how do you know what to take literally in the bible?

[QuestionAuthority]

i know the bible has accounts of different creatures like unicorns, dragons, sea monsters and giants, etc. how do you approach this?

a) take it literally that these creatures existed
b) assume they were talking about a different animal (i.e. the bible causes it a dragon but we call it an aligator)
c) interpret it as a metaphor

[Tanya~]

i know the bible has accounts of different creatures like unicorns, dragons, sea monsters and giants, etc. how do you approach this?

The unicorn is an unknown extinct creature, not the mythical unicorn. Dragons in the Bible are what we call dinosaurs, and giants are giant people, both of which are documented to have been real. They are to be taken literally except in the case of the dragon which is sometimes used as a metaphor for Satan.

[QuestionAuthority]

The unicorn is an unknown extinct creature, not the mythical unicorn. Dragons in the Bible are what we call dinosaurs, and giants are giant people, both of which are documented to have been real. They are to be taken literally except in the case of the dragon which is sometimes used as a metaphor for Satan.

but the 'unicorns' in the bible are described as having horns...how do we know it is not the mythical unicorn? i also forgot about the cockatrices that are mentioned - i thought they were some sort of mythical rooster and snake thing? and the 'dragons' mentioned in isiah are plural, so i'm guessing that means its not the (singular) Satan, but are dinosaurs? but this would have been just a couple thousand years ago.

[Literalist-Luke]

i know the bible has accounts of different creatures like unicorns, dragons, sea monsters and giants, etc. how do you approach this?

a) take it literally that these creatures existed
b) assume they were talking about a different animal (i.e. the bible causes it a dragon but we call it an aligator)
c) interpret it as a metaphor

It appears you are using a King James translation. If so, there are some unfortunate translation inaccuracies that are corrected in more modern versions, such as Today's New International Version or the New American Standard Bible.

[tt1106]

Did a search. Found 22 Topics that mention Unicorns in the "Christian Answer" section.

I searched "Taking the Bible Literally" and came up with 250 threads. Looking over them, they cover alot of the same ground you are.

[QuestionAuthority]

It appears you are using a King James translation. If so, there are some unfortunate translation inaccuracies that are corrected in more modern versions, such as Today's New International Version or the New American Standard Bible.

ok this totally confuses me! how am i supposed to know which translation is the 'god-breathed' one? there are lots of them out there

[QuestionAuthority]

Did a search. Found 22 Topics that mention Unicorns in the "Christian Answer" section.

I searched "Taking the Bible Literally" and came up with 250 threads. Looking over them, they cover alot of the same ground you are.

okay i will start a different thread.

[Buck shot]

Hebrew Translation of unicorn


Unicorn-07214. Mar r@'em, reh-ame'

or rieym {reh-ame'}; or reym {rame}; or rem {rame}; from 7213; a wild bull (from its conspicuousness):--unicorn.

[Literalist-Luke]

ok this totally confuses me! how am i supposed to know which translation is the 'god-breathed' one? there are lots of them out there

I see you started another thread to address this, and hopefully a reply of mine over there will help.

[Tanya~]

but the 'unicorns' in the bible are described as having horns...how do we know it is not the mythical unicorn?

The Hebrew word re’mes evidently referred to a creature that was not known to the English speaking translators of the King James Bible. The Greek translators rendered this word monokeros - one horn, even though in Deut 33:17 this creature is described as having two horns:

17 His glory is like a firstborn bull,
And his horns like the horns of the wild ox;
NKJV

In the above translation, re’mes is translated as "wild ox."

i also forgot about the cockatrices that are mentioned - i thought they were some sort of mythical rooster and snake thing?

In modern translations, this word tsepha` is translated as "viper." Here is the definition of the Hebrew word:

OT:6848 tsepha` (tseh'-fah; or tsiph`oniy (tsif-o-nee'); from an unused root meaning to extrude; a viper (as thrusting out the tongue, i.e. hissing):
KJV - adder, cockatrice.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Isa 11:8
8 The nursing child shall play by the cobra's hole,
And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper's den.
NKJV

It is possible that this is a reference to an unknown, extinct animal that dwelt in dens like a snake, or it might refer to a type of snake.

and the 'dragons' mentioned in isiah are plural, so i'm guessing that means its not the (singular) Satan, but are dinosaurs?

Yes, that's what I believe they are. The tanniyn can be easily understood to be a reference to a varitey of different dinosaurs, if one is able to conceive of the idea that in the past, man and dinosaurs did coexist. There is plenty of evidence that this was the case. For example, the temple at Angkor Wat has a carving of what is clearly a stegosaurus. You can see this image here. Skeptics claim this is actually a carving of a rhinocerous or a wild boar. But there are numerous other examples of artifacts depicting living dinosaurs created by people in the past who apparently didn't know that humans and dinosaurs are not supposed to have been in existence at the same time. Another example is the dinosaur on the tomb of Bishop Bell. There are many others besides those. Taken together, it becomes more and more difficult for skeptics to explain away this sort of thing. But they do it anyway, and for the very same reason that the authorities in the time of Christ rejected His miracles, His teaching, and His resurrection.

Atheists often believe that if they just had the evidence to prove God or the Bible or whatever, then they would believe. But historically that has been shown not to be the case. Even in the time of Moses when the children of Israel saw miracle after miracle, they did not believe. It really isn't a matter of God proving Himself to us. It is a matter of us trusting God. It does require faith, ultimately. And if a person will not trust in anything on faith, it will not matter how much proof they get. They will find a reason to reject it.

[Chimon]

I think you have to interpret the Bible according to genre. Some books of the Bible are dramas, such as Job, and may have elements of 'poetic license,' other books, such as Chronicles, are histories, and very likely do not have poetice license.

Jesus often spoke parables, which are always figurative, however, when he did, he makes clear note of it.

You can tell what genre a book is based on the structure of the book.

[markinro]

ok this totally confuses me! how am i supposed to know which translation is the 'god-breathed' one? there are lots of them out there

They are all god-breathed but man has made some unfortunate "intepretations" over the years.

I read from several versions...to get a balanced study.

1. KJV to get the original text from the scrolls. This is good if you are using a concordance
2. ASV to get a more english wording of the KJV
3. Amplified to get a built exposition
4. NIV (transliteration) just for another perspective.

Reading from a single version is a bad idea if you are just starting out. I would recommend ASV and NIV. You will see differences - so put a question up on the forum. The brainiacs here can answer just about anything......

[markdrums]

i know the bible has accounts of different creatures like unicorns, dragons, sea monsters and giants, etc. how do you approach this?

a) take it literally that these creatures existed
b) assume they were talking about a different animal (i.e. the bible causes it a dragon but we call it an aligator)
c) interpret it as a metaphor

You approach this in the same way you approach ANY form of communication; whether spoken word, or written word, you pay attention to context.

BTW- (Chimon's post is on the money!)

Even in the Bible, a metaphor is still a metaphor & a hyperbole is still a hyperbole.

I'm sure you can understand when a figure of speech is being used, let's say, when you're talking to a friend. Correct?
Or when reading a news article? Or a novel?

It's the same with the Bible. It IS a form of communication after all. Many of which in the New Testament are "letters" to people.

Although, there ARE different views between Christians as to HOW MUCH and WHAT should be taken literally..... but that's with NON-ESSENTIAL , secondary issues, that fall outside the doctrinal beliefs.

This doesn't invalidate the Bible; because just as in science, you always have people discussing & debating their findings too...

[kestut]

The unicorn is an unknown extinct creature, not the mythical unicorn...

Asian Rhinos have one horn. Do they not qualify for what is being talked about? They are strong and you wouldnt want to try to plow a field with one.

Here is a link to a picture I found...
http://assets.panda.org/img/tal_rhino_15788.jpg

[ServantofTruth]

This is pretty complex stuff and while i appreciate it is what is on your mind at the moment, i would encourage you to redirect your focus to the gospels.

If a person accepts the 'good news' / gospel of Jesus Christ, they are Saved and then have years to look in depth at the whole bible.

But until a person accepts gospel truth - they will always put limits on the value and meaning of the other 62 inspired books. God's Spirit will not be able to take their heart and mind fully into his revealed truth.

I pray today, that your heart and mind are open to recieve gospel truth. Love SofTy.