What should be taken literal?

[TwinCrier]

So far it has been said that parts of Genesis (mainly creation and the flood) and Song of Soloman are not meant to be taken literally in some sense. I would be curious to hear what parts of the Old Testament, if any, can be taken as actual events. The parting of the Red Sea? Jonah? Goliath? I was going to make a poll, but I think I'll just let everyone list a few of the stories they perceive as being records of actual events. Just list the general stories or scripture reference. If you feel the general story is true but may have been embellished, count it as true as well.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I believe the literary context of a biblical passage usually gives a good indication if it should be interpreted literally or not. The parts where the original author wrote literally should be interpreted literally. The parts were the original author wrote non-literally should be interpreted non-literally. There are some parts of the bible where this distinction is really obvious (Jesus' parables, Psalms, Kings, Chronicles, Acts) and other parts where it isn't quite so clear.

For those questionable sections, it is sometimes useful to consider both literal and less-literal or non-literal interpretations to see what is most consistent with the rest of scripture and the rest of God's revelation (through the Holy Spirit and creation).

 

[gluadys]

Some parts of the bible are reminiscent of historical fiction, i.e. a story wrapped around a person who was a historical figure.

The book of Jonah may be an example of that. Jonah is mentioned in the book of Kings as being a prophet, though nothing is said of him there beyond his name. However, the historical nature of much of the books of Kings supports the proposition that Jonah was a known historical person.

But the book of Jonah appears to have been written many years after Jonah died and to contain many elements found in fictional stories. This sort of thing makes it difficult at times to separate fact from fiction.

 

[TwinCrier]

What I'm looking for is more a list of what CAN be taken as literal rather than what shouldn't or why it shouldn't. Can anything in the bible be accepted as literally true?

 

[Beowulf]

Can anything at all in Genesis be taken literally or is the entire book a myth?

 

[Iosias]

I believe the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible, so help me God.

 

[Beowulf]

Lol @ Av1611

 

[mhess13]

But the book of Jonah appears to have been written many years after Jonah died and to contain many elements found in fictional stories. This sort of thing makes it difficult at times to separate fact from fiction.

Jesus refered to Jonah as a literal event. But i guess we know better than the Bible nowadays...

So if I'm hearing you right we can't tell what in the Bible is fact or fiction. Wouldn't this make the Bible uninspired, untrustworthy and pretty much useless?

 

[In Christ Forever]

Some parts of the bible are reminiscent of historical fiction, i.e. a story wrapped around a person who was a historical figure.

The book of Jonah may be an example of that. Jonah is mentioned in the book of Kings as being a prophet, though nothing is said of him there beyond his name. However, the historical nature of much of the books of Kings supports the proposition that Jonah was a known historical person.

But the book of Jonah appears to have been written many years after Jonah died and to contain many elements found in fictional stories. This sort of thing makes it difficult at times to separate fact from fiction.

I have read through the book of Jonah, and like most books of the bible, it is a prophecy.
Imagine if you will Jonah getting on the "ship". One can view that symbolically as Jerusalem. He is "thrown overboard" maybe symbolizing the crucifixion. The whale symolizing "hades" where he is still "alive". He is then "vomited up" onto land symbolizing Christ's resurrection.
He then turns into a symolic "Paul" to preach to the gentiles. The end appears to symbolize the destrution of Jerusalem, the "scorching east wind" withering the vine".
This is how I viewed it and read it as. It appears to be almost the whole NT in one little book. The whole OT is a prophecy of the coming of Christ, abolishing the Old Convenant through vengeance and wrath, and God dwelling with His People through the Holy Spirit. God bless.

revela 18:5 "For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. 6 "Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her.23 "The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore.


Jeremiah 16:9 For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "Behold, I will cause to cease from this place, before your eyes and in your days, the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness,the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride. 17 "For My eyes [are] on all their ways; they are not hidden from My face, nor is their iniquity hidden from My eyes. 18 "And first I willrepay double for their iniquity and their sin, because they have defiled My land; they have filled My inheritance with the carcasses of their detestable and abominable idols."

 

[Gold Dragon]

What I'm looking for is more a list of what CAN be taken as literal rather than what shouldn't or why it shouldn't. Can anything in the bible be accepted as literally true?

The entire bible can be taken as literal. Whether that is a good idea or not is determined by the quality of the hermeneutical approach one takes to the bible. I would say a hermeneutical approach that assumes that the entire bible must be interpreted literally is a weak approach that ignores the context of the original authors and audiences.

 

[Turpius]

All of Genesis is to be taken as literally true, except for clear figures of speech as in Jacob's prophecies of his sons in Ch.49

 

[versastyle]

Jesus refered to Jonah as a literal event. But i guess we know better than the Bible nowadays...

No. Jesus mentions Jonah. He does not state, the story which we read in the bible, is historical fact, word for word.

So if I'm hearing you right we can't tell what in the Bible is fact or fiction. Wouldn't this make the Bible uninspired, untrustworthy and pretty much useless?

Test its moral stories in real life and see what happens. If you tithe happily, you are promised more blessings.

I think you would agree that the moral implications of the Old Testament are far more important than the historical accuracies of the Old Testament.

 

[versastyle]

All of Genesis is to be taken as literally true, except for clear figures of speech as in Jacob's prophecies of his sons in Ch.49

Literally...maybe. Historically accurate? Different story.

 

[artybloke]

What I'm looking for is more a list of what CAN be taken as literal rather than what shouldn't or why it shouldn't. Can anything in the bible be accepted as literally true?

Sadly, you'll probably be whistling in the wind. The term "literal" has no meaning when it comes to the ancient world's way of writing history. Although Genesis 1-13 is most obviously poetic and fable-like in form, none of the Bible is written under the rigid standards of historiography and evidence of modern historians. The Old Testament historical books are all written in poetic form (as narrative verse), even though they are relatively down to earth. The actual history and legend is all mixed up, plus the fact that they had to fit into the poetic form of ancient near-eastern historical verse.

That doesn't mean the history is "wrong"; but it doesn mean that absolute historical accuracy was not the only concern of the writers. In fact, the history books pick and choose for spiritual and theological reasons, they don't give a simple historical account; and, like all ancient historians, don't bother about checking stories for accuracy if they help the story along or make it sound exciting.

So the Bible is seeking to tell its truths through a mixture of different means, from actual history, to exageration, to legend, to myth, to fable, to poetry, to philosphical dialogue (eg Job), to wisdom literature, all at the same time. It's not one thing or the other; it doesn't compartmentalise the way we Western modern thinkers might.

 

[Beowulf]

I see the first chapters being taken as myth.
Going further into the book is Abraham to be taken as being real?

 

[mhess13]

Was the red sea crossing real? What about God leading 3 million+ Israelis through thre wilderness and providing for them? (have you ever considered the logistics of that?) What about the pillar of cloud and pillar of fire? Is this fiction? If so the Bible LIES because it is spoken of throughout the Bible as fact

HOW DO WE KNOW what we can trust?

 

[versastyle]

HOW DO WE KNOW what we can trust?

You don't know. In fact your Bible tells you so.

 

[mhess13]

You don't know. In fact your Bible tells you so.

where does the Bible say that it's untrustworthy? And if it did say that, why would I follow it?

 

[mhess13]

2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

 

[mhess13]

Psa 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.