Why is the literalness of the Bible so important?

[Sky Rivers]

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.

Oh, I don’t kid myself that I have all the answers. Rather the opposite. However when it comes down to who I choose to put my faith and trust in, I choose God, rather than man. I’ve no reason to doubt God.

 

[Sky Rivers]

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.

Define “educated”, would you? Then, explain why you seem to put it on a pedestal.

 

[Jainarayan]

Oh, I don’t kid myself that I have all the answers. Rather the opposite. However when it comes down to who I choose to put my faith and trust in, I choose God, rather than man. I’ve no reason to doubt God.

Faith in God isn’t the issue. I have faith in God as I worship him. But do I believe he is a blue dude with four arms who rides an eagle? Of course not, I don’t need to. All the iconographies are descriptions of his powers and attributes... a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[Augustus]

Define “educated”, would you? Then, explain why you seem to put it on a pedestal.

I'm talking about the 15th/16th C.

Prior to the printing press books were very expensive so people who could read were generally wealthy and very well educated, or they were clerics and well educated.

After the printing press and the vernacular translations of the Bible, many more people learned to read and reading the Bible wasn't limited to elites and clerics.

 

[Audie]

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.

What drivel. You are confusing "materialism" for some
mental disrder that probably does not even exist.

AKA STRAWMAN. Like your "scientism".

Any normal person has the capability of reading poetry,
fiction etc and seeing what the symbolism, theme
etc is about.

If anyone is always getting the bible wrong it is
those who think there really is a "god" involved.

 

[Audie]

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.

Of course. As elsewhere noted, fundamentalism
is the faith of the trailer parks.

 

[InChrist]

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?

I think it is important to take the Bible literally when it is meant to be taken so because it claims to be the inspired words of God, which I believe is accurate. Jesus interpreted the OT scriptures literally...

"One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did."
Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?

 

[Audie]

I think it is important to take the Bible literally when it is meant to be taken so because it claims to be the inspired words of God, which I believe is accurate. Jesus interpreted the OT scriptures literally...

"One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did."
Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?

"When you choose to take your interpretation as literal."

 

[PureX]

Oh, I don’t kid myself that I have all the answers. Rather the opposite. However when it comes down to who I choose to put my faith and trust in, I choose God, rather than man. I’ve no reason to doubt God.

Yes, but it's "God" as YOU understand God (via your Bible). So the inerrant Bible doesn't really give you any inerrancy, or authority, at all. Or anyone else. So the inerrancy, then, becomes a moot point.

Let's say I show you a painting of "perfection". But when you and everyone else you know sees it, you all see something different in it as 'perfect'. So, what did it actually reveal to anyone about perfection? Only that we each think we know it when we see it, even though we all saw it differently. See what I mean?

 

[InChrist]

"When you choose to take your interpretation as literal."

Not when I choose, but when through the normal reading process it makes sense to do so...

"The disciples also took the commands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally. Jesus commanded the disciples to go and make more disciples in Matthew 28:19-20. In Acts 2 and following, we find that the disciples took Jesus' command literally and went throughout the known world of that time preaching the gospel of Christ and telling them to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Just as the disciples took Jesus’ words literally, so must we. How else can we be sure of our salvation if we do not believe Him when He says He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), pay the penalty for our sin (Matthew 26:28), and provide eternal life (John 6:54)?

Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)

Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely."
Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?

 

[Audie]

Not when I choose, but when through the normal reading process it makes sense to do so...

"The disciples also took the commands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally. Jesus commanded the disciples to go and make more disciples in Matthew 28:19-20. In Acts 2 and following, we find that the disciples took Jesus' command literally and went throughout the known world of that time preaching the gospel of Christ and telling them to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Just as the disciples took Jesus’ words literally, so must we. How else can we be sure of our salvation if we do not believe Him when He says He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), pay the penalty for our sin (Matthew 26:28), and provide eternal life (John 6:54)?

Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)

Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely."
Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?

When you decide to choose, then.

 

[Jainarayan]

I think it is important to take the Bible literally when it is meant to be taken so because it claims to be the inspired words of God, which I believe is accurate. Jesus interpreted the OT scriptures literally...

"One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did."
Can / Should we interpret the Bible as literal?

I don't think there's a literal or allegorical interpretation in those verses. What I mean by literal reading is what I said in this post Why is the literalness of the Bible so important?

What I mean is why is it important to believe the universe was created in 6 days; that the flood was a real occurrence that created the Grand Canyon; that there were literally a pair of every animal species on the ark. Why literally?

 

[InChrist]

When you decide to choose, then.

What are you saying, exactly?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

The Catholic Church does take the Adam and Eve story literally.

... not in the sense that they believe in a man named "Adam" and a woman named "Eve" who lived in a garden with a talling snake, but in the sense that there was an original male and female pair of humans from whom all "true humans" descended.

And it matters because without this, there's no basis for the doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[Audie]

When you decide to choose, then.

What are you saying, exactly?

Everyone who reads your flippin' bible interprets as
it suits them, unless maybe "god" seized control
of their minds.

 

[Audie]

The Catholic Church does take the Adam and Eve story literally.

... not in the sense that they believe in a man named "Adam" and a woman named "Eve" who lived in a garden with a talling snake, but in the sense that there was an original male and female pair of humans from whom all "true humans" descended.

And it matters because without this, there's no basis for the doctrine of Original Sin.

Which has to be one of the worst doctrines ever.

 

[Sky Rivers]

Of course. As elsewhere noted, fundamentalism
is the faith of the trailer parks.

Goodness, that’s just not true. Question: do you believe wealth defines human value? Furthermore, do you believe a person’s residence, defines their intelligence, knowledge, or value?

 

[Sky Rivers]

"When you choose to take your interpretation as literal."

It’s not ALL interpretation. Sometimes, you just have to read it for what it states and believe that.

 

[Sky Rivers]

Yes, but it's "God" as YOU understand God (via your Bible). So the inerrant Bible doesn't really give you any inerrancy, or authority, at all. Or anyone else. So the inerrancy, then, becomes a moot point.

Let's say I show you a painting of "perfection". But when you and everyone else you know sees it, you all see something different in it as 'perfect'. So, what did it actually reveal to anyone about perfection? Only that we each think we know it when we see it, even though we all saw it differently. See what I mean?

Paintings aren’t the same thing as written words.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Vinayaka - I don't think that the Bible has to be interpreted literally, but I do think that any interpretation needs justification.

I think it's often the case that when a Biblical passage is interpreted non-literally, the reason is that a literal interpretation seems absurd by a modern understanding. Personally, I think this is lazy and wrong-headed.

If there's good reason to consider a passage to be metaphor, poetry, etc., fine, but we shouldn't automatically assume that what's presented as a straightforward historical account wasn't meant to be literal just because the knowledge we've gained since the passage was written would make a literal interpretation embarrassing to modern adherents.

I mean, if a Bronze Age author would have had no reason to believe that it's impossible for the sky to be a solid dome, maybe he really did mean that the sky is a solid dome.