What does it mean to take the Bible literally?

[John Owen]

For example, if your eye offends you, pluck it out?

 

[Landon Caeli]

For example, if your eye offends you, pluck it out?

I'm afraid to say anything.

 

[John Owen]

I'm afraid to say anything.

Oh, why?

 

[John Caldwell]

It is the idea that the meaning of the text corresponds to the intentions of the writers.

As far as the example goes (if your eye offends you) the intent (I believe) is removing that which gives opportunity to sin from your life.

One problem with taking the Bible literally is not all people agree on the authors meaning. That is a reflection, however, on us and not Scripture. But it leads to disagreements about issues.

Literal interpretation does not exclude literary devices.

 

[John Owen]

It is the idea that the meaning of the text corresponds to the intentions of the writers.

As far as the example goes (if your eye offends you) the intent (I believe) is removing that which gives opportunity to sin from your life.

One problem with taking the Bible literally is not all people agree on the authors meaning. That is a reflection, however, on us and not Scripture. But it leads to disagreements about issues.

Literal interpretation does not exclude literary devices.

Oooooh, a scholar. I like you.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

For example, if your eye offends you, pluck it out?

There are a lot of scripture that confuse me and I don't quite get it.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Oh, why?

I feel like I can be a little too convincing sometimes, and the direction I'm instinctively going here might cause eyes to roll. Literally. On the ground.

 

[John Owen]

There are a lot of scripture that confuse me and I don't quite get it.

If it were taken woodenly, as in actually physically plucking eyes out, every wife would have a blind husband. So, obviously it is taken in a figurative way, which is a subset of a Literal Interpretation model. John Caldwell above explained it well.

 

[John Caldwell]

Oooooh, a scholar. I like you.

Nah....I just don't want to pluck my eye out.

 

[Landon Caeli]

If it were taken woodenly, as in actually physically plucking eyes out, every wife would have a blind husband. So, obviously it is taken in a figurative way, which is a subset of a Literal Interpretation model. John Caldwell above explained it well.

What about young earth creationism, where half the poster's on this site believe in a 6,000 year old earth?

...They don't take it figuratively.

 

[sandman]

For example, if your eye offends you, pluck it out?

Most people would have a problem doing that. Me, on the other hand would not….seeing as I have a prosthetic eye….but I guess that would be cheating if we were abiding by the literal.

Anytime language makes a departure from normalcy it would fall into one of three categories Figure of Speech, Idiom, or Orientalism’s.

The OT has many more of these seeing as the Hebrew language was limited…. but they are scattered through the NT also.

Other than that….. The allegorical method of biblical interpretation which was used many hundreds of years ago may still be adhered to by some….I would hope not……….. but?

 

[John Owen]

What about young earth creationism, where half the poster's on this site believe in a 6,000 year old earth?

...They don't take it figuratively.

To me, that is one of the fringe questions that we can agree to disagree on. It is so controversial that I personally avoid discussions on it.

 

[Landon Caeli]

To me, that is one of the fringe questions that we can agree to disagree on. It is so controversial that I personally avoid discussions on it.

But it proves that literal interpretation does not include the acceptance of literary devices for many Christians.

...Some are word for word literalists.

 

[John Owen]

But it proves that literal interpretation does not include the acceptance of literary devices for many Christians.

...Some are word for word literalists.

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. There is nothing in the text that indicates when you are to take things word for word literal. This is a bigger conversation than I have time or energy to tackle on an internet forum.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

What about young earth creationism, where half the poster's on this site believe in a 6,000 year old earth?

...They don't take it figuratively.

I don't see any scripture that tells us the age of the Earth. But scripture does tell us that a day in God's sight is like a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. There is nothing in the text that indicates when you are to take things word for word literal. This is a bigger conversation than I have time or energy to tackle on an internet forum.

Perhaps it's the reason denominations exist to begin with - the crux of it all.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I don't see any scripture that tells us the age of the Earth. But scripture does tell us that a day in God's sight is like a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day.

Would that be exactly 1000, or around 1000..?

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

Would that be exactly 1000, or around 1000..?

Here is what scripture says.Literal? Figurative? You decide.
Psalm 90:4
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

 

[John Owen]

Would that be exactly 1000, or around 1000..?

Same question for Millenarians.

 

[John Caldwell]

But it proves that literal interpretation does not include the acceptance of literary devices for many Christians.

...Some are word for word literalists.

Some are, even to holding a flat-earh view. But even these interpret some passages figuratively (like the Earth being a footstool for God).

The disagreement between those who take a literal approach to Scripture is the intent of the writers. Was God explaining that He created the world in six days, or was God using "days" (which could also mean ages) to explain another truth (an order to creation, perhaps)?

The problem comes in with the introduction of death (and the subsequent submission to futility of Creation). This is what separates some Old Earthers from holding a literal view of Creation (with the Creation account being figurative).


For openness - I am a six day creation, young earth guy. But it really does not matter that much to me. I am also a world flood guy (although the narrative could mean "inhabited world"). Again, doesn't matter that much to me either way as the point of the passages are preserved.