• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians only; How literally do you take the Bible?

74x12

Well-Known Member
I read the Bible with the view it is intended to be read with 100% literal belief. On this site, at least, this appears to be a minority opinion. I’m curious about the thinking that it is not 100% literal. Some Christians believe that Jesus died and was literally resurrected three days later. Yet they won’t believe the literal account of the flood, for example. What metric is used in deciding what is to be literally believed and what is not? If you don’t believe one part of the Bible, why do you believe the other?
I believe the whole thing. However You'll learn yourself what is metaphor and isn't as you study more and more. This could take years of learning because the Bible is full of similes as Jesus says in Matthew 22:1 he speaks to us in similes. Besides, some things are both literal and metaphor at once. Many people believe Genesis is metaphor because even Paul calls parts of the Torah a simile of spiritual things he wanted to talk about. However, I believe Paul means that the story is simile and yet still literally true. Because I don't see where Paul ever claims that Genesis is only simile. The book of Genesis is full of metaphor and spiritual symbolism but that doesn't mean it's not also literally a true story. That's how you know it's divinely inspired because it's truth is layered. It's actual layers of truth each one just as true. Simply unthinkable for an ordinary book. You can study the Bible your whole life and barely scratch the surface.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I read the Bible with the view it is intended to be read with 100% literal belief. On this site, at least, this appears to be a minority opinion. I’m curious about the thinking that it is not 100% literal. Some Christians believe that Jesus died and was literally resurrected three days later. Yet they won’t believe the literal account of the flood, for example. What metric is used in deciding what is to be literally believed and what is not? If you don’t believe one part of the Bible, why do you believe the other?
For me, there are at least three criterion, but I will mention just two.
1. We need to keep in mind that what we are reading are historical accounts, as was stated throughout the pages of the Bible (both Hebrew and Greek)
(Genesis 2:4) . . .This is a history of the heavens and the earth . . .
(Genesis 5:1) . . .This is the book of Adam’s history. . .
(Genesis 6:9) . . .This is the history of Noah. . .
(Genesis 10:1) . . .This is the history of Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. . .
(Genesis 11:10) . . .This is the history of Shem. . .
(Genesis 11:27) . . .This is the history of Terah. . .
(Genesis 25:12) . . .This is the history of Ishmael the son of Abraham . . .
(Genesis 25:19) . . .this is the history of Isaac the son of Abraham. . .
(Genesis 36:1) . . .This is the history of Esau, that is, Edom. . .
(Genesis 37:2) . . .This is the history of Jacob. . .

"As for the rest of the history" is used over 30 times in the books of Kings and Chronicles.

(Matthew 1:1) . . .The book of the history of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham:

What's interesting, is that the first century followers of Christ accepted all of the Tanakh as a historical account, including the flood, and the Exodus, so that they recounted them as such.
In Acts 7, Stephen recounts the history from Moses to his present day... as history.
It was only after the first century, that apostate Christians deviated from this, and applied symbolism to almost everything they read in the Bible.

Luther applied a more literal approach to reading the Bible,
Luther writes, "The Christian reader should make it his first task to seek out the literal sense, as they call it. For it alone is the whole substance of faith and Christian theology;
Luther warned against the subjective and ambiguous interpretations of the allegorists and spiritualists,

2. Context has a lot to do with understand the Bible. So that we know where symbolism is used.
For example, Adam and Eve were mentioned throughout the Bible, as real characters.
In one verse, we read that their eyes were opened after eating the forbidden fruit. Obviously that is a figurative opening of the eyes. So we need to read with understanding.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Well said. The Bible is an amazing book because of who inspired it. Even the Genesis account reveals things that no human at that time could possibly have known. e.g. how could Moses know that the earth was “formless and waste” and covered with water, going on to describe in simple detail the process of preparing the earth for habitation. The appearance of dry land and creating a breathable atmosphere with a perfect mixture of gases.

The earliest “living” things mentioned are vegetation, but bacteria and microbes were most certainly included because these would have been needed to break down the soil and encourage the growth of all vegetation.
Genesis describes the creation of sentient creatures, the first to appear in the oceans and later on land. There was even a division between the domestic and wild animals.

The Genesis account does not preclude the “days” as being very long periods of time, rather than just 24 hour days. This would harmonise with what science knows about the age of the earth and also the extinction of the dinosaurs which were long gone by the time of God’s last creation....man......the only creature made in his image, and given the assignment of caretakers, landscape gardeners and zookeepers.

The flood is very obviously literal and the reasons and necessity for it were all stated quite clearly. There is evidence for a global flood, but science will simply give it another explanation.

When the Bible is stating something metaphorically, it is usually obvious and the literal events are self explanatory, but as you said, it is important to read and understand the Bible as a whole because it is one story from start to finish. The details can only be appreciated and understood in context.

I agree that a good translation is also beneficial to help us to understand what the original languages taught. Read along with a good concordance and an interlinear translation also enhances our understanding.
Hey Deeje.
Did you mean to say, The Genesis account does not preclude the “days” as being very long periods of time, rather than just 24 hour days.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
since the flood is quite literal, I have a few questions:

how big was the ship?

how many people were on it?

how many animals?

how many doors?

how many windows?

the door and window would not be opened during a violent storm

but the animals had to eat, correct?

if they eat, then they must poop

do you know how much food 1 single elephant eats in 1 single day?

do you know how much poop comes from 1 single elephant in 1 single day?

how do 8 people survive in an enclosed space with all those animals and all that poop for 40 days?

and, finally what about all the pee?

it may sound gross, but the questions are legitimate, and the math just doesn’t add up to me.

i’m an engineer, and to make that all work is beyond me

but I’m more than happy to learn more about the process
This might help answer your questions... hopefully.

The makers of the series, I've noticed apparently did their homework. They usually approach their content with reasonable consideration.
 

Fallen Prophet

Well-Known Member
I read the Bible with the view it is intended to be read with 100% literal belief. On this site, at least, this appears to be a minority opinion. I’m curious about the thinking that it is not 100% literal. Some Christians believe that Jesus died and was literally resurrected three days later. Yet they won’t believe the literal account of the flood, for example. What metric is used in deciding what is to be literally believed and what is not? If you don’t believe one part of the Bible, why do you believe the other?
I believe the Bible is true as long as it is translated and interpreted correctly - which is anyone's guess.

There are some Christian interpretations that I just cannot agree with because I believe they interpret the text incorrectly.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Would these same people believe that the resurrection of Christ could not be literally true? I wonder. In that case they wouldn’t be Christians in the first place?

There are plenty of liberal Christians who do not necessarily believe a literal resurrection. Is belief in a literal bodily resurrection a criterion in God's eyes for anyone to be a Christian or is that just a criterion in the credos of the church? Even if it is true that without a resurrection of Jesus we are still in our sins (according to Paul) does that mean that belief in the literal resurrection is necessary, or is it just belief in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God.
The longer I am on the forums the less dogmatic about these things I become even if I sound dogmatic at time when talking with people about interpretations.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
since the flood is quite literal, I have a few questions:
You raise some good questions.
I know you addressed this to Deeje, but do you mind if I assist her?
Not to mention the dinosaurs......:D
I never understood this line of reasoning....
Do you see T-Rex, Triceratops, or any others alive today? So apparently they were not on the Ark.

I know it’s a fairy tale to you (which is fine), but what would make you think they were included? I mean, they’re not around!

They more than likely were extinct prior... although Dr. Mary Schweitzer’s soft- tissue discoveries are thought-provoking.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
@Jeremiah Ames ...this is in response you your questions as best as the Bible allows me to answer them.....

since the flood is quite literal, I have a few questions:

how big was the ship?
It wasn’t a ship...it had no bow, or stern and no rudder. It was a gigantic floating box. It was not designed for navigation....only to float.
According to the Bible it was about 300 cubits long (438 ft or 134 m)...50 cubits wide (73ft or 22m) and 30 cubits high (44ft or 13m). Something the size of the QE 11.

Ship builders down through time have used the ratios of the ark to build very stable seaworthy vessels....even in the roughest of seas. The ark had a 10:1 ratio which can withstand the kinds of stresses that the ark and any other sea going vessel would have endured.

Just to give you the scale...
502019176_E_cnt_1_lg.jpg


how many people were on it
Eight......Noah and his wife, their three sons and their wives.


how many animals?
The Bible does not give a number but mentions “kinds” which would not necessarily include every species within a “kind” (or family). And we can subtract the many marine creatures because they did not need the ark to survive. It was only for land dwelling air breathers.

Noah did not have to collect his specimens either, since God brought them all to the ark for Noah and his sons to guide them in. Seven of the “clean” animals and two of the “unclean” ones. Humans did not have permission to eat flesh until Noah came out of the ark, so all on board ate grains and seeds and vegetation.

It was three stories high....perhaps one for the larger animals, (possibly the bottom floor) one for food storage, and perhaps the smaller ones, and a third deck for the humans. This would have provided an overall storage area of about 96,000 sq ft. (or 8,900 sq m) It was built out of a resinous wood (water proof) and was sealed inside and out with tar...robust and water tight.

The roof may have been gabled, so that opening one cubit below it would have provided ventilation and light. Remember that windows in those days weren’t like ours today. All of the construction plans were given to Noah by God, so all he had to do was follow the design plan to the letter...which he did.
Even weight distribution would also have added to the stability.

how many doors?
Only one

how many windows?
It appears that the openings were high up, possibly along the full length of the vessel, to allow for air circulation and light..

the door and window would not be opened during a violent storm
The door was shut by God and not opened again by him until the ark was on dry land.
The windows being high up may not have allowed the sea water inside. Since God was controlling it all, he would have offered his protection to all inside his ark of safety....it is why they were inside it.

but the animals had to eat, correct?
All that was necessary was given in the instructions that God gave to Noah. He knew exactly how much food to gather and what kind was needed.

At that time, there were no carnivores except for the carrion creatures, (those who cleaned up dead carcasses) so there was no predatory activity on board.....very few meat eaters, so vegetation like straw that stores well would have provided many of the animals with food.

if they eat, then they must poop
Indeed, but seeing as how they were herbivores for the most part, their droppings could have been pitched overboard through the window openings. I don’t know what else they could have done to keep things manageably clean.
I am sure though that God would have had instructions for all those things. Hygiene was a large part of his law.

do you know how much food 1 single elephant eats in 1 single day?
Yes...and so does God. Since he fed the Israelites in the wilderness for 40 years, (not just 40 days) and God’s prophet Elijah caused the meager rations of a needy widow to keep reproducing until the end of a drought, why assume that anything is impossible for God? There is no mention of any food shortages.

do you know how much poop comes from 1 single elephant in 1 single day?
Yes and again, so does God. This was his plan remember....? He would have had all that sorted before Noah even entered the ark. I can imagine some kind of waste disposal system in the plan. No one would have wanted to wade in knee high poop.

how do 8 people survive in an enclosed space with all those animals and all that poop for 40 days?
It wasn't just 40 days....that is how long it rained....they were in the ark for about a year. They would have had plenty of room if they had a whole floor to themselves.

and, finally what about all the pee?
Again God would have provided instructions on how to manage things and remain hygienic.

it may sound gross, but the questions are legitimate, and the math just doesn’t add up to me.
Don’t leave God out of the equation.....don’t you think that God would have sorted all that out in the planning?

i’m an engineer, and to make that all work is beyond me
You are not God......being an engineer is good because you are concerned with the mechanics.....but being a brilliant engineer like the one who designed all the mechanics of creation......is even better.

but I’m more than happy to learn more about the process
We are all a work in progress. A relationship with God must be based on trust....and I think we can see in creation itself the way systems are designed to work flawlessly and interactively.....unless interfered with by man.

yes, according to Ken the Ham, there were dinosaurs as well

sheesh, more poop

LOL.....there were no dinosaurs on the ark...they were long extinct before humans came on the scene....otherwise we would have become some sticky muck between a dinosaur’s toes.....

If you know what the Bible teaches, rather than what men assume that it teaches, there are no questions that undo the reasons for why those things happened.

Do you know why God sent the flood in the first place and why he responded the way he did?
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Hey Deeje.
Did you mean to say, The Genesis account does not preclude the “days” as being very long periods of time, rather than just 24 hour days.
Ummm....you got me thinking now.....I think I meant that the Genesis account doesn’t rule out the “days” being very long periods of time......meaning that they were not just 24 hour days......

Is that better? :p
 
I value the Bible because it is the most helpful book in theworld. The advice from the Bible has always helped people. Those who carefully follow it will be happy and do well in life. (Psalm 1:1-3.) True Christians have always accepted the Bible, “not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

We can trust the Bible because its promises and prophecies always come true,so it means it’s authentic .
Isaac Newton said: “I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.”
I think those who question the Bible are not real Christians
)))
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
I believe the scriptures are God’s Word and therefore should be read literally except where the text is obviously figurative, allegorical, or poetic.
As (you'd probably agree) do most all other Christians (that believe). But the most needed change in reading for everyone is for us all to stop telling the text what it is about, and to begin truly listening. That way we can avoid getting hung up on trivialities that have no significance at all (not even a bit) like how big was the Flood, and instead get the real messages the words are meant to convey to us. In brief, people need to stop debating or pontificating while they read, and truly listen. The last thing that would matter to us then would be how big the Flood was, as we get blown away by the real messages in the text.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Ummm....you got me thinking now.....I think I meant that the Genesis account doesn’t rule out the “days” being very long periods of time......meaning that they were not just 24 hour days......

Is that better? :p
Nah. It was my mistake. I didn't take the time to look up preclude. It made sense after I did so. :)
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
This might help answer your questions... hopefully.

The makers of the series, I've noticed apparently did their homework. They usually approach their content with reasonable consideration.

it is too long, but I will give it a try

thanks a bunch
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
You raise some good questions.
I know you addressed this to Deeje, but do you mind if I assist her?

I never understood this line of reasoning....
Do you see T-Rex, Triceratops, or any others alive today? So apparently they were not on the Ark.

I know it’s a fairy tale to you (which is fine), but what would make you think they were included? I mean, they’re not around!

They more than likely were extinct prior... although Dr. Mary Schweitzer’s soft- tissue discoveries are thought-provoking.

well, I have followed ken ham for a while, and I noticed his ark has dinosaurs on it

and I know he believes dinosaurs were with adam and eve

i assume he is an important modern day christian spokesperson

i also assume the thinking is that dinosaurs went extinct a few thousand years ago

so I thought his thinking was relatively common

i am a numbers person, so my mind immediately goes to strange places like that

my wife has been a Christian for 40+ years

I remember asking her “what about the dinosaurs” and many other strange questions, but she was always patient with me
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
As a Christian, do you believe that Moses talked to God face to face, like the Bible records? I do, it seems plausible to me that this is where Moses could’ve gotten an accurate account of creation.
According to scripture, the "Logos" has been in existence longer than any other created being. (John 1:1-2, 14; Revelation 3:14)

The reason why he is called the "Logos" (The Word of God) is that he is the spokesman for his God and Father who cannot deal with humans directly because it would mean their death. Since we cannot even deal directly with some of God's creations without physical harm, it stands to reason why God would use a spokesman to convey his will to man. As the Logos speaks for God as his representative, he often speaks as if he is God, particularly in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Exodus 3:1-6 is one good example of this...
"And Moses was tending the flock for his father-in-law Priest Ithro of Midian; and he drove the flock back of the wilderness, and came to God’s mountain Horeb, 2 and Jehovah’s Angel appeared to him in a blaze of fire out of the middle of a bush; and he saw, there was the bush burning with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3 And Moses thought “I must step up and see this remarkable sight, how it is that the bush does not burn up.”

4 And Jehovah saw that he was stepping up to see, and God called out to him from the middle of the bush “Moses, Moses!” and he said “Here I am,” 5 and he said “Do not come near here; slip your shoes off your feet, because the place you are standing on is sacred soil.” 6 And he said “I am your father’s God, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.” And Moses veiled his face, because he was afraid to look on God."


So it was an angel who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, but the angel spoke on God's behalf, saying "I am your father's God...." This was no doubt, the Logos.

Another example is when Abraham received a visit from "three men"....one who was identified as "Jehovah" and who spoke as if he was Jehovah, (Genesis 18:1-19) but God can never become a mere human to walk among mankind....his very presence would consume them. (Exodus 33:18-23)

So in answer to your question, I believe that Moses and Abraham did speak with Jehovah "face to face" or as personally as if he were standing right in front of them. Since the pre-human Jesus was always God's spokesman, it stands to reason that because he was also present at the world's creation, having had a share in it, (Colossians 1:15-17) he was able to convey to Moses the details that no other human could have known at that time....but not in a confusing scientific manner because that would not have meant much to anyone for thousands of years. Today scientists seem to think that God owes them that scientific explanation....but creation itself speaks for him. He owes them nothing.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
This might help answer your questions... hopefully.

The makers of the series, I've noticed apparently did their homework. They usually approach their content with reasonable consideration.
Very cute video and I agree way more close to the Bible's account that most other presentations I have seen.
I liked the way the ark itself was presented...not as some kind of ship, but as a floating box. That is what an ark is after all...a container to hold things that are precious....like the Ark of the Covenant. :)

Loved the kangaroos too :D
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I read the Bible with the view it is intended to be read with 100% literal belief. On this site, at least, this appears to be a minority opinion. I’m curious about the thinking that it is not 100% literal. Some Christians believe that Jesus died and was literally resurrected three days later. Yet they won’t believe the literal account of the flood, for example. What metric is used in deciding what is to be literally believed and what is not? If you don’t believe one part of the Bible, why do you believe the other?
If you take the Bible "100% literally", how do you deal with the stuff that literally contradicts other stuff?

IMPE, people who say they take the Bible "100% literally" usually mean they take a couple of cherry picked verses and insist their being "100% literal" means they don't have to contemplate any contextual or nuanced readings of them, but please feel free to be the exception.

So, again, how do you deal with the contradictions? I'll even start you off with a nice simple one; Numbers 6:5 vs 1 Corinthians 11:14. Which is "100% literal"? Because it would seem they can't both be.
 
Last edited:

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
As a Christian, do you believe that Moses talked to God face to face, like the Bible records? I do, it seems plausible to me that this is where Moses could’ve gotten an accurate account of creation.
So you believe the Bible when it says Moses talked to God face to face (Exodus 33:11)? What about where the Bible says humans can't see God (1 John 4:12)? Another example where both can't be "100% literal" it would seem.
 

an anarchist

Your local loco.
So, again, how do you deal with the contradictions? I'll even start you off with a nice simple one; Numbers 6:5 vs 1 Corinthians 11:14. Which is "100% literal"? Because it would seem they can't both be
I think you picked a lovely example of so called “contradictions”. Numbers 6:5 is describing the Nazarite vow. I am a practicing nazarite, so I have not cut it nor my beard, and I will dread my hair into seven locks soon. The apostle Paul, author of Corinthians, himself took the nazarite vow on a couple of occasions. Perceived contradictions are from misunderstanding, IMO. So much for the nice and simple one, I think it clearly illustrates my point.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I think you picked a lovely example of so called “contradictions”. Numbers 6:5 is describing the Nazirite vow. I am a practicing nazirite, so I have not cut it nor my beard, and I will dread my hair into seven locks soon. The apostle Paul, author of Corinthians, himself took the nazirite vow on a couple of occasions. Perceived contradictions are from misunderstanding, IMO. So much for the nice and simple one, I think it clearly illustrates my point.
So when Paul says "if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" that's not "100% literal"?
 
Top