Should the Bible be taken literally?

[rejoice44]

So basicly what your saying is it's not literal ?

It should be taken literally spiritually. We are to be absorbed in Christ and that is literal.

Do you believe a great fish swallowed Jonah?

[rejoice44]

There's just one problem with your four choices. You are equating not literal with not truthful and that is an incorrect comparison. The most obvious case of this is Christ's parables. I don't think anyone would argue that they contain truth, but no one interprets them literally. Do you see how the two don't go hand in hand, as you are trying to say they do?

What seems to be a truth is that most people who do not take the bible literally use that for an excuse to edit out those parts of the Bible that they do not choose to believe. A parable is a parable, and because the Bible uses parables this is not an excuse to say the Bible is not literal.

Do you believe that a great fish swallowed Jonah?

[GitRDunn]

What seems to be a truth is that most people who do not take the bible literally use that for an excuse to edit out those parts of the Bible that they do not choose to believe. A parable is a parable, and because the Bible uses parables this is not an excuse to say the Bible is not literal.

Do you believe that a great fish swallowed Jonah?

You're making no sense. The parables are a perfect reason (it isn't an excuse) to believe the Bible is not 100% literal. All it takes is one thing to be non-literal for the claim that the entire Bible is literal to be disproved, and the parables are one of those things (there are others, but there is the greatest agreement about the parables being non-literal, which is why I mentioned those in particular).

And it is not about belief and editing out parts of the Bible people don't believe. It is about weeding out man's misinterpretations of Scripture and trying to get to the truth contained in the Bible, whether that truth is presented in a literal way or not.

Yes, I believe that a great fish/whale swallowed Jonah. Any particular reason you decided to ask me about that one story from the Bible?

[rejoice44]

You're making no sense. The parables are a perfect reason (it isn't an excuse) to believe the Bible is not 100% literal. All it takes is one thing to be non-literal for the claim that the entire Bible is literal to be disproved, and the parables are one of those things (there are others, but there is the greatest agreement about the parables being non-literal, which is why I mentioned those in particular).

And it is not about belief and editing out parts of the Bible people don't believe. It is about weeding out man's misinterpretations of Scripture and trying to get to the truth contained in the Bible, whether that truth is presented in a literal way or not.

Yes, I believe that a great fish/whale swallowed Jonah. Any particular reason you decided to ask me about that one story from the Bible?

God meant for the Bible to be taken literally, otherwise you get to pick what is true, and what is untrue. As an example, the story of Jonah becomes a parable.

Does Satan have scales? Yes, they are literal spiritual scales. It becomes a question of how real is the spiritual to a person. Many see the spiritual in the abstract, I do not. The barbs of Satan are real.

Often the majority of those saying the Bible is not literal, have a problem believing one part or another, thus I asked if you believed in Jonah. Is there any part of the Bible you don't believe, such as the first three chapters of Genesis?

[Quickened]

The answer is Yes.

[nzyr]

Should the Bible be interpreted literally?

Most of the time yes.

[glad4mercy]

1. The Bible should be interpreted literally unless the passage is clearly non-literal. The passages of the Bible that employ symbolism do so in a very obvious manner. For example, in Revelation, we have Jesus with seven eyes and seven horns. Obviously symbolic. Yet the symbols represent literal realities, for the seven horns represent Jesus Omnipotence and universal authority, and the seven eyes represent His Omniscience, (perfect knowledge and wisdom.)

2. One must consider what type of literature they are reading when determining if a passage is literal or non literal. Apocalypses like Daniel and Revelation often use symbols to represent literal realities. It can be also said that spiritual things, ( or heavenly things) are described in earthly terms to help us understand them, but the thing that is being described is a literal reality. Hence Rejoice is correct in saying that certain things should be interpreted literally in a spiritual sense. For example, the parable of the prodigal son is not speaking of an earthly father and sons, but the Heavenly father and repentant, ( the younger son), and unrepentant, ( the older son) people. So the meaning is literal, even though the characters in the story are non literal. You will find this to be characteristic of most, ( all?) parables.

3. It is dangerous and unwise to take historical accounts and allegorize them. Parables, poetry, and apocalypse sometimes use symbolic language, but we should read historical accounts in the Bible literally. Context and genre often determine if a text is employing symbolism or not.

[TrustGzus]

Literal and true . . . they aren't the same thing.

1lit•er•al \ˈli-t(ə-)rəl\ adjective
[Middle English, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin litteralis, from Latin, of a letter, from littera letter] 14th century
1 a : according with the letter of the scriptures
b : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression : ACTUAL 〈liberty in the literal sense is impossible —B. N Cardozo〉
c : free from exaggeration or embellishment 〈the literal truth〉
d : characterized by a concern mainly with facts 〈a very literal man〉
2 : of, relating to, or expressed in letters
3 : reproduced word for word : EXACT, VERBATIM 〈a literal translation〉 — lit•er•al•i•ty \ˌli-tə-ˈra-lə-tē\ noun — lit•er•al•ness \ˈli-t(ə-)rəl-nəs\ noun


Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

1true \ˈtrü\ adjective
tru•er; tru•est [Middle English trewe, from Old English trēowe faithful; akin to Old High German gitriuwi faithful, Old Irish derb sure, and probably to Sanskrit dāruṇa hard, dāru wood — more at TREE] before 12th century
1 a : STEADFAST, LOYAL
b : HONEST, JUST
c archaic : TRUTHFUL
2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs 〈true description〉
(2) : conformable to an essential reality
(3) : fully realized or fulfilled 〈dreams come true〉
b : IDEAL, ESSENTIAL
c : being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed 〈the true dimension of the problem〉
d : CONSISTENT 〈true to character〉
3 a : properly so called 〈true love〉 〈the true faith〉 〈the true stomach of ruminant mammals〉
b (1) : possessing the basic characters of and belonging to the same natural group as 〈a whale is a true but not a typical mammal〉
(2) : TYPICAL 〈the true cats〉
4 : LEGITIMATE, RIGHTFUL 〈our true and lawful king〉
5 a : that is fitted or formed or that functions accurately
b : conformable to a standard or pattern : ACCURATE
6 : determined with reference to the earth’s axis rather than the magnetic poles 〈true north〉
7 : logically necessary
8 : NARROW, STRICT 〈in the truest sense〉
9 : corrected for error — true•ness noun


Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

[TrustGzus]

Helpful quote from Dr. Norman Geisler . . .

In addition to figures of speech, the Bible employs three basic kinds of metaphorical statements about God. First of all, there are anthropomorphisms, which depict God in human form, such as having eyes (e.g., Heb. 4:13), ears (2 Chron. 6:40), and arms (Deut. 5:15). Next, there are anthropopathisms, which picture God having changing human feelings like anger and grief (Eph. 4:30). Finally, there are anthropoieses, which attribute to God human actions, such as repenting (Gen. 6:6) and forgetting (Isa. 43:25; Job 11:6). None of these are intended as literally true, and to take them as such can lead to serious error.

Geisler, N. L. (2003). Systematic theology, volume two: God, creation (28). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

Bottom line, it depends on what part of the Bible you're reading. But that doesn't mean we get to just pick and choose when to be literal or not. Let's not commit a slippery slope fallacy here.

[rejoice44]

Literal and true . . . they aren't the same thing.

This is part of what you presented for the definition of literal.

c : free from exaggeration or embellishment 〈the literal truth〉

Do you believe that the first three chapters of Genesis are true?

[John 8:32]

The answer is Yes.

Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Did Abel's blood literally speak?

[TrustGzus]

Norman,

I think you and old man are doing the same thing. It's what GitRDunn pointed out. You equivocating true and literal. Either that or you are worried that this gives people a blank check to take anything they want as not literal (slippery slope fallacy).

Yes, I believe Jonah was swallowed by a big fish. Yes, I believe the first three chapters of Genesis are true (though you and I might interpret them differently).

Now, are you 100% literal all the time in your interpretation? Do you believe all the trees of the field clap their hands is literally true? Do you believe the mountains singing is literally true? See Isaiah 55:12.

Or you can reply to some of the ideas in the post I gave in post#24. Do you think God repents or changes his mind? Do you think God has wings? Do you take all of that stuff literally true?

[rejoice44]

Helpful quote from Dr. Norman Geisler . . .

Bottom line, it depends on what part of the Bible you're reading. But that doesn't mean we get to just pick and choose when to be literal or not. Let's not commit a slippery slope fallacy here.

In addition to figures of speech, the Bible employs three basic kinds of metaphorical statements about God. First of all, there are anthropomorphisms, which depict God in human form, such as having eyes (e.g., Heb. 4:13), ears (2 Chron. 6:40), and arms (Deut. 5:15). Next, there are anthropopathisms, which picture God having changing human feelings like anger and grief (Eph. 4:30). Finally, there are anthropoieses, which attribute to God human actions, such as repenting (Gen. 6:6) and forgetting (Isa. 43:25; Job 11:6). None of these are intended as literally true, and to take them as such can lead to serious error.

Geisler, N. L. (2003). Systematic theology, volume two: God, creation (28). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.

But I see a literal spiritual arm, and eyes, and feelings, are we not made in God's image?

[Quickened]

Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Did Abel's blood literally speak?

Would you be willing to say that it didn't happen? I don't know God 100% and I don't know what happens to his perception when blood is spilled as in this situation. Speak as in How? A literal yell or cry? Or did this action communicate itself to God in a different manner that is beyond our limited and finite understanding?

[rejoice44]

Norman,
Yes, I believe Jonah was swallowed by a big fish. Yes, I believe the first three chapters of Genesis are true (though you and I might interpret them differently).

In what way would we interpret them differently?

Now, are you 100% literal all the time in your interpretation? Do you believe all the trees of the field clap their hands is literally true? Do you believe the mountains singing is literally true? See Isaiah 55:12.

I have spent much time in the woods, and I believe the clapping of the hands of the trees and the singing of the mountains is awesome.

Or you can reply to some of the ideas in the post I gave in post#24. Do you think God repents or changes his mind? Do you think God has wings? Do you take all of that stuff literally true?

Do I think God changes his mind? Yes, you would only have to ask Jonah that question. Does God have wings? Yes, didn't the Spirit descend in the form of a dove? Was that not literal? Do I take all that stuff literally true? Yes!