• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why every Christian should have a literal view of scripture.

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,670
9,570
NW England
✟1,270,334.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
John 6 was definitely literal because it contains Jesus's miracle with the loaves and the bread if you deny that miracle you kind of deny Jesus's divinity
In that case, yes.
But the Good Samaritan didn't necessarily literally happen, yet it still teaches us truth.
I can't remember what else John was saying in John 6 but it definitely was meant by John to be taken literally.
Really?
So the disciples would have realised that they would be expected to literally eat Jesus' body and literally drink his blood? The reason many left him was probably because they knew that drinking blood, and eating anything that contained blood, had been forbidden by God in the OT.
 
Upvote 0

John G.

Active Member
Feb 2, 2024
331
253
71
N. Ireland
✟72,277.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Divorced
I can't remember what else John was saying in John 6 but it definitely was meant by John to be taken literally.

John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from Heaven. If anyone eats this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give him is my flesh, which I give so that the world may live"

Clearly, that is symbolic though misguided people have taken it literally over the years.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0

Neostarwcc

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.
Site Supporter
Dec 13, 2015
5,480
4,520
39
US
✟1,099,839.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
In that case, yes.
But the Good Samaritan didn't necessarily literally happen, yet it still teaches us truth.

Really?
So the disciples would have realised that they would be expected to literally eat Jesus' body and literally drink his blood? The reason many left him was probably because they knew that drinking blood, and eating anything that contained blood, had been forbidden by God in the OT.

He was talking about the importance of communion which should be taken to heart, yes. During communion we partake with other believers the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Now you have a point about whether this really is the flesh and blood of Christ which beliefs vary among Christisan denominations and is up for debate but what we all should agree with and take from Christ's words in John 6 is that communion is very important and a part of the Christian life. We should also take Pauls warning to account that those who are not believers should not partake in communion. Our pastor makes sure to mention this every month when we have communion because it is very important because Paul said that if those who are not worthy partake in communion they partake judgment into themselves. We've had non believers partake in communion anyway but it's very important for every church to warn people of this fact.

Communion should be taken seriously and I think that was the literal interpretation of what Christ meant in John 6.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Neostarwcc

We are saved purely by the work and grace of God.
Site Supporter
Dec 13, 2015
5,480
4,520
39
US
✟1,099,839.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from Heaven. If anyone eats this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give him is my flesh, which I give so that the world may live"

Clearly, that is symbolic though misguided people have taken it literally over the years.

I've answered this concern on my post above.
 
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Site Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
11,014
6,438
Utah
✟851,781.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
In Revelation 7:9 John has a vision where he sees everyone who will be saved in Heaven. We know that this is the very same multitude that God promised to Abraham because John used the same descriptive words as God used when he promised Abraham "a multitude of descendants that no man can count as vast as the stars in the sky" in Genesis 26:4. We also know this to be the Redeemed because of the elders question and both of their responses in Rev 7:13-17.

But who else could John have seen but the very children of God? Because the number of the redeemed is supposed to be more vast than the stars in the sky and John describes a multitude of people who he nor any man could have counted. Nowhere else in the Bible were this multitude discussed aside from when describing God's sheep.

As to where Christ will reign for 1,000 years the book of Revelation doesn't say. But I say it's likely that he will reign from Jerusalem because the Messiah is supposed to come to redeem Israel and bring about a golden age of peace from Jerusalem. This could be the New Jerusalem and be fulfilled after the 1,000 years but somehow I doubt it. Isaiah in my opinion talks about where the messiah will reign from in Isaiah 65:17-23 in this prophecy God says through Isaiah that the Messiah will reign from Jerusalem and this will be a golden age of peace where nobody will die, and no more tears will be shed. If Jesus is the Messiah (which he is) than its very likely that he will reign from Jerusalem on Earth when he returns for his bride but youre right John never says this in the book of Revelation you have to go to other parts of the Bible to solve this puzzle.

John may have possibly not mentioned it in the book of Revelation because it was common knowledge for the Jewish people and the rest of his audience would have known that the Messiah was coming to redeem Israel. That's one reason why the Apostles and the crowds wanted to make Jesus king. If Jesus doesn't return to reign from Jerusalem and redeem Israel than the Jews have it right and he is not the messiah.


In Revelation 7:9 John has a vision where he sees everyone who will be saved in Heaven. We know that this is the very same multitude that God promised to Abraham because John used the same descriptive words as God used when he promised Abraham "a multitude of descendants that no man can count as vast as the stars in the sky" in Genesis 26:4. We also know this to be the Redeemed because of the elders question and both of their responses in Rev 7:13-17.

But who else could John have seen but the very children of God? Because the number of the redeemed is supposed to be more vast than the stars in the sky and John describes a multitude of people who he nor any man could have counted. Nowhere else in the Bible were this multitude discussed aside from when describing God's sheep.

As to where Christ will reign for 1,000 years the book of Revelation doesn't say. But I say it's likely that he will reign from Jerusalem because the Messiah is supposed to come to redeem Israel and bring about a golden age of peace from Jerusalem. This could be the New Jerusalem and be fulfilled after the 1,000 years but somehow I doubt it. Isaiah in my opinion talks about where the messiah will reign from in Isaiah 65:17-23 in this prophecy God says through Isaiah that the Messiah will reign from Jerusalem and this will be a golden age of peace where nobody will die, and no more tears will be shed. If Jesus is the Messiah (which he is) than its very likely that he will reign from Jerusalem on Earth when he returns for his bride but youre right John never says this in the book of Revelation you have to go to other parts of the Bible to solve this puzzle.

John may have possibly not mentioned it in the book of Revelation because it was common knowledge for the Jewish people and the rest of his audience would have known that the Messiah was coming to redeem Israel. That's one reason why the Apostles and the crowds wanted to make Jesus king. If Jesus doesn't return to reign from Jerusalem and redeem Israel than the Jews have it right and he is not the messiah.
But who else could John have seen but the very children of God? Because the number of the redeemed is supposed to be more vast than the stars in the sky and John describes a multitude of people who he nor any man could have counted. Nowhere else in the Bible were this multitude discussed aside from when describing God's sheep.
John was in vision of the future (of the saved in heaven-yet to come) ... and yes saw a multitude (so many couldn't count them)

As far as the lost ... we know by this their number will be greater than that of the saved.

Matthew 7
13Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.

John may have possibly not mentioned it in the book of Revelation because it was common knowledge for the Jewish people and the rest of his audience would have known that the Messiah was coming to redeem Israel. That's one reason why the Apostles and the crowds wanted to make Jesus king. If Jesus doesn't return to reign from Jerusalem and redeem Israel than the Jews have it right and he is not the messiah.

It is true many in the days of Jesus thought Jesus would physically rule on earth at that time ... they were in error.

Redemtion is available to anyone NOW .... including the Jews. There is no reason for Jesus to rule on earth until He re creates the new earth and the NEW Jerusalem He establishes on earth.

There aren't any "jews" and all covenants are fulfilled in Jesus.

Galatians 3:28

27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.… (fulfilled by Jesus)

He will reign from the NEW Jerusalem on earth for eternity. (This is after the 2nd resurrection and all the wicked have been destroyed) and He has made new heavens and earth.

Revelation 21:1-8 ESV​

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” ...

It is true the Jews and many others believe Jesus will rule in the current State of Israel .... this is in error ... they do not have it right. The "2nd chance" is through accepting Christ as their savior now ... and so it was back then ... they missed it.

Luke 19

AMPC
And they will dash you down to the ground, you [Jerusalem] and your children within you; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, [all] because you did not come progressively to recognize and know and understand [from observation and experience] the time of your visitation [that is, when God was visiting you, the time in which God showed Himself gracious toward you and offered you salvation through Christ].

They missed it .... let us and them not repeat the error ... the door of salvation is open to all .... the door is through Christ and always has been.

Looking forward to the return of our Lord. AMEN
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,670
9,570
NW England
✟1,270,334.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He was talking about the importance of communion which should be taken to heart, yes.
Well he wasn't talking about communion as such, because the rite didn't exist.
But you used the word literal, and said that John definitely meant this passage to be taken literally.
To take John 6:53 literally means that you believe that Jesus really, actually, meant us to eat his real flesh. As he didn't cut off, and pass round, his arm at the Last Supper, we can be confident that this was not a literal belief.

That doesn't mean that we don't take it seriously, however - literally and seriously are two different things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John G.
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,509
10,383
79
Auckland
✟437,484.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The point often missed is that Jesus refers to His resurected flesh and blood which was established in timeless eternity through the Cross to come but avalable to all who believe in any point in history. So the passage is to be taken literally but with this understanding.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,509
10,383
79
Auckland
✟437,484.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Could you define what you mean by "literal"?

I think that you're using Protestant Fundamentalist language,
that is not how linguists would describe how the biblical
languages express truth.

Understandable without modifying text or grammar, but regarding context.
 
Upvote 0

Stephen3141

Well-Known Member
Mar 14, 2023
1,425
552
69
Southwest
✟100,195.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Understandable without modifying text or grammar, but regarding context.

A translation that is "understandable", is a relative thing to the group
doing the translation. This is not really a professional criterion for linguists.

"Context" is also disagreed on, by Fundamentalists. For linguists, "context"
would be how the passage appears within the bigger literary work. I agree with
this.

But Fundamentalists often DO NOT recognize literary styles which are well
established (as existing) in the biblical languages. Instead, Fundamentalists often
declare that the meaning of these passages should not be translated as within
a recognized genre, but according to their "literal" approach to translation,
which ignores the literary genre that linguists recognize existed.

"Literal" as used by Fundamentalists, ignores some of the recognized
literary genres recognized by linguists, and so the Fundamentalist
approach to translating the Bible, is NOT the same as biblical scholars
outside the narrow Fundamentalist groups.

This is the difference of the "literal" approach to translation, that I was
asking about.
 
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
15,509
10,383
79
Auckland
✟437,484.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A translation that is "understandable", is a relative thing to the group
doing the translation. This is not really a professional criterion for linguists.

"Context" is also disagreed on, by Fundamentalists. For linguists, "context"
would be how the passage appears within the bigger literary work. I agree with
this.

But Fundamentalists often DO NOT recognize literary styles which are well
established (as existing) in the biblical languages. Instead, Fundamentalists often
declare that the meaning of these passages should not be translated as within
a recognized genre, but according to their "literal" approach to translation,
which ignores the literary genre that linguists recognize existed.

"Literal" as used by Fundamentalists, ignores some of the recognized
literary genres recognized by linguists, and so the Fundamentalist
approach to translating the Bible, is NOT the same as biblical scholars
outside the narrow Fundamentalist groups.

This is the difference of the "literal" approach to translation, that I was
asking about.

Yes - understand,

There is an underlying principle - when one systematises faith at any level the person of Jesus looses place.

While He is a God of order He is not subject to His Laws (Like the shadow went back)

When I learned some Greek I thought I would be able to hear what the Spirit was saying better in reading the text - forgetting the hearing is of faith and faith is about Jesus speaking. So the system is good but doesn't replace the hearing. So we have strong opinion on CF which is the voice of a system and the hearing is drowned out.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Apple Sky

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald
Site Supporter
Jan 7, 2024
6,972
934
South Wales
✟238,687.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Like when Jesus tried explaining what common verses of the Bible actually meant in the sermon on the mount for example that should be taken literally. Jesus clearly meant those examples literally. Or when Moses wrote about how creation started and wrote about what happened that should be taken literally because he was a man who held authority and lead the Jewish people and was given that divine Revelation from God.

I agree Neostar, there are many who do not take creation Genesis 1 literally, but I do, very much so. I can't understand those who don't.
 
Upvote 0

Apple Sky

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald
Site Supporter
Jan 7, 2024
6,972
934
South Wales
✟238,687.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well he wasn't talking about communion as such, because the rite didn't exist.
But you used the word literal, and said that John definitely meant this passage to be taken literally.
To take John 6:53 literally means that you believe that Jesus really, actually, meant us to eat his real flesh. As he didn't cut off, and pass round, his arm at the Last Supper, we can be confident that this was not a literal belief.

Every Christian should understand what this passage means, this is one of the many passages that should not be taken literally.

What about the talking donkey, does anyone (as I do) take this literally ?

Does anyone cross reference the Bible ?
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,670
9,570
NW England
✟1,270,334.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Every Christian should understand what this passage means, this is one of the many passages that should not be taken literally.
So not EVERY word of the Bible is "true to the letter" then?
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
30,670
9,570
NW England
✟1,270,334.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of cause not. it takes discernment.
That and studying in context, yes.
But you previously said:
Rubbish - Every word from Genesis to Revelation is true to the letter & not to believe it means that, besides being a sin, that you are not a true Christian.
So at least you've changed your view on one issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FaithT
Upvote 0

Apple Sky

In Sight Like Unto An Emerald
Site Supporter
Jan 7, 2024
6,972
934
South Wales
✟238,687.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So at least you've changed your view on one issue.

Well when you start to consider some of the passages like on this thread one has to have some discernment so I take back what I said, but this doesn't go for Genesis 1.
 
Upvote 0

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
13,701
5,556
European Union
✟226,543.00
Country
Czech Republic
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well when you start to consider some of the passages like on this thread one has to have some discernment so I take back what I said, but this doesn't go for Genesis 1.
It goes also for Genesis 1. Problem solved. Sorry, too easy?
 
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
10,045
7,184
70
Midwest
✟367,469.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I agree Neostar, there are many who do not take creation Genesis 1 literally, but I do, very much so. I can't understand those who don't.
As someone who does not take Genesis 1 or 2 literally I can tell you why.
The author of the text was not alive at the time of creation. We would have to infer that God revealed that narrative much much later. That is not so hard to believe. But we must also consider the fact that almost all cultures around the world have their won creation accounts. And, they all sound at odds with our current understanding of the universe. For example, the six day creation some six thousand years ago. A rational view of both scripture and contemporary science compels us to LOOK DEEPER. This takes us to the important realm of Hermeneutics, the study of the general principles of biblical interpretation. Hermeneutics | Definition, History, Principles, Examples, & Types


God gave us brains to observe and try to figure things out. We have come a long way. We do not know everything, of course. We are still learning. It is indeed possible that Genesis 1 is literal historical truth but it is not likely. That in no way undermines it's importance, meaning and impact. It invites us to look at it from other angles, other dimensions of and to not be satisfied our current interpretation , whether literal or allegorical or anagogical. It is always best to keep an open mind, continue to reflect and dwell with scripture. That means starting with the narrative AS IF it is literally historically true. Then, pondering themes, characters, dynamics, who wrote it and under what circumstances and motives. Then the important question: What is God saying and doing through all this. What is the real revelation to us about God and ourselves.
 
Upvote 0