How literally should one read the Bible?

[Rainbow Mage]

Like when the Bible says for example in the book of Genesis that Jehovah created everything in seven days, do we take that at face value? We accept this just because an ancient manuscript, sacred text that it may be, tells us so?

 

[Levite]

How literally should one read the Bible?

In a lot of places, not very.

Unadulterated literalism is no friend to complex religious thought. Or any kind of complex thought.

 

[ChristineES]

I think it is pretty easy to tell what is symbolic and what could be considered a first or second person account of something, and from a true story. Sometimes it isn't easy. Job isn't a literal story. Sometimes only part of the story could be symbolic- like the fish swallowing Jonah could represent a spiritual death or something like that (I am not saying that is what it is saying, just giving an idea).
In other words, I guess we should use our better judgment.

 

[brandon1934]

I find it funny that some people want to take the Bible literally, especially the OT... but then when YHVH in the flesh appears as Jesus... he is the master teacher of parables.

 

[Caladan]

I think it is pretty easy to tell what is symbolic and what could be considered a first or second person account of something, and from a true story. Sometimes it isn't easy. Job isn't a literal story. Sometimes only part of the story could be symbolic- like the fish swallowing Jonah could represent a spiritual death or something like that (I am not saying that is what it is saying, just giving an idea).
In other words, I guess we should use our better judgment.

It is much more sensitive and complicated than that.
the Hebrew Bible stands with parallel documents of other significant Ancient Near Eastern forces. the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians and others.
It lays out before us some of the most significant events in the history of the Near East, telling us about the political play of events between some of the fiercest monarchs, religious leaders, rebels, resistance fighters, priestly classes, and scholar classes of some of the most outstanding and universally celebrated civilizations the world has known.
I would say it is a duty of any Abrahamic man or woman who take their faith seriously to study the founding text of their lineage.

When I was presented my first class of scriptural historiography, you could say I was shocked. the simplicity of approaching the scriptures with a healthy and critical mind was there, the education about the sources to do it proved invaluable. I've never looked back. the benefits are outstanding.

 

[ChristineES]

It is much more sensitive and complicated than that.
the Hebrew Bible stands with parallel documents of other significant Ancient Near Eastern forces. the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians and others.
It lays out before us some of the most significant events in the history of the Near East, telling us about the political play of events between some of the fiercest monarchs, religious leaders, rebels, resistance fighters, priestly classes, and scholar classes of some of the most outstanding and universally celebrated civilizations the world has known.
I would say it is a duty of any Abrahamic man or woman who take their faith seriously to study the founding text of their lineage.

When I was presented my first class of scriptural historiography, you could say I was shocked. the simplicity of approaching the scriptures with a healthy and critical mind was there, the education about the sources to do it proved invaluable. I've never looked back. the benefits are outstanding.

I agree, it is much more complicated and sensitive but I am talking in a simplified manner for the sake of debate.

 

[Skwim]

This is what's so neat about the Bible. Because of the huge diversity in the way it's approached one can interpret any passage however they wish. Can't reconcile parts of Genesis with science? No problem, treat them as metaphor. Need to believe that Jesus had supernatural powers? No problem, treat his resurrection as fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like when the Bible says for example in the book of Genesis that Jehovah created everything in seven days, do we take that at face value? We accept this just because an ancient manuscript, sacred text that it may be, tells us so?

In the case of Genesis, I think there are signs that it's not meant to be taken literally.

However, I don't think that it's valid to automatically assume that every passage that has been disproven or seems absurd to us is necessarily meant to be non-literal. Whatever interpretation we use, there should be some good reason why it was picked over others... and "it's not literally true" does not count as a good reason by itself.

 

[Vansdad]

I personally don't take it litteral as in being an historic account of things. I believe it never was meant to be and it's written to be symbolic. However there are some passages that I accept as wisdom. Like this one because no of us know for sure.
The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Like when the Bible says for example in the book of Genesis that Jehovah created everything in seven days, do we take that at face value? We accept this just because an ancient manuscript, sacred text that it may be, tells us so?

Best practice is this:

Remove yourself from the picture and suspend all belief and judgment. In other words, read it like any other book without prejudice.

Ask yourself whether the author or original reader could have taken it literally.

Ask if it is a metaphor, a song, or poetry.

Is there any reason not to take it literally? Is it clearly a myth, obviously contradicting history?

Then, ask yourself if and how you want to believe it.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

This is what's so neat about the Bible. Because of the huge diversity in the way it's approached one can interpret any passage however they wish. Can't reconcile parts of Genesis with science? No problem, treat them as metaphor. Need to believe that Jesus had supernatural powers? No problem, treat his resurrection as fact.

See what's funny about that is that I actually don't take the NT literally while not taking the OT literal. I don't take any of it literally. The ressurection and virgin birth need not have happened. Rather they did or not changes nothing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I personally don't take it litteral as in being an historic account of things. I believe it never was meant to be and it's written to be symbolic.

The whole Bible? I think that's unreasonable. IMO, there are many passages that are presented as historical accounts.

However there are some passages that I accept as wisdom. Like this one because no of us know for sure.
The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”

... while the wise man says it aloud.

You know, if you're looking for acknowledgement of reasonable doubt in the Bible, you won't find it in Psalm 14. It's all about certainty... only it's about certainty of the God of Israel.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

See what's funny about that is that I actually don't take the NT literally while not taking the OT literal. I don't take any of it literally. The ressurection and virgin birth need not have happened. Rather they did or not changes nothing.

Paul disagrees in the epistles. He's emphatic that if the Resurrection didn't actually happen, then all of Christianity falls apart.

However, if you're playing fast and loose with your interpretations, you can assume that this wasn't meant to be taken literally either.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I can assume he meant a spiritual ressurection. This verse is certainly speaking of a spiritual one. Read it very carefully:

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.

John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Notice both of these speak as passing from death to life as something that has already happened, or as something that takes place in this life.

 

[ninerbuff]

Like when the Bible says for example in the book of Genesis that Jehovah created everything in seven days, do we take that at face value? We accept this just because an ancient manuscript, sacred text that it may be, tells us so?

Like a comic book. Kinda cool, but it's still fiction.

 

[Vansdad]

The whole Bible? I think that's unreasonable. IMO, there are many passages that are presented as historical accounts.


... while the wise man says it aloud.

You know, if you're looking for acknowledgement of reasonable doubt in the Bible, you won't find it in Psalm 14. It's all about certainty... only it's about certainty of the God of Israel.

But I don't think it was written to be an historical account but rather an insight to what God may be. But the wise man still just says it in his heart. lol

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can assume he meant a spiritual ressurection. This verse is certainly speaking of a spiritual one. Read it very carefully:

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.

John 5:24 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

Notice both of these speak as passing from death to life as something that has already happened, or as something that takes place in this life.

I was talking about Christ's resurrection. Consider 1 Corinthians 15:

1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

[...]

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

That certainly seems to me to be talking about a physical phenomenon. He describes Christ appearing before acutal people and presents it as having literally happened.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

What kind of ressurection though? A physical or spiritual one? Even the gospels make it sound other then physical. They say the disciples didn't recognize him at first. That he could walk through walls and appear out of no where. He is described as a spirit being, not a physical one.

 

[Mister Emu]

I think you should read the Bible literally, and allegorically, and etc.

The Bible is a complex document and often has several layers...

 

[Katzpur]

I find it funny that some people want to take the Bible literally, especially the OT... but then when YHVH in the flesh appears as Jesus... he is the master teacher of parables.

YHVH (or Jehovah) was Jesus. Of course He appeared as Jesus.