Why is the literalness of the Bible so important?

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's really an Evangelical Protestant thing. There's some super-fundie Catholics, I suppose, who also take it literally but that wouldn't be the norm.

I think literalism spoils the spiritual message. It shouldn't really matter if those stories or people were historical. What matters is how the stories impact you and their meaning to your relationship to the Divine. People underestimate the power of myth, and they sadly think something being a myth means it isn't real or is an insult.

 

[Jainarayan]

People underestimate the power of myth, and they sadly think something being a myth means it isn't real or is an insult.

Yeah, the words 'myth', 'mythology' and 'mythological' have gotten a bum rap. I feel compelled to parenthetically note that my use of 'myth' is referring to a body of stories, not that they're fairy tales.

 

[WalterTrull]

You mean like thete really is an Egypt?

Had me there for a minute until I realized the typo.
Didn't figure you meant:
"thete in British. (θiːt) a member of the lowest order of freeman in ancient Athens."

 

[Audie]

Yeah, the words 'myth', 'mythology' and 'mythological' have gotten a bum rap. I feel compelled to parenthetically note that my use of 'myth' is referring to a body of stories, not that they're fairy tales.

Which one is not a fairy tale?

 

[WalterTrull]

If Adam and Eve is allegory, what is there to be understood of the fall of man? The removal of the station of “the serpent”? The very reason for death? The reason we need a saviour?

Furthermore, if Adam and Eve didn’t happen, what else didn’t happen?

The flood? The confounding of language? Moses, parting the Red Sea? The plagues on Egypt? The 90 year old woman who birthed a son?Christ’s miracles? Walking on water? His resurrection from the dead? Was he just some guy? Why would anyone follow him then?

Furthermore, what about what won’t happen? His glorious return? Perhaps?

If modern science is the reason people discount Eden or anything else in the Bible, I question why they bother with Christianity at all. If it’s all allegory, it’s worthless. It has no value outside being another book of morals, perhaps inspired by God, perhaps not.

Not sure if you're arguing pro or con. Could be a sarcastic pro.

 

[viole]

Not all of Christendom believes all of the Bible literally. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, and probably Anglican Churches view it as largely metaphorical and allegorical. Even when I was Christian I did not take it literally. My priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church used to say "what does it matter if Adam and Eve actually existed? The important thing is that we do exist to give glory to God". Yet there are large numbers in various Christian denominations that take the Bible literally. Why? Does taking it as largely allegorical somehow diminish any truths or lessons it holds? Does that make it false?

Using my own Hinduism for example, it's safe to say the overwhelming number of Hindus do not take most of our scriptures or stories literally, specifically the puranas. The Vedas are the exception in that they're generally accepted lock, stock and barrel because they are apauruṣeya (lit. means "not of man", i.e. divinely inspired). But they are not the equivalent of the Bible. The Vedas are hymns, poems, prayers, musings and treatises on theology, ontology and epistemology, and the world, etc. In the Nasadiya Sukta the Rig Veda even questions how creation came about. That said, that we don't take most of our texts literally doesn't diminish their value as being divinely inspired and holding truths.

So why is it so important that the Bible be interpreted literally?

Cool. For a second I thought that those resurrection stories of Jesus were literal.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jumi]

I suspect it mainly developed from the period of Christianity as temporal government. They needed a literal basis for their authority and a literal basis for the Biblical rules and laws they wished to impose upon their subjects. That would be much easier to sell as the literal word of God than as their human interpretation of allegorical scripture.

The problem with this is that most people had little or no idea of scripture until the printing press and protestant reformation. Before that, literalism wasn't such a big issue. Even the church at the time thought that the Bible mustn't be too widespread for various reasons.

There is also defence against the obvious question that comes to my (admittedly agnostic) mind; If some parts of the Bible are accepted as allegorical, why couldn’t the parts establishing the existence of God himself be allegorical too?

Some of the parts of the Bible are clearly talking about mystical experiences, some are ethical or cultural normative moral allegories. Some are a warehouse of cultural understandings of the time. People often get confused whether they're believers or not on them.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

In Antiquity there were a few Christians who took everything literally, but they were largely squashed by the authority of the Fathers. Augustine wrote on the subject, saying that only the religious teachings were inspired: when Biblical writers wrote about history, geography, or astronomy they were on their own. And yes, he specifically mentioned the 6 days of creation in that category.

Literalism came in again with Protestantism, but it's hard to see why. As I've said before, one wonders whether those who believe that Adam and Eve were real people also believe that of the Good Samaritan. Perhaps they would be less confused if we spoke of parables rather than myths, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[pearl]

Can you give an example of one of those truths?

A number of Jesus' parables.

Why do you suppose they cannot just say it straight,

There is no language with which to express what is believed. Stories are remembered through the generations.

 

[Quintessence]

Yeah, the words 'myth', 'mythology' and 'mythological' have gotten a bum rap. I feel compelled to parenthetically note that my use of 'myth' is referring to a body of stories, not that they're fairy tales.

Curiously, if mythology has gotten a bum rap, fairy tales are even worse off. They are spoken of as things that are unworthy of time or consideration in spite of the fact that they are repositories of cultural lore just as much as religious mythologies are. Many fairy tales contain remnants of oral religions or folk wisdom that have long since been lost or corrupted. Some Pagans - not myself - take to trying to sort all of this out, but it's something of a vain effort since all we have to work with are literary (and highly Christianized) versions of what were once oral traditions.

At any rate, it's my understanding that Biblical literalism is a thing specific to particular movements within Christianity as a whole and fairly modern. I couldn't tell you which ones, as I haven't made a study of such things and don't really remember. How important it is depends on the tradition. Hard to say how popular it really is, but it wouldn't surprise me of it is that minority that others like to ogle at and poke fun at. For my part, I largely ignore it. Mythological literalism of any sort is a rather bankrupt approach to mythos.

 

[PureX]

So why is it so important that the Bible be interpreted literally?

In a word, "authority". The Bible must be absolutely correct and unassailable if I am going to proclaim my interpretation of it as being absolutely correct and unassailable.

That's the big payoff for the 'magically inerrant Bible': that one's interpretation of it then also becomes magically inerrant.

Hey, don't argue with me, argue with GOD.

See what I mean?

 

[Jainarayan]

Which one is not a fairy tale?

I'm referring to the term fairy tale used pejoratively. See the comments below.

Curiously, if mythology has gotten a bum rap, fairy tales are even worse off. They are spoken of as things that are unworthy of time or consideration in spite of the fact that they are repositories of cultural lore just as much as religious mythologies are. Many fairy tales contain remnants of oral religions or folk wisdom that have long since been lost or corrupted. Some Pagans - not myself - take to trying to sort all of this out, but it's something of a vain effort since all we have to work with are literary (and highly Christianized) versions of what were once oral traditions.

Exactly. I think I’m kind of defensive about the terms myth and mythology for the reasons you said.

 

[12jtartar]

Not all of Christendom believes all of the Bible literally. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, and probably Anglican Churches view it as largely metaphorical and allegorical. Even when I was Christian I did not take it literally. My priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church used to say "what does it matter if Adam and Eve actually existed? The important thing is that we do exist to give glory to God". Yet there are large numbers in various Christian denominations that take the Bible literally. Why? Does taking it as largely allegorical somehow diminish any truths or lessons it holds? Does that make it false?

Using my own Hinduism for example, it's safe to say the overwhelming number of Hindus do not take most of our scriptures or stories literally, specifically the puranas. The Vedas are the exception in that they're generally accepted lock, stock and barrel because they are apauruṣeya (lit. means "not of man", i.e. divinely inspired). But they are not the equivalent of the Bible. The Vedas are hymns, poems, prayers, musings and treatises on theology, ontology and epistemology, and the world, etc. In the Nasadiya Sukta the Rig Veda even questions how creation came about. That said, that we don't take most of our texts literally doesn't diminish their value as being divinely inspired and holding truths.

So why is it so important that the Bible be interpreted literally?

Jainarayan,
There are two ways to consider literal. The Bible is literal as to the message written from our Creator!!!
The words were written in several different languages, and, especially in Hebrew and Aramaic, you cannot take literally, in many cases. The reason for this is because Hebrew, just like English, was living language, and was changing lol the time.
If a Bible translator tried to write the Bible using literal words of today, we would not be able to tell what it was saying, we would never get a correct message. The Bible must be translated in the exact meaning that the words had at the time of writing. This is very difficult today, and takes much, much study. This is one, very correctly called a Bible Scholar. Today, we do not need to understand the old Hebrew, we have many scholars who have proven to be trustworthy. Each different translation should be compared with other translations, if you want the truth.
The Almighty God Jehovah has even promised to make sure that the Bible will be accurate throughout all generations, Psalms 12:6,7, Isaiah 40:8, 1Peter 1:25. There are mistakes in all Bibles, but they can easily be found by comparing different translations.
Agape!!!

 

[Jainarayan]

In a word, "authority". The Bible must be absolutely correct and unassailable if I am going to proclaim my interpretation of it as being absolutely correct and unassailable.

That's the big payoff for the 'magically inerrant Bible': that one's interpretation of it them also becomes magically inerrant.

Hey, don't argue with me, argue with GOD.

See what I mean?

Yes, I see. It’s the appeal to authority.

 

[Sky Rivers]

Let me ask a return question: How is it that the EOC can reconcile a savior with the need for a talking snake? Could it be because the universe is simply imperfect, created by God with challenges for man's betterment? Maybe the snake and apple are a metaphor for how wrong it is to try to take the easy way out (get knowledge without working for it), and the price to pay for getting something you didn't work for, i.e. cheating the system.

So it's all or nothing?

Because he taught a way to draw closer to God?

Why does that have to be discounted? As a Hindu I don't believe God took the literal form of a man-lion, but the lesson is that you can't cheat and circumvent the system, or that loopholes do get closed. Nor do I believe he's going to return literally on a white horse holding a literal sword. Maybe he'll be arriving in some sort of other white vehicle with something that would take the place of a sword, something that could bring about peace... maybe some sort of multi-govt. accords. We don't need literalism to make it work.

So it's all or nothing. That doesn't display much faith in one's beliefs.

That's a pretty dim view. Maybe it is just another book of morals. Does that render it worthless given that people have been following those morals for millennia, even though they may be allegorical.

1. The talking snake doesn’t bother me at all, since humans (and likely all creatures) spoke in one tongue (or could each be understood). The snake lost his voice later (extra-Biblical account).

2. I believe he was a literal snake and the entire account was literal. I’ve no reason to doubt.

3. My literal approach takes great faith, not less.

4. It’s not just another book of morals for me so I don’t have such a confusion over it.

 

[Audie]

A number of Jesus' parables.



There is no language with which to express what is believed. Stories are remembered through the generations.

Thats the kind of obscurantist non answer
that I kinda expected.

 

[PureX]

Curiously, if mythology has gotten a bum rap, fairy tales are even worse off. They are spoken of as things that are unworthy of time or consideration in spite of the fact that they are repositories of cultural lore just as much as religious mythologies are. Many fairy tales contain remnants of oral religions or folk wisdom that have long since been lost or corrupted. Some Pagans - not myself - take to trying to sort all of this out, but it's something of a vain effort since all we have to work with are literary (and highly Christianized) versions of what were once oral traditions.

To the materialists, none of this matters at all. Because none of it is "real". Only the material universe is real, to them. So that only science finds any "real" relevance to truth. Everything else is just pointless fantasy.

 

[Jainarayan]

The Bible must be translated in the exact meaning that the words had at the time of writing.

Using this as an example is it possible that the Ancient Hebrew word for ‘day’ could have actually meant “a very long time”? I’ve seen interpretations of “until Heaven and Earth pass away” as meaning that. Some languages seem to be more concrete than others. Or it takes an in depth knowledge of the culture to know what was meant.

 

[PureX]

My literal approach takes great faith, not less.

Except that the more convinced you are that you are right, the less faith you actually need to maintain it. It's important to understand and recognize the difference between faith, pretense, and hubris.

 

[Augustus]

Literalism came in again with Protestantism, but it's hard to see why.

Not sure it's too hard.

Allegorical readings are more intellectually demanding, and usually have to be taught. Protestantism opened up the Bible to the masses, often reading alone.

Literalism is the easiest to understand and is exactly what you would expect from less well educated people reading without instruction.