Should the Bible be taken literally?

[glad4mercy]

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?

There is a literal meaning behind these words. Cain really did kill Abel, and God really heard the cry of Abel. God was aware of the spilt blood on the ground, and the shed blood was grieving His tender heart and offending His Holy Spirit. God could not overlook the transgression, because the blood on the ground demanded justice, not verbally but just by it's very presence.

Christ's blood is also said to speak, but instead of demanding justice it pleads for mercy. ( Hebrews 12:24).

The text you cited is an example of a figure of speech that is used to speak of a very literal reality. Very much like, for example, saying "you're breaking my heart". When you break someones heart, you do not literally break the thing that pumps blood, yet we do not allegorize this statement when someone says it, do we? We use figures of speech all the time, but that doesnt change the meaning of what we are communicating.

[TrustGzus]

In what way would we interpret them differently.

Can't go there. It's not the topic of this thread.

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

So you think trees have hands? You don't think there is any poetic expression in the Bible?

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!

God repents . . . literally . . . in the same you and I do/should?

[John 8:32]

There is a literal meaning behind these words. Cain really did kill Abel, and God really heard the cry of Abel. God was aware of the spilt blood on the ground, and the shed blood was grieving His tender heart and offending His Holy Spirit. God could not overlook the transgression, because the blood on the ground demanded justice, not verbally but just by it's very presence.

Christ's blood is also said to speak, but instead of demanding justice it pleads for mercy. ( Hebrews 12:24).

The text you cited is an example of a figure of speech that is used to speak of a very literal reality. Very much like, for example, saying "you're breaking my heart". When you break someones heart, you do not literally break the thing that pumps blood, yet we do not allegorize this statement when someone says it, do we? We use figures of speech all the time, but that doesnt change the meaning of what we are communicating.

The point is there is some literal and some allegory or metaphor. I am truly convinced that one must have the Holy Spirit to know which is which...

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

[rikus]

A method to clarify the poll might be to ask a number of questions, for instance--

Do you believe that God made everything that exists in six consecutive twenty four hour periods?

Do you believe that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish, and after three days spewed out?

Do you believe that Elisha was surrounded by chariots of fire?

I will add these to the original post then.

Here is another for you:
The Bible says that eating pork is sin. I find that avoiding pork really helps for my indigestion. But should I take this literally? Do you believe that eating pork is a mortal sin?

[rikus]

I agree and understand everything up to here:

Besides the problem of finding (or trusting) at least one person (which all will agree to) to competently interpret the scriptures there is another difficulty.

If we say that the scriptures should not be taken literally then we are saying that they do not mean what they say. This becomes a problem when we say that the Holy Spirit inspired and directed the writers of the scriptures to put down in writing what He told them to. The scripture says that the Holy Spirit is to guide us into all the truth so; if the scriptures do not mean what they say then there are four possibilities.

1. If the scriptures do not mean what they say, then the writers of the scriptures after being inspired by the Holy Spirit made unintentional mistakes in what they thought He was directing them to say. This means that the scriptures are now unreliable because though they were inspired they somehow got it wrong.
2. If the scriptures do not mean what they say, then the writers of the scriptures deliberately wrote what the Holy Spirit did not intend and the scriptures are again unreliable.
3. If the scriptures do not mean what they say, then the Holy Spirit made a mistake in what He thought He was inspiring the writers to write. The scriptures are again unreliable.
4. If the scriptures do not mean what they say, then the Holy Spirit deliberately inspired the writers to write what He did not mean and He is deliberately hiding the truth and misleading us from it if the scripture do not mean what He inspired them to say.

Imagine yourself transported back in time to the time when Peter or Paul or any of the other writers of the New Testament (or OT). You walk up to one and he turns to you and says, “The Holy Spirit is inspiring me to write this letter so that those here-after would know the wonders of the truth of Christ and grow into a full relationship with Him knowing Him truly as He is. But I’m going to let you in on something; He doesn’t really mean what He telling me to write. He means something else. Although I know what He means He not telling me to write it. So for you who are coming after us; so yea … uh … good luck with that!”

I think there is a 5th possibility. 5. If the scriptures do not mean what they say, it is because the actual meaning got lost in translation (from the original Hebrew text, to the number of English version and all other languages from around the world that we now have.)

As with any language, the Hebrew language has words that had different meaning then, than they do now (simply because Hebrew culture evolves/changes with time, as any culture does.) Take any language, like English, and imagine how certain words have different meanings now, than what they did long ago. When I first started reading Shakespeare a noticed his constant use of the word “pray”. I thought he meant prayer. But in those days, “pray” simply meant “please”, it had nothing to do with talking to God.

Languages are by no means as immutable as people might think. Languages evolve, words change meaning, new words are introduced, and similar phrases have different meaning because of cultural differences. For instance, before the Romans (after the Bronze Age) “going to a pub” meant going to an inn or local tabernae for lodging, most likely. Today it means going to the “public house” to drink alcohol. I am paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

If there are nuances in the timeline of the Hebrew language like with the examples above, who defines how it is translated into a modern version of itself – let lone into another language entirely. Or does this translation, from one generation to the next, happen perfectly thought the ages, without there ever being any misunderstandings in discrepancy.

Does God expect us all to learn the Hebrew language and (more importantly) the Hebrew culture of those days, in order for us to understand exactly what is being said in the Bible?

[TrustGzus]

A method to clarify the poll might be to ask a number of questions, for instance--

Do you believe that God made everything that exists in six consecutive twenty four hour periods?

Do you believe that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish, and after three days spewed out?

Do you believe that Elisha was surrounded by chariots of fire?

I will add these to the original post then.

Here is another for you:
The Bible says that eating pork is sin. I find that avoiding pork really helps for my indigestion. But should I take this literally? Do you believe that eating pork is a mortal sin?

I think you can make the thread more messy by doing this. The text literally talks about a great fish that swallowed Jonah. The text literally speaks of chariots of fire. The text never literally says 24-hours. The text tells us that God created in six yoms (Hebrew word). Now some have interpreted the six yoms as six 24-hour days. However, many (including scholars of the Hebrew language) don't see that as an accurate interpretation (or even possible interpretation in some cases). No text says 24-hour day in the translation itself. Some people interpret their English Bible's wording to mean a 24-hour day.

So if you edit your poll, I'd be careful how you edit it. It may become more confusing than this thread already is.

[rejoice44]

So you think trees have hands? You don't think there is any poetic expression in the Bible?

Some can hear the trees clapping and the mountains singing, and some can't.

God repents . . . literally . . . in the same you and I do/should?

Jonah 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

God can't sin against himself therefore he doesn't repent in like manner as we do, but he can change his mind. If God couldn't change his mind, we would not have a free will.

[rejoice44]

I will add these to the original post then.

Here is another for you:
The Bible says that eating pork is sin. I find that avoiding pork really helps for my indigestion. But should I take this literally? Do you believe that eating pork is a mortal sin?

I believe that any sin is mortal. If God said that pigs were an unclean animal, then they were an unclean animal. When God made them clean, they became clean.

[rejoice44]

I think you can make the thread more messy by doing this. The text literally talks about a great fish that swallowed Jonah. The text literally speaks of chariots of fire. The text never literally says 24-hours. The text tells us that God created in six yoms (Hebrew word). Now some have interpreted the six yoms as six 24-hour days. However, many (including scholars of the Hebrew language) don't see that as an accurate interpretation (or even possible interpretation in some cases). No text says 24-hour day in the translation itself. Some people interpret their English Bible's wording to mean a 24-hour day.

So if you edit your poll, I'd be careful how you edit it. It may become more confusing than this thread already is.

OK, so some modern scholars don't believe that the evening and the morning qualify as a 24 hr period, fine, but you also have to consider that the Jews were required to rest every seventh day, in remembrance of God's creation.

We could also jump to revelation 22:18-19 and say God wasn't being literal.

I think taking the Bible literally has more to do with ones approach to the Bible than anything else. Once you say the Bible is not literal you can begin to shred it.

[rejoice44]

I think there is a 5th possibility. 5. If the scriptures do not mean what they say, it is because the actual meaning got lost in translation (from the original Hebrew text, to the number of English version and all other languages from around the world that we now have.)

This note is for Joe. Joe this is what Philpot meant when he said, 2. "Again, it would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which was the Word of God, the old translation or the new. What a door it would open for the workings of infidelity, or the temptations of Satan!"

[rikus]

I think you can make the thread more messy by doing this.
...
So if you edit your poll, I'd be careful how you edit it. It may become more confusing than this thread already is.

Very well. I updated the original post accordingly. However, I do not know how to avoid said confusion.

[tea]

While it is all literal

If it is literal, then none of us would type so easily, as we'd be missing both hands
Matthew 5:30 KJV
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off , and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish , and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Ok, I'll speak for myself, I would have no hands, feet, or eyes.

[rejoice44]

If it is literal, then none of us would type so easily, as we'd be missing both hands
Matthew 5:30 KJV
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off , and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish , and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Ok, I'll speak for myself, I would have no hands, feet, or eyes.

But in the context that it is given in it is literally true. It is in the context of the law, and Jesus has just referred to adultery, and the punishment for adultery is death. Under the law there is no mercy for adultery. So under the law, you would be better off without a limb, without an eye, without two limbs or two eyes, if that is what it takes to prevent you from sinning.

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Proverbs 6:32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.

Jesus spoke, knowing that he would have to take on all these sins of all men for all time. Do you think that Jesus was being poetic, or was Jesus saying what was in his heart. If Jesus had not gone to the cross, what he said here would have been literally true. And I would remind you that Jesus at this point had not gone to the cross, so yes, what Jesus said was literal.

[Samuel Cripps]

"Literal: in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word."

That should clear up your confusion.

I would disagree. While it is all literal, we do not always understand the pure sense of the literal. When Satan is portrayed as a Dragon, Satan is described in the spiritual sense. Can only the physical be literal, or cannot the spiritual be literal as well?

[rejoice44]

"Literal: in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word."

That should clear up your confusion.

I see no confusion, the bible states, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)

To say the Bible is not literal is to open the door to private interpretation.

When the Bible says, "to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed", some might say that the arm is only a figure of speech, yet it is a literal arm. The arm of a chair, is it literal, or is it a metaphor?

Who decides what is literal, and what is not?

Definitions vary, for instance, "Literal" 1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words. We pick and choose for our definitions, but dare we do that with the Bible?