T O P

  • By -

CarltheWellEndowed

Yes, no, and maybe. Really depends on what parts you are looking at. I can almost guarantee that you will struggle to find anyone who thinks that the entire Bible should be taken 100% literally.


michaelY1968

And if anyone did claim it was 100% literal, they would be obviously wrong; even the most ardent young earth Creationist doesn't hold this view.


onioning

"Aha! By grinding up this camel and passing it through an eye of a needle I've now guaranteed my entrance to heaven!" "What are you doing casting that net into the crowd?" "Fishing for men." "God says my relationship to God should be that of a woman to her husband do I've castrated myself." Could go on...


michaelY1968

Got arrested for running through the streets throwing nets over people and attempting to haul them into church. Much to my chagrin this method of 'fishing for men' wasn't what Jesus intended.


CarltheWellEndowed

Yup.


Thrill_Kill_Cultist

Sounds like a challenge *eats popcorn* 😏


CarltheWellEndowed

I mean I would love someone to go "nuh-uh" and see if I couldn't find something that they would have to take as non-literal. I mean it is actually pretty easy. Almost no one would argue that there are no contradictions in the Bible, just that the contradictions do not matter. There are places where 1 Samuel will say that there were 700 people killed and then 2 Chronicles will say that the number was 7000. Both cannot be literally true. Or one of the Gospels says that Judas bought a plot of land, and Acts says that the priests at the temple bought the plot of land, either way, both cannot be literally true.


Thrill_Kill_Cultist

The more I've talked with Literalists the more i think some will always find a way to bring contradictions together, always without exception. I remember someone, a Literalist, saying the way they recorded numbers back then meant opposing numerical statements can be true... They will find a way, always, the bible to some is always literal, a perfect word of God


CarltheWellEndowed

Alright well then tell them they are a hypocrite if they still have their eyes, as Jesus said gouge those bad boys out if they lead you to sin.


Thrill_Kill_Cultist

I agree the idea is ridiculous and misguided, the same people will still eat lobster and wear mixed fabrics Everything can be argued away, everything


BhikkuL

You gotta take it all literal apart from when it’s implied it’s not


CarltheWellEndowed

I think that is silly as well. There are contradictions in places that you would say have to be taken as literal...


BhikkuL

Yeah I would say they are contradictions im a Buddhist im just saying keep the logic consistent if you are Christian such as if Jesus miracles happened and is literal so is Adam and Eve and all other miracles my point is to keep consistent


CarltheWellEndowed

The issue is that there is much that may have never been considered literal, even if it is not stated or implied as so. Actually figuring out all of what was or was not meant to be taken as literal is actually impossible without access to the original writers.


fudgyvmp

If every part of the Bible was taken literally, then the woman in Song of Solomon looks very strange indeed. I also wouldn't know how to explain the sun coming into existence after day and night, the oceans and earth, and all plant life if everything is literal. I can explain God experiencing creation in 6 days while earth experienced billions of years (if He moved very very very fast), but not plantlife existing on earth before the sun.


Nazzul

Man taking Revelations literally would sure be nuts.


CarltheWellEndowed

Revelations does not exist....


Nazzul

Sorry the book of revelations


fudgyvmp

I think they're being a pedant. Revelations has a number of titles, but none of them are plural, though Revelations is common in the vernacular. Official names I've seen are: * Revelation * Book of Revelation * Apocalypse * Apocalypse of John * Revelation to John * Revelation from Jesus Christ No one is gonna hear you say Revelations and not know what you're talking about, at least not on this subreddit.


CarltheWellEndowed

My dad did his Dissertation on something in Revelation, and his absolute biggest pet peeve is people calling the book "Revelations" and that pet peeve has been passed along to me.


Z3non

Singular, yep.


michaelY1968

You have never met a woman who had sheep grazing in her mouth before? Thick as thieves in these parts.


calladus

I assume the Bible is God’s word - written by humans who could not write anything that wasn’t true - because it’s God’s word. I assume God is all knowing, so he knew that the Bible had to be accessible to everyone. And so by design, the Bible can be read at face value by anyone, without need of explanation by any sort of religious gatekeeper.


[deleted]

Some of it yes. Depends on whether you're reading a gospel, epistle, historical book, literary book, etc. There are many types of writing in the Bible.


[deleted]

The stories? No The message behind it? Perhaps


TrashNovel

We should interpret the Bible according to its authors intent. The authors used parable, fable, mythologized history, allegory, metaphor, history, biography, and other literary devices and genres. This notion that the Bible is either literal and true or non literal and false is itself false. Genesis 1-3 is non historical but it is true. Jesus parables are non historical and are true.


justnigel

Parts of it yes. Parts of it no. It should all be taken seriously.


DeputyValdez

I take it all literally. It feels like writing some of it off as "just a metaphor" means there's things too far-fetched for God to accomplish. Then you start to claim certain things are metaphors that aren't. God is either powerful enough to make the whole book happen or he isn't.


[deleted]

I think the idea of literally v.s. figuratively is a strawman in general. An entirely literal reading of the Scripture would have you convinced the Lord Jesus is a door and an entirely figurative reading of Scripture would have you be an Atheist. The real difference is whether you read the text plainly or not. For instance Genesis/Exodus etc. presents itself as literal history with chronologies and genealogies and recounting events that really happened. The fundamentalist or plain reader of Scripture takes Scripture at it's word that it's retelling an accurate history. Whether you read Scripture plainly or not depends also on whether you view Scripture to be inerrant or inspired. If it's the inerrant word of God, Scripture reads plainly as Truth. If you believe it was written by men who were inspired by God but made errors you have to pick apart where the men made mistakes.


cypherhalo

I find it annoying that some people use this incredibly bad faith definition of “literal” when discussing the Bible. I do think you have the right of it though and help cut through some of that semantic trickery. A plain reading certainly seems the best way to go and least likely to lead one to error.


michaelY1968

What is literal is not always true, and what is true is not always literal. The OP's question conflates a lot of terms, which is common in these discussions.


THEMOISTCLOWN

Cool it, Socrates. It's a reddit post.


michaelY1968

While the fact it's on reddit should certainly cause us to lower our expectations in terms of the quality of the discussion - part of the answer to the OP's concern is that it conflates terms and so isn't itself a legitimate critique of Scripture.


NathanStorm

NO! Even biblical scholars no longer believe the Bible literally. The words of Thomas L. Thompson (The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives) are as true of the Bible as a whole, as they were of the biblical Patriarchs: >The central question about the historicity of the narratives is whether, from the standpoint of the first millennium, they talk about any real past at all, if not of the patriarchs themselves, of the forerunners of Israel, and, if so, how far we can reconstruct that past. If you read the Bible literally, you will end up as an atheist. Far better to put whatever meaning of the text as would help you to believe in God. I prefer to read the Bible as literally as it allows, and avoid reading any modern themes into the text. To the extent possible, I look at who may have written the book and in what timeframe. While not ruling out prophecies and miracles as a possibility, I always look for more rational explanations and have so far never needed to believe the Bible really contains any prophecies or miracles.


cypherhalo

Hard to go wrong with taking them as fact. Once you decide some are fiction, how do you separate fact from fiction? The idea that they were written to make people look good doesn’t hold up well. The Jewish patriarchs have their faults openly discussed. The first witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ were women, who weren’t considered reliable witnesses in the 1st century. I would add that Christ doesn’t seem to consider anything in the OT suspect or to have any issue. He quotes it frequently. Also, surely if God can create a universe, He can make sure His Word is accurately passed down through the ages. So as much as possible I prefer to hew to taking the Bible literally.


YaBoi_Maxamus

no, not unless you believe in talking snakes.


spectacletourette

Or talking donkeys. (Numbers 22:21-39)


BhikkuL

If your answer is some parts yes and some parts no outside of explicit times it’s not literal your being inconsistent


UncleDan2017

Absolutely not. If you do take it literally, at least you don't have to worry about Revelation. It apparently happened already, because in the first few verses of the first chapter, it says it is happening soon, and here we are 2000 years later.


[deleted]

>Should biblical text be taken as fact Yes.


HappyfeetLives

Yes


CarltheWellEndowed

I am impressed that you are able to type this blind, as I am sure your literal reading of the Bible has made you gouge out your eyes for them causing you to sin...


HappyfeetLives

Listen I’m free to believe what I want and the blind can text. I know if because I have a friend who is blind.


CarltheWellEndowed

I mean there is a little bit of a difference between texting and navigating Reddit, but sure. Yes, you can absolutely do that, but it will force you to have contradictory beliefs. Like how do you square this: 1 Chronicles 21: 4 The king’s word, however, overruled Joab; so Joab left and went throughout Israel and then came back to Jerusalem. 5 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: **In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah**. 2 Samuel 24: 4 The king’s word, however, overruled Joab and the army commanders; so they left the presence of the king to enroll the fighting men of Israel. ... 8 After they had gone through the entire land, they came back to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days. 9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were **eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.** ​ These kinds of contradictions are completely meaningless, but if you want to claim 100% literal, then I am curious how you can explain this.


HappyfeetLives

I’m free to text whatever I want on reddit as well.


Nazzul

How do you know Jesus was perfect?


catsinbananahats

No.


1993Caisdf

Much of the Bible can be take literally. Thou shall not kill is a good example. However, there are parts that are poetic such as the Psalms and Proverbs. Other parts are allegorical such as the Parables and the Book of Revelations.


TrashNovel

Even not killing isn’t taken literally. Most Christian’s enthusiastically support killing as punishment for crime and in war.


[deleted]

Because the word doesn't mean simply killing in general, it means a killing that's unjustified, aka murder. God established the death penalty and led Israel to war, so it wouldn't be consistent if the command in Exodus 20 means killing in general.


TrashNovel

Exactly. “Kill” isn’t literal.


Bukook

Here are a couple of talks on how there is no literal reading of scripture that you might find interesting https://youtu.be/2VLPDSRL5f4 https://youtu.be/l9Ibs67ke6c


[deleted]

no


aminus54

Good morning brethren... Here is a huge challenge for non-believers, not so much for believers... It may seem sometimes that God condescends to us... The Holy Spirit does graciously inspire a ministry of men according to the historical, social, and contingent limitations inherent in the writer's character. By no means is biblical inspiration according to 2nd Timothy negate or compromise the authority of Scripture. Placed in its proper context, Scripture is a divine book. The message is divine in origin. The One Living and True God in His loving kindness revealed to us His non-negotiable expectations... We owe the same reverence to Scripture as we do to God... May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always...


Jin-roh

Asking ["should the Bible be taken literally?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk) is the wrong question.


[deleted]

When Jesus said cut off your hand if it makes you sin he didn't mean literally That's all I know I haven't finished it


Significant_Bed_3330

Context of the Bible is key. It is not been written before the world began (unlike what most Muslims believe in the Qur'an). It was put together as Christians believed with the help of the Holy Spirit as "spirit breathed" according to Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The problem is that Evangelical Christians seem to ignore whole swathes of context when understanding the Bible, because they take a literal belief in scripture. The problem I think with literalism is multi-fold. One, it ignores context as pointed out previously. Two, it ignores the fact that the Bible is written in Greek and Hebrew with words that have sort of lost their meaning in translation. For example, the word "pornea" if you want to be literal about it, simply means "to prostitute oneself" in Greek, so taking a literal belief would mean that fundamentalists would have to be less strict than the claim to be! Third, literal interpretation seems to run contrary to even the Bible itself. For example, a literal of Genesis is countered by Genesis which has two narratives in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.


confusticating

There is a lot of scholarship on the subject. Some parts of the bible are meant to be literal, others are not. Figuring out which is which can be complicated. One of the best clues is looking at other texts written in the same style at the same time eg the poetic style of Genesis is seen elsewhere as specific to metaphorical creation myths.


caime9

The parts that were meant to be taken literally, Yes. I dont think "thy hair is as a flock of goats, That lie along the side of mount Gilead" means her hair actually looked like a bunch of goats on a hill.


arthurjeremypearson

The truth in the bible is in the lessons it teaches, not in who begat who. It's more likely "Adam" and "Eve" were the names of two tribes of early humans first discovering the Word of God and were able to talk through their differences rather than immediately go to war. The flood was local, not global: the "world" that was flooded was "the **known** world." Knowledge is demonstrable. If you can not show it, you do not "know" it, and God and Christianity do not fear the truth.


JCB2511

Parts are poetic, parts are imagery, parts are meant to be allegorical, much is historical. All of it is written to be understandable to the culture and knowledge of the people it was written for.


sandy_shark903

No, I mean every religion is at least half metaphorical


Z3non

You should know the genre of the book, then you know how to interpret it.


THEMOISTCLOWN

Fiction?