Why is the literalness of the Bible so important?

[Audie]

In one sense,you are correct, but in another very wrong. The amazing thing about relating to God and reading His Words is that He welcomes anyone to enter into relationship with Him as a unique individual wherever they are at in life, in spiritual understanding, maturity, or immaturity because God is a loving Father who desires to help us grow. So in one sense everyone who reads the scriptures is at a different place in their understanding and interpretation and God is patient enough to allow that, while His word reminds readers to continually seek and submit their minds to His intended wisdom and truth expressed in the scriptures.

I might even believe it, if people saying that did
not get diametrically opposed answers. God tells
Mormons they are right...etc.

 

[Jainarayan]

If Adam and Eve were Not real, then how could Jesus be related to them as per Luke 3:38 _________

The same way we are/aren’t.

As I said, what my former priest taught is that how we’re here is of less importance than why... to serve God and glorify him. Whether Adam and Eve were real or allegorical is secondary. People spend so much time trying to prove the literalness of the Bible and presenting proof of God’s existence the proving becomes an end itself.

 

[Audie]

I don't think the ' up is down ' or ' down is up ' has to do with what we can learn from the Bible.
True, we choose about the Flood, and Adam and Eve, etc., but that does Not change what the Bible says.
Yes, when a rock falls it is always down.
The coming ' falling rock ' is what is recorded at 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3.
When the 'powers that be ' are saying, "Peace and Security..." that will prove to be the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9.

If you "choose" flood then you may as well
also choose down is up,
black is white, and pigs can fly.

That (you choose to believe that) there was a
world wide flood that is fully equivalent to choosing
belief in anything else that is as clearly,
demonstrably untrue as rocks falling up.

You do realize that?

 

[InChrist]

The same ones I and other non-Christians adhere to.

That does not answer the question.

 

[InChrist]

I might even believe it, if people saying that did
not get diametrically opposed answers. God tells
Mormons they are right...etc.

All born again believers do not get diametrically opposed answers concerning the foundation truths or doctrines of the Bible. I think puesdo-Christian religions are a different story and from my perspective are hearing from a different god. At least in my own experience I became acutely aware that the god I believed in as a Mormon was not the same One who saved me and I now know.

 

[Audie]

All born again believers do not get diametrically opposed answers concerning the foundation truths or doctrines of the Bible. I think puesdo-Christian religions are a different story and from my perspective are hearing from a different god. At least in my own experience I became acutely aware that the god I believed in as a Mormon was not the same One who saved me and I now know.

Sorry -ah but the True Scotsman thing ...you know?

And if you interviewed every sort of xian
you could find, sure, the ones in each sect will
tend to get sect-messages, but all different from
eachother and each convinced THEY got it right.

You know that; why is it even necessary to say it?

 

[Jainarayan]

That does not answer the question.

Allegorical stories of temptation, loss of innocence, falling from grace abound in all cultures. The morals and lessons are the same, the characters are different.

 

[InChrist]

Sorry -ah but the True Scotsman thing ...you know?

And if you interviewed every sort of xian
you could find, sure, the ones in each sect will
tend to get sect-messages, but all different from
eachother and each convinced THEY got it right.

You know that; why is it even necessary to say it?

I have been a Christian for almost 30 years and in all that time I have not been a member of any specific denomination, but have attended various churches and have friends and know Christians in different parts of the U.S. and world who although may be part of different churches, all are in agreement about Jesus Christ and the essential biblical doctrines. Sure I may and do see some things differently than other Christians, but we all know we're ultimately on the same page with others who are born again to new life in Christ. The Body of Christ all over the world is diversity with unity. I think God allows room for individuality and other variations because each person is unique and He desires we all patiently and lovingly bear with each other's differences as He brings us to a place of unity in the Spirit...

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Ephesians 4:1-6

...till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.. Eph. 4:13

 

[InChrist]

Allegorical stories of temptation, loss of innocence, falling from grace abound in all cultures. The morals and lessons are the same, the characters are different.

Thank you for answering further. I'll give this some thought and try to get back to it.

 

[sayak83]

Right, monogenesis. The RCC has a much less rigid or literal reading over all. Adam, Eve, and Evolution

RCC has the best theology and the worst organization.

 

[Sky Rivers]

Simple!

It is my strong opinion that all which God has made is ultimately simple; it is man who misunderstands and complicates.

 

[Audie]

Allegorical stories of temptation, loss of innocence, falling from grace abound in all cultures. The morals and lessons are the same, the characters are different.

This must be so, when I was introduced to
Christianity I wondered, why go to church to
hear what we are taught at home?

 

[Sky Rivers]

Thank you for your reply, but I wonder what does the above have to do with the creative days.
ALL of the creative days are summed up by the single word ' DAY ' at Genesis 2:4.
In the ' day ' God made the Earth.....
So, the word ' day ' in Scripture has shades of meaning, and Not always a literal Dusk/Dawn or Sunset/Sunrise day.
Any thoughts about Psalms 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8 ______

You have taken Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 out of context.

Furthermore...

Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Gen 1:3
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

Gen 1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

No where in Genesis 1-5 is a day "an indefinite period of time".

Why do you have a need to force thousands or millions of years into the creation account of the cosmos in Genesis 1? Is God incapable of creating all we see (and what we don't) in six (dusk until dawn) days?

 

[Neuropteron]

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

Not all of the Bible should be taken literally, since some of it is poetic, figurative or symbolic.

Another thing to consider is that some translations have included or removed important parts of the extant manuscripts to suit their own doctrines or philosophies.

 

[Sky Rivers]

Yom - Wikipedia

I tend towards not using Wikipedia for anything. Furthermore, since we're on the topic of Hebrew... "Nachash" can refer to a serpent (literal snake) but it can also refer to a "shining one" and often is associated with shining metal. If my recollection doesn't fail me, that metal is bronze.

My point is that just because a Hebrew word CAN mean something, doesn't mean it DOES mean that thing. Context is key.

 

[Sky Rivers]

Not all of the Bible should be taken literally, since some of it is poetic, figurative or symbolic.

Another thing to consider is that some translations have included or removed important parts of the extant manuscripts to suit their own doctrines or philosophies.

Certainly Revelation is, since it's a book of visions and dreams to my knowledge? If it was literal, we'd have a 1,500 mile solid cube, descending from the sky (New Jerusalem) to sit itself on the Earth. We'd also have the sky itself being rolled up "like a scroll" and literal stars, falling from it to the ground.

 

[Sky Rivers]

The same way we are/aren’t.

As I said, what my former priest taught is that how we’re here is of less importance than why... to serve God and glorify him. Whether Adam and Eve were real or allegorical is secondary. People spend so much time trying to prove the literalness of the Bible and presenting proof of God’s existence the proving becomes an end itself.

If you disbelieve Adam and Eve existed, it's not rational for you to believe that the "serpent" existed, nor that Eve sinned. It's not rational that you believe Adam also sinned and the two were banished from Eden as a result of sin. Neither is it rational to believe sin resulted in death, literal or "separation", nor that we need a savior because sin couldn't be overcome without him. Why did Jesus Christ die? Is the account of his ministry, death, and resurrection also just a story? Is that too fiction?

Continuing on and in the context of this post, it's certainly not rational to believe in any part of Genesis, be it Genesis 1, 2, 3 or further into the book. If Genesis 2 is wrong, it's not rational to think Genesis 3 isn't and if Genesis 3 is wrong, Genesis 1 is also (and so on). In fact, I reason that it's not rational to believe ANYTHING in the Bible to be true if something as clearly written as Genesis 2-3 is just a story. Why would you? If Genesis 2-3 is fiction, all of Genesis is fiction. Furthermore, if Genesis 2-3 is fiction, how could the Bible be inspired by God? God lies? He tells tall tales which never happened?

 

[Dawnofhope]

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?

Its a good post thank you. One of the distinguishing features some Christian apologists like to emphasis over Hindusim is that Christianity concerns historic truth whereas Hinduism is largely mythical.

First, Christianity should be considered for its historical viability. Christianity has historically rooted characters and events within its schema which are identifiable through forensic sciences like archeology and textual criticism. Hinduism certainly has a history, but its theology, mythology, and history are so often blurred together that it becomes difficult to identify where one stops and the other begins. Mythology is openly admitted within Hinduism, which possesses elaborate myths used to explain the personalities and natures of the gods. Hinduism has a certain flexibility and adaptability through its historical ambiguity. But, where a religion is not historical, it is that much less testable. It may not be falsifiable at that point, but neither is it verifiable. It is the literal history of the Jewish and eventually Christian tradition that justifies the theology of Christianity. If Adam and Eve did not exist, if Israel did not have an exodus out of Egypt, if Jonah was just an allegory, or if Jesus did not walk the earth then the entire Christian religion can potentially crumble at those points. For Christianity, a fallacious history would mean a porous theology. Such historical rootedness could be a weakness of Christianity except that the historically testable parts of the Christian tradition are so often validated that the weakness becomes a strength.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Hindu-Christian.htm

The link clarifies a Christian apologists view and why literal truth is so important. Another key event is that Jesus was literally resurrected and it is claimed this can be historically verified. It can't of course.

However while there is certainly historic truth in the Bible (and the Vedas) Baha'is view the resurrection of Christ and the story of Aam and Eve as allegorical and not literal. Therefore in comparing allegory and historic truth, Hinduism and Christianity may not be as dissimilar as many Christians and Hindus would have us believe. Of course some Christians criticise the Baha'is for overemphasising the allegorical nature of the Bible at the expense of literal truth.

 

[PureX]

Paintings aren’t the same thing as written words.

The point is that it all involves human interpretation. The act of reading words on a page is the act of interpreting marks as symbols of meaning. But as we all know, each of those words have a lot of different meanings, and we have to decide for ourselves which of those different meanings is intended. That's what "interpreting" is: deciding what those word-symbols mean in their given context. And this activity will produce an inherently variable result, because we each understand ourselves and the world around us a little differently, as we each experience it through our own unique lives.

One of the more important quotes from the Bible is from John, 14:6 - "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." But what does this even mean? The word "through" here cannot be interpreted literally, because we cannot literally pass through Jesus. For one thing, Jesus is not here for us to "pass through". And for another, even if he were here, we cannot "pass through" another human being. So the words have to be interpreted as meaning something other than a literal passing through a literal human being. But what? And why wasn't Jesus more specific if he intended his words to be taken so literally? Why didn't he say, "No one reaches accord with God unless he worships me"? Or, "No one reaches accord with God unless they live as I have lived, and believed as I have taught"? Or, "No one gains accord with God unless they follow the religion that will develop in my name after I am gone"? And yet these different interpretations are very common among Christians. And there are many other interpretations, too. So, if the gospels are so inerrant, and so literal, why is this important quote so vague and 'poetic'? Why is it so open to different interpretations? Especially when it purports to be telling us all how to gain accordance with God?

I think the answer is that these texts are not meant to be taken literally, they are meant to be taken "spiritually". They are meant to be read in the light of the soul, in the light of our unique experience of being who and where and what we are. And Jesus intended to be poetic because he meant his words to be an invitation to contemplation, and not a mindless statement of 'how to'. I think he meant his words to be taken in exactly the manner to which you are objecting. And because you are rejecting the myth, and metaphor, and poetry, and symbolism of the text, you miss most of the real, personally effecting, content. And more importantly, you are missing the fact that through the poetry, the words are able to speak to individuals on an individual level, as opposed to a 'one-size-fits-all' message to the masses.

 

[Audie]

The point is that it all involves human interpretation. The act of reading words on a page is the act of interpreting marks as symbols of meaning. But as we all know, each of those words have a lot of different meanings, and we have to decide for ourselves which of those different meanings is intended. That's what "interpreting" is: deciding what those word-symbols mean in their given context. And this activity will produce an inherently variable result, because we each understand ourselves and the world around us a little differently, as we each experience it through our own unique lives.

One of the more important quotes from the Bible is from John, 14:6 - "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." But what does this even mean? The word "through" here cannot be interpreted literally, because we cannot literally pass through Jesus. For one thing, Jesus is not here for us to "pass through". And for another, even if he were here, we cannot "pass through" another human being. So the words have to be interpreted as meaning something other than a literal passing through a literal human being. But what? And why wasn't Jesus more specific if he intended his words to be taken so literally? Why didn't he say, "No one reaches accord with God unless he worships me"? Or, "No one reaches accord with God unless they live as I have lived, and believed as I have taught"? Or, "No one gains accord with God unless they follow the religion that will develop in my name after I am gone"? And yet these different interpretations are very common among Christians. And there are many other interpretations, too. So, if the gospels are so inerrant, and so literal, why is this important quote so vague and 'poetic'? Why is it so open to different interpretations? Especially when it purports to be telling us all how to gain accordance with God?

I think the answer is that these texts are not meant to be taken literally, they are meant to be taken "spiritually". They are meant to be read in the light of the soul, in the light of our unique experience of being who and where and what we are. And Jesus intended to be poetic because he meant his words to be an invitation to contemplation, and not a mindless statement of 'how to'. I think he meant his words to be taken in exactly the manner to which you are objecting. And because you are rejecting the myth, and metaphor, and poetry, and symbolism of the text, you miss most of the real, personally effecting, content. And more importantly, you are missing the fact that through the poetry, the words are able to speak to individuals on an individual level, as opposed to a 'one-size-fits-all' message to the masses.

Your best post ever