but to the specific example of Christ saying "I am the door", it should be understood that, while a symbol, it does have a literal meaning. He doesn't say that He's like a door, as if He's not the actual way of salvation but only a mere symbol of a way of salvation. Nor is it just some abstract expression of His character or mission, or an indicator that He is a great moral teacher etc. Christ, truly and by God's grace, quite literally is the door of salvation. The only reason I want to stress this is that His words are actually quite forceful and profound, and should be understood as something akin to "I am the LORD your God and I have come to save you."

But anyway - Yes, Scripture should be taken at face value. :)
 
Upvote 0

JohnAshton

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2019
2,197
1,580
88
Logan, Utah
✟45,911.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
It should not be controversial: scripture should not be interpreted literally.

Scripture should be interpreted within the context of Tradition and Teachings of the Fathers (and Mothers).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Anthony2019
Upvote 0

Guojing

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2019
11,772
1,309
sg
✟214,745.00
Country
Singapore
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This seems like something that should be non-controversial: scripture should be interpreted literally. I guess it's understandable that there are biblical passages that could pose difficulties, but some of the controversies are rather strange.

For example, the people who seem to think that if the Bible uses a metaphor, then that somehow refutes the notion of literal interpretation. I guess closely tied to that is the idea of "wooden literalism", that literal interpretation means we have to view all clearly metaphorical language in its most literal sense.

Literal interpretation does not mean that the Bible doesn't use literary devices, such as metaphors, similes, stories such a parables, and hyperbole. Very often, though, the non-literal character of this device will be clear. So, for example, when Jesus calls himself the door to the sheep fold, we would not be smart to think of him as a something like a hinged wooden plank. But the metaphor does give us some truths about him, that he protects his sheep.

A good test on how literal one takes Scripture would be the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Did Jesus meant what he said literally there?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JohnAshton
Upvote 0

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,391.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
So, for example, when Jesus calls himself the door to the sheep fold, we would not be smart to think of him as a something like a hinged wooden plank. But the metaphor does give us some truths about him, that he protects his sheep.

Which means a literal interpretation isn't applicable in situations like that and thus the bible cannot and should not be interpreted literally as a rule. You proved your own Op wrong.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JohnAshton
Upvote 0

Bramblewild

Active Member
Apr 16, 2019
298
183
52
Kentucky
✟47,634.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Which means a literal interpretation isn't applicable in situations like that and thus the bible cannot and should not be interpreted literally as a rule. You proved your own Op wrong.
Uh...no, I didn't.

Let's take another example.

The biblical account of creation is not allegorical, it's not metaphorical, it's fact, it's history. God creating the world in six days is not metaphorical language, it's how God did things.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,391.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Uh...no, I didn't.

Let's take another example.

The biblical account of creation is not allegorical, it's not metaphorical, it's fact, it's history.

Except the talking snake we are later told was Satan who is not a snake, and the fruit that gives knowledge of good and bad...which isn't a literal fruit.

The bible must be interpreted, literally when it's literal and not literally when it isn't literal.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JohnAshton
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I always take scripture literally unless it's parables, poetry or symbolic. Even then there is a literal truth behind it. The doorway is a good example of symbolic with a literal meaning. Jesus isn't a wooden door but he is the doorway to salvation.

As to Genesis, I take that all as literal as that was how it was written and how the author intended it to be taken.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JohnAshton

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2019
2,197
1,580
88
Logan, Utah
✟45,911.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
ewq1938 said: Which means a literal interpretation isn't applicable in situations like that and thus the bible cannot and should not be interpreted literally as a rule. You proved your own Op wrong.
Uh...no, I didn't.

Let's take another example.

The biblical account of creation is not allegorical, it's not metaphorical, it's fact, it's history. God creating the world in six days is not metaphorical language, it's how God did things.
Can you prove absent a prima facie argument?

Of course not.
 
Upvote 0

Biblewriter

Senior Member
Supporter
May 15, 2005
11,937
1,498
Ocala, Florida
Visit site
✟531,725.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Taking scripture literally includes recognizing that figures of speech were often used in scripture, even as they are often used in casual conversation. Although I often stress the importance of taking scripture literally, I actually prefer the term someone used above, of "taking scripture at face value."

It is critically important to pay attention to the exact words used by the Holy Spirit. Probably the most common error in interpreting scripture is assuming that what WE think a given statement in the Bible MEANS is what it SAYS. God said what He meant, and He meant what He said. But whatever we THINK He said is often different, and sometimes MATERIALLY different, from what He actually said. And to that I will add that when God did not say something we think He would have said, He omitted that something for a reason.

But many people make excuses for not believing what the scriptures say by claiming, without a shred of justification, that whatever part they do not like was only speaking symbolically. This is really nothing but either unbelief or outright rebellion against the authority of the word of God, the Bible.

The most common places where this happens is when people do not like the instructions given in the Bible and when people do not want to believe the prophecies in the Bible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

thomas15

Be Thou my vision
Supporter
Apr 18, 2019
206
67
65
Lehighton
✟57,685.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Except the talking snake we are later told was Satan who is not a snake, and the fruit that gives knowledge of good and bad...which isn't a literal fruit.

The bible must be interpreted, literally when it's literal and not literally when it isn't literal.

I agree but only to a point.

There are places in the gospels, for example Matthew 8:28-32 when demons ask Jesus to allow them to leave two men and reside in a heard of swine. The concept of Satan communicating with humans through others such as animals or people is biblical in my opinion. Those demons are still demons regardless if they are inhabiting men or pigs. My understanding, flawed as it is, is that Satan, Demons, Angels and even God himself are not physical but rather spiritual beings so communicating through animals seems to be one method that could be used by them. Dreams and visions are other methods used by these spiritual beings.

When we look at Genesis ch 3 and the fall we find that the snake communicating with Eve uses a less than literal interpretation of God's Word to Eve to trick her into disobedience. Since we know that a snake cannot speak, lacks the physical ability to make enough contrasting sounds and does not having a brain that is capable of the advanced thinking required to have a conversation, it makes sense to me at least that the actual snake in the garden was just the means of communication not the actual deceiver. Eve saw a snake and had a conversation with a snake. She ate an apple because Moses wrote that she ate an apple. To think otherwise is to imply that Jehovah didn't have the ability to inspire Moses to make it clear to us who exactly was in the conversation on that day and what actions Eve did in response to that conversation.

Figures of speech are used to give emphasis and make the narrative more interesting but in and of themselves don't require a less than literal understanding of the point being made. What makes humans superior to animals is that we have the academic horsepower to tease out the implied message contained in figures of speech and make the necessary application with full understanding and in a very literal sense. Jehovah says you shall not commit adultery, man thinks that in his particular case, perhaps his wife is not satisfying a particular need, that it is ok to commit adultery, again, in this particular case. Of course he may get away with it for a time but long term this is a personal disaster for him.

Just about everything comes down to obedience or disobedience to the laws of God and it seems to me that once you start taking a less than literal approach to things it leads to disobedience rather than obedience.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: JohnAshton
Upvote 0

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,391.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Since we know that a snake cannot speak, lacks the physical ability to make enough contrasting sounds

it makes sense to me at least that the actual snake in the garden was just the means of communication not the actual deceiver.

Except you just said a snake physically cannot speak. It was Satan talking to Eve, him standing right there. A serpent is simply a metaphorical description just as it is in Rev 12.

Eve saw a snake and had a conversation with a snake. She ate an apple because Moses wrote that she ate an apple.

Moses did not write that it was an apple.
 
Upvote 0

David Kent

Continuing Historicist
Aug 24, 2017
2,173
663
86
Ashford Kent
✟116,777.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Conservative
That is brilliant. I have not heard that before.

Edit: I should say I disagree with your second statement, but the first is brilliant nonetheless.

If by the 'second statement' wou mean the comment about S.G.A.T., I only posted that as a comment on their teaching. I strongly disagree with it.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If by the 'second statement' wou mean the comment about S.G.A.T., I only posted that as a comment on their teaching. I strongly disagree with it.

I should probably be forthcoming: I am sure I will repeat that statement at some future time. It's a great insight.
 
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When we look at Genesis ch 3 and the fall we find that the snake communicating with Eve uses a less than literal interpretation of God's Word to Eve to trick her into disobedience. Since we know that a snake cannot speak, lacks the physical ability to make enough contrasting sounds and does not having a brain that is capable of the advanced thinking required to have a conversation, it makes sense to me at least that the actual snake in the garden was just the means of communication not the actual deceiver. Eve saw a snake and had a conversation with a snake. She ate an apple because Moses wrote that she ate an apple.

First of all she wasn't communicating with a snake, it was Satan possessing a snake so it was Satan who was speaking, not the snake.

Second, it was not an apple. Whoever came up with that ridiculous caricature was probably the same person who drew the ark as a little round boat with giraffe heads poking out the top. The forbidden fruit from the tree of life was exactly that, not an apple and not an apple tree.
 
Upvote 0

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,391.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The forbidden fruit from the tree of life was exactly that, not an apple and not an apple tree.

The tree of life and it's fruit was different than the other tree and fruit. The forbidden fruit was not from the tree of life.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: David Kent
Upvote 0

coffee4u

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2018
5,005
2,817
Australia
✟157,641.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The tree of life and it's fruit was different than the other tree and fruit. Th forbidden fruit was not from the tree of life.

I know that, it was a slip up. :) I should have said "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"

Genesis 2
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ewq1938

I love you three.
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Supporter
Nov 5, 2011
44,413
6,797
✟915,391.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I know that, it was a slip up. :) I should have said "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"

Genesis 2
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”


Ok, just making sure. There are a lot of different views out there.
 
Upvote 0