Do you take the Bible as being literal?

[Cato]

How do you view the Bible? I'll list the three main views.

1. Do you take it as the complete literal word of God?
2. Do you consider it metaphor and that kind of stuff? If so, what differentiates a faith inspired by metaphor from being less strange than someone starting a religion based on science fiction writing (Scientology)?
3. Do you pick and choose the snippets that you think are true from those that aren't?

I'm interested what writers have to say.

[Jenny]

Do I think all the events described in the Bible happened exactly as described in my English translation? No.

I do think Bible stories give us a truth about how people live and interact. I do think it speaks truly of God's relationship with us (which is pretty complicated from our perspective because we're finite trying to understand the Infinite).

I also think that as with anything we read and try to understand, our own backgrounds, needs and expectations influence what we "find" in the Bible. Hopefully, the bottomline is that everyone finds God.

[JoNightshade]

Hi Cato! What a great question.

However, I don't fall into either of the categories you defined. I'm going to answer this more as a literature major than a writer, but perhaps it's the same thing.

The Bible is composed of 66 books (a few more if you're Catholic, I think...). Each one of those books is in fact the inspired word of God, but each book has its own author, and its own aim and purpose. For instance, in the Old Testament alone, we have:
- Levitical Books: Outlining the laws and ceremonies of the people of Israel.
- Historical Books: Chronicling the history of the people of Israel.
- Poetic Books: Wisdom and praise
- Prophetic Books: Warnings, chastisements, and other things concerning the future.

As you can see, not every book is meant to be taken LITERALLY. The books of poetry, for instance - one would not open up a book of poetry and expect every word to be LITERALLY true. Poetry uses metaphor and simile and other devices to convey a moral truth, or an aesthetic truth. Yes, many of the poems (or psalms) do discuss real-world events (IE David's poems from when he was hiding out), but when a poem/song in the Bible says "We rest in the shadow of God's wings," we don't literally take that to mean that God has wings. Likewise, when Jesus tells a parable (a story) about how he is the vine and we are the branches, we don't literally believe Jesus is a grape vine and we're a bunch of branches. That would be silly.

On the other hand, yes - the historic books are the literal truth. Rulers, wars, various events. And of course in the New Testement, the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are considered to be literally true.

How do we tell what is literal and what is figurative? Well, there's context - who wrote this book of the bible, what time period was it, what is the aim of the book or this particular passage - etc. We use our judgment. If God wanted a bunch of mindless robots, he would have given us 100 pages of literal instructions. But God wants us to use our minds and hearts - and most of all to come to him for discernment. I love how the Bible has ALL SORTS of different types of writing - because that means there's something in there for everyone. I'm not big on history, but I love the poetic books, and that's where I find God speaks to me most. But someone else might hear God more clearly when they see the examples set by the Israelites in the historic books.

Is there disagreement about which parts are literal and which parts are figurative? Of course. The book of Job, for instance, is usually classed as a poetic book. Some people believe that means there was no actual person of Job - that the entire book is a huge parable about God and man. (This is my personal belief.) Other people believe that there was literally a man named Job who suffered everything described in the book of Job. But whether or not you believe Job was a real person, the MEANING of the book of Job is still exactly the same: We're only human, so we have to place our trust in God and believe he knows what he's doing.

[Unique]

Yes.

[vixey]

I'm Presbyterian. My denomination believes the Bible is the inspired word of God (not literal) and I agree. As to the early stories in the Old Testament that predate Mosaic law, I believe they're connected to the many spiritual influences that existed prior to Moses. These stories incorporate myths and oral histories evident in many cultures and bring them together, I believe, to relate to these people and introduce them to God.

Snippets, no. I believe the Bible is of God. And even though I consider it his inspired word, it is still of men and subject to men's foibles. It bothers me that the protestant Bible excludes the apocrypha. Moreover, who's recording the inspired word of God today? Why did it stop in the first century?

Just some thoughts.

[LaurieD]

I was brought up very, very Catholic. Very.

I believe the Bible was the primary means of governing and controlling a people, written by men, ordinary men. Oftentimes, men who may have hated, resented, or feared women, consciously or unconsciously.

If you look at it objectively, not as anything faith related, simply as any other historical record, you may see what I mean.

Just my opinion.

[Woodsie]

I believe it's the inspired word of God. I think that there are metaphors laced throughout that are an attempt to paint a word picture of the information that the authors are trying to impart. I think it has historical value. Even when the history is appalling. I think that since it is inspired, the reader must be inspired in order to take something from it. Whether a person believes the Bible or not doesn't change it's truth. It's changes them.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I don't know. I believe it is the Word of God, but whether or not it's literal, metaphorical, or both, I couldn't say.

What I can say is I love the Bible, and I love the God Who wrote it. Regardless of whether God made the Earth in six literal days and nights or no, I love Him. And that's really what matters to me right now.

:Shrug:

[Deb Kinnard]

To me the Bible is the God-inspired guidebook to live this life. I believe some of the passages speak literally, and when the easiest and most commonsense interpretation is literal, then that is its meaning. When, however, there is clearly a nonliteral interpretation to be made (i.e., parts of Daniel and most of Revelation), that is just as valid and should be understood that way.

[Roger J Carlson]

I believe that the Bible is literally the Word of God. It is how God communicates with us, not just as a group, but as individuals. Therefore, portions of the Bible can say different things to different people. I've had this happen to me. There have been verses that meant one thing to me in the past and then on reading them again at a later date, they unfold with a whole new meaning.

The Bible is not just a static old book. It is a living revelation of God.

I have trouble imagining the Creator of the Universe wringing his hands in Heaven and whining: "Oh, they've interpreted my Word wrong and there's nothing I can doooo..." Ridiculous! If God is in control, then he is in control of his Word and it says what He wants it to say.

Now, that's not to say the the Bible can mean whatever we want it to mean. We have to dilligently study it and seek His will. Using the Bible to justify our own beliefs is pure folly. The Bible is pretty unabiguous about some things and we'd better have a pretty good reason for re-interpreting it.

[III]

What Jo said. It's about understanding authorial intent. What was the author trying to communicate and how did he anticipate his audience would interpret and respond to what was written. Different books were written in different ways for different purposes and we can study and understand those purposes and exegete the meanings of the passages. Narratives are handled differently than didactic teaching than poetry than prophesy than parables, etc.

And what Roger said. Paul used a term in 2 Timothy 3:16 - "theopneustos" which means all scripture is "God-breathed". It's a powerful image, tying together the creative authority of God, the indwelling of his Spirit, and his living, active essence. Scripture is different from any other book in that, when we interact with it, God's Spirit interacts with us and changes us in a unique way.

So yeah, it's not as binary as literal / figurative. At the least it's an exercise in discovery and at best it's a transforming encounter with the deepest truths.

[Pat~]

What III said. :D (And Jo, and Roger, and some others...)

As for your question "do you take the Bible as being literal?" --I think I'd have to say first that I take the Bible as being literature. I also take the original documents (Hebrew/Greek) as being the inspired Word of God, imparted in a collection of literary documents spanning 1400-1700 years, 40 generations, and written by over 40 authors on 3 continents from all walks of life. (If you have ever read it cover to cover, the internal unity of such a collection of documents is nothing short of miraculous in itself.) And, as ancient documents go, it has unparalleled manuscript support. To illustrate: the historical accounts of Caesar (concerning events ca.100 BC)--our earliest manuscripts are from around 900 AD, and we have 10 copies total. Total number of manuscripts about Aristotle=49. Yet people still muse and speculate about whether or not Christ actually walked this earth, when we have 24,000 NT manuscripts written within 25-200 years of those events.

As Jo pointed out, those documents were varied: historical, prophetic, poetic, etc., and as such, used metaphor, and other figurative language at times--(eg. the apocalyptic/symbolic language of the book of Revelation is very open to interpretation) so it'd be illogical to say they all were to be 'taken literally.' However, if you mean do I hold it all to be undeniably True and infallible, I'd say 'yes.' Even those parts we haven't figured out yet. ;) And, like Roger and III, I hold it to be inspired, "God-breathed" and continually so; it continually 'breathes life' into my life.

Concerning infallibility, a few things to consider (and this is actually condensed from a sermon (http://www.btbfmedia.org/sermons/podcast.xml) I heard just a few weeks ago by Pete Briscoe, if you are interested in more info--click "Why should I trust the Bible?"):

--"inerrancy" refers to what is affirmed, not what is 'reported' (eg. the lies of Satan are not 'true')

--scripture must be understood by the cultural milieu in which it was written

--'rounding off' regarding numbers in historical documents is commonly done, and does not render scripture fallible

--in scripture, reports of scientific matters are in phenomenal language, not technical, scientific language. For example, our meteorologists will say "sunrise was at 7 AM"--speaking as if the sun actually moves does not make their statement scientifically 'untrue'--they are simply reporting a scientific event to us in phenomenal language.

[basilsands]

As a minister who has taught the Bible for over twenty years, and from the perspective of an author, I will agree with Jo, Pat, Roger, et al..

The parts that are recordings of historical events are true.
The parts that artistic expressions of faith are just that.
The parts that are allegorical are such.

If someone can't tell the difference, they probably need to take some remedial classes in literature and perhaps an ancient near east history course or two.

[Carole]

I've entered my responses within the quote:

How do you view the Bible? I'll list the three main views.

1. Do you take it as the complete literal word of God? No, but it's not that simple. I can believe that everything is true without believing that everything is literal. For example, I don't believe that there will be one single figure who could be labeled as the anti-Christ. I believe that the anti-Christ is, first and foremost, the devil and that anyone who follows him is also an anti-Christ. I also don't believe that there will be a physical battle between Jesus and the devil. I believe that battle has been going on for over 2,000 years and it happens every day.


2. Do you consider it metaphor and that kind of stuff? If so, what differentiates a faith inspired by metaphor from being less strange than someone starting a religion based on science fiction writing (Scientology)? I believe that some of it is metaphor, but all of it is to be believed. I believe that some metaphors are used to help our minds process a specific message. I don't believe that all of it is metaphor. It's different from a religion based completely on metaphor because I believe that metaphors are only used in certain instances for clarity or so that we can apply the message to our lives in any given time-period. What may have been a very real situation long ago may be something no one could relate to today. With a metaphor, we can apply the same message to our lives now.


3. Do you pick and choose the snippets that you think are true from those that aren't? No. Nothing in the Bible is a lie. But I think all of us have passages that are more near to our hearts, though, and what is near to one might be different than what is near to another.

I'm interested what writers have to say.

[Cato]

As a minister who has taught the Bible for over twenty years, and from the perspective of an author, I will agree with Jo, Pat, Roger, et al..

The parts that are recordings of historical events are true.
The parts that artistic expressions of faith are just that.
The parts that are allegorical are such.

If someone can't tell the difference, they probably need to take some remedial classes in literature and perhaps an ancient near east history course or two.

Care to list some examples?

Oh, and from an objective perspective, you could hardly describe the events such as Noah's Ark and others as a "recordings of historical events", especially since there's no scientific evidence of a global flood in history -- at least none that I'm aware of.

[Cassiopeia]

Care to list some examples?

Oh, and from an objective perspective, you could hardly describe the events such as Noah's Ark and others as a "recordings of historical events", especially since there's no scientific evidence of a global flood in history -- at least none that I'm aware of.You must have missed that National Geographic episode in the 80's, I think it was called In Search of the Arc.

They talked about a global flood if I recall correctly. Then again, I could be mistaken.

[czjaba]

Some incidences of the Bible can be backed up with historical scientific explanations. For example, the plagues against Pharoah. When Moses was trying to free the slaves and lead them to Israel.
One of the plagues was the death of the first born sons. (I don't remember all details exactly, but this is from a documentary on History International Channel, and I think from 'The Naked Archaelogist.') The first born sons were always kept in a place of honor, the front room of the houses. During this time period, something happened which caused the people to close their doors and windows. I think it was the sand storm or something like that, which is also supported scientifically. Anyway, with the doors and windows closed, gases from underground would seep into the house and concentrate in the front room, causing the deaths of those children, much like carbon monoxide poisoning. Now, to explain the underground gases, it was the result of plate shifting sometime around a recorded earthquake.
Now, like I said, I have a vague memory of this documentary, but this is what I took from it. But to me personally, it doesn't matter that it can be backed up scientifically. It is written in the Bible, and whether I believe it actually happened or not, I can't say. But I do believe that the person who wrote that book in the Bible believed these events actually occured.

[Unique]

especially since there's no scientific evidence of a global flood in history -- at least none that I'm aware of.

Many, many cultures have accounts of a global flood.

Even in the Andes mountains. Just how high would the water have to get to flood up to the tip of the Andes? Right high, I'd guess.

Major American Indian tribes have a flood account, Japanese have a flood account (you have to hunt for that one), Peruvian Indians have a flood account - many, many cultures have a history of global flooding.

I'm so glad He told us He wouldn't do that again. It takes out a lot of people.

YMMV

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Many, many cultures have accounts of a global flood.

Even in the Andes mountains. Just how high would the water have to get to flood up to the tip of the Andes? Right high, I'd guess.

Major American Indian tribes have a flood account, Japanese have a flood account (you have to hunt for that one), Peruvian Indians have a flood account - many, many cultures have a history of global flooding.

I'm so glad He told us He wouldn't do that again. It takes out a lot of people.

YMMV


The Chinese had one too. In a book about dragons (I think it was Dragons by Peter J. Hogarth) one account pointed to a Chinese myth about a massive flood that destroyed the entire Earth. The way that the waters went down was explained by using some of the Chinese animal-deities. I distinctly remember the actions of two of these animal-deities. The dragon-god used his tail to cut canyons, and the tortoise-god carried land on his back to build the Earth again.

This particular story is memorable to me in that it is the first time I've read an account of a global flood from a source other than the Bible. It certainly is an interesting little piece of information to me.

[inkkognito]

I would like to read the Bible as it was originally written. I imagine that with all the translations, retranslations, etc. many parts of it wouldn't bear much resemblance to what we read today.

I don't believe in it much of it literally (for example, the story of creation...I believe in intelligent design...heck, there couldn't even be a day before God created the sun and earth because a 'day' is marked by earth's rotation). I think there were kernels of truth in things like the flood, plagues, etc. and they got blown up to mythic proportions over time.

I do believe more in the truth of the New Testament, at least as far as Jesus and in His word.

[jasperd]

I couldn't have said it better than Roger Carlson!

[Nakhlasmoke]

Yes.

But that doesn't make a difference to me.

[JoNightshade]

Care to list some examples?

Oh, and from an objective perspective, you could hardly describe the events such as Noah's Ark and others as a "recordings of historical events", especially since there's no scientific evidence of a global flood in history -- at least none that I'm aware of.

Would you like to see a list of cultures that have a "Great Flood" narrative? Check out this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_flood#Hebrew

So let me get this correct - what you are actually asking is not WHETHER we believe the Bible is true, but HOW we can believe things you consider historically unsupported.

First of all, "Noah's Ark and others" is pretty vague. Have you actually read the Bible? Particularly the historical books? I assume the stories you're talking about as historically unsupported are mostly from Genesis, because after the initial "creation" stories, when we move into the Israelites wandering around and then settling down in what is now Israel, all the people groups they fight and deal with are quite real. (Actually - in the past, "scientists" assumed most of these things were just made up. Then they started discovering tablets with people's names on it, etc. Oh, whoops! The kings listed in the bible really DID live!) In general, the "later" in the Bible you go, the more historically accurate things become. Or, rather, the more historically "supported" things become. In fact the earlier items are only uncertain because we don't have the archaeological evidence necessary to verify them - which is always the case the further back you go in time.

If you're serious about digging into this, I suggest picking up a copy of the Archaeological Study Bible (http://www.archaeologicalstudybible.com/), which is the Bible I am currently using. It's fantastic because it's very, very objective. (IE, when there's disagreement or uncertainty, they lay it flat out. They don't try to twist it so the Bible comes out on top, although they do point out the general Christian view.) The text of the Bible is laid out along with copious notes and articles all about archaeological finds, other ancient texts, etc. So it tells you what historians and archaeologists have found - and what they haven't found - that matches up with the Biblical narrative.

Check out the first 90 pages here:
http://www.archaeologicalstudybible.com/documents/GenFinalSampler.pdf

[Nakhlasmoke]

Plus there is plenty of (non-psycho fundie pseudo-science) for creationism.

:D


Technical Journal...

Or for those who like it web-based there's http://www.answersingenesis.org/ or http://www.creationontheweb.org/

The second is probably better.

[III]

Care to list some examples?


There are actually many different types of allegories used throughout the scriptures. The Rich Man and Lazarus (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2016:19-31;&version=31;), for example may or may not be an allegory. Paul uses Hagar and Sarah (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%204:21-31;&version=31;) as an allegory in Galatians, even though they were real people. Parts of Job are allegory (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2040;&version=31;). There are types, like Isaac and King David being "types" for the coming messiah. There are parables. There is Eastern logic and all sorts of literary devices that don't conform to Greek logical thinking or storytelling. Certain geneologies leave out the less important people or focus on groups of 7 generations.

The stories are told for a specific purpose with focus on specific aspects to get across a specific truth to a specific audience according to their culture. It's all about authorial intent. The rule of thumb I use is, unless there's a compelling contextual reason to believe the author is using allegory, interpret it as literal. And never assume you're getting the WHOLE story. You're getting the part that's important to convey the truth of that event and God's character. Discover that truth and apply it to your life. There's plenty of it to keep you busy for at least 80 years.

[TurkeyLurkey]

How do you view the Bible? I'll list the three main views.

1. Do you take it as the complete literal word of God?
2. Do you consider it metaphor and that kind of stuff? If so, what differentiates a faith inspired by metaphor from being less strange than someone starting a religion based on science fiction writing (Scientology)?
3. Do you pick and choose the snippets that you think are true from those that aren't?

I'm interested what writers have to say.

3. I like living by the words in red. :)

[sassandgroove]

I'm Presbyterian. My denomination believes the Bible is the inspired word of God (not literal) and I agree. As to the early stories in the Old Testament that predate Mosaic law, I believe they're connected to the many spiritual influences that existed prior to Moses. These stories incorporate myths and oral histories evident in many cultures and bring them together, I believe, to relate to these people and introduce them to God.

Snippets, no. I believe the Bible is of God. And even though I consider it his inspired word, it is still of men and subject to men's foibles. It bothers me that the protestant Bible excludes the apocrypha. Moreover, who's recording the inspired word of God today? Why did it stop in the first century?

Just some thoughts.what Vixey said.

[Cassiopeia]

3. I like living by the words in red. :)*snorts water up her nose*

HEY, preface with a warning please.

I have stated so many times you all are probably sick of me saying it but, I believe that the Bible was written by men who felt they were inspired by God. They related their experiences and taught generations through it.

I think some of it is most likely metaphorical. For example: My all time favorite bible story from the Old Testament is the story of Lot and his family. They were told to leave as the city there were in was about to be destroyed because of wickedness. They were admonished not to look back or they'd be turned into a pillar of salt.

His wife Sarah was so grieved at leaving her home and friends that in her anguish looked back at the city and home they were leaving and according to scripture she was turned into a pillar of salt.

Now, I don't think she was literally but she might as well have been. Have you ever tried walking forward while looking backwards? I have and I stumbled and fell. It is very difficult to progress forward when you aren't facing forward. You might as well be a pillar of salt for the lack of progress you make.

Do I think it is the literal word of God? No. As I said on another thread, it is written by man, translated by man and interpreted by man. Man if fallible. If we are to believe that God is Infallible it is easy to see that man has made the mistakes.

I think the point is that really the scriptures are there to inspire us, lift us up to new heights, comfort us and teach a bit of the history of mankind.

[flutecrafter]

excellent answers Jo, and others. :)

[AMCrenshaw]

I don't take it all to be literally true. But I am very distrustful of any record of history. That's a bias, though. Theologically speaking I am sort of with a few others.

People wrote their experience of the divine.








I let that sink in from time to time. When I read the stories I try very hard to enter into the words, the world from whence they came. How can I know what is relevant now if I don't consider the relevance then? Besides that, so much of the language is really beautiful and, yeah, inspiring. But I get inspiration a lot of places.


2. Do you consider it metaphor and that kind of stuff? If so, what differentiates a faith inspired by metaphor from being less strange than someone starting a religion based on science fiction writing (Scientology)?

A lot of it. I have taken the definition of faith from Hebrews and elaborated on it to fit my own walk. Faith is the conviction of things unseen. For me, it's believing in an effect without the cause. Seeing the Kingdom of God without worrying too much about the mustard seed. Whatever it is that started this, if anything, I am absolutely thankful for it.

The construction of the Bible is very romantic (in a Frye sort of way) and I can't ignore that. What happens in the Bible is "what the heart wants" but not necessarily what is entirely real. It's a record of perceptions, which is not a different case than the scribbles in my journal.

I disregard some of the Mosaic law, particularly as it concerns women and the Queer. It's obvious the Pauls tried very hard to follow Jesus but I also think his (their) view of women and family are destructive to this day.

But there's a matter of transporting what is not-now into now that is always a matter of interpretation.

Since Christ is for me the best example of how to form a relationship with God and end the suffering of others, I follow the depiction in the Bible. If I come across something that isn't even close to rational (I've given examples) I remember that the Bible is a book and that God is God and there is a universe of difference. But I also read sacred texts, and perform rituals from as many religions as possible for these very reasons. Not all are entirely right and not all are entirely wrong.

I include fairy tales, novels, poetry, etc in my devotion. They are also perceptions of reality so they too have something to say about the human condition. So I guess I don't find Scientologists strange in that respect. My problem with Scientologists is similar to my problem with a lot of religion. And it isn't that they read Sci-Fi...that's all I will say about that.



AMC

[Bartholomew]

Oh, whoops! The kings listed in the bible really DID live!)

Yes, but several didn't live in the era the author says they did. Whoops?

[JoNightshade]

Yes, but several didn't live in the era the author says they did. Whoops?

Examples, please.

[Inarticulate Babbler]

Funny how science tends to claim an era was a certain time, then not let go. Some of the "kings" that supposedly "weren't of that era" (in particular Moses's time and Joseph's) have been cast in a new light by Simcha Jacobovici. He and James Cameron did an excellent documentary one the plagues, disproving many popular theories contrary to the bible. Simcha Jacobovici has a show on the International History Channel called The Naked Archaeologist, which he uses his scientific knowledge to back-up the scripture.

[C A Winters]

I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, that contains flaws of humanity, and based on 2 Peter 3:8 --" But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day " we can assume that creation may have taken 6 thousand years rather than 6 literal days.

I also believe that there is a gap that may be missing between Gen. 1 and 2 according to some studies that would clarify many questions about the orgin of time as we know it, before creation that we are aware of according to the Bible.

I believe that creation was a beautiful blend of cosmic science powered by God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, also Father of Jesus.

[StephanieFox]

1. Do you take it as the complete literal word of God?
No.

2. Do you consider it metaphor and that kind of stuff? If so, what differentiates a faith inspired by metaphor from being less strange than someone starting a religion based on science fiction writing (Scientology)?

I think it's metaphor, history, teaching stories and politics, both national and internal. I am sure that many here will disagree with me,and I do not wish to offend, but I think that Christianity was a religion created by people, not unlike a book based on science fiction writing. The same is true of Islam and Buddhism. That does not mean that there is no spirituality to it. It differs from older tribal type religions that evolved slowly and of which I would include the religion of the Hebrews, Shinto and Hinduism as well as other ancient and current tribal religious traditions.

3. Do you pick and choose the snippets that you think are true from those that aren't?
No, but I think some are better written than others.