Do you take the Bible literally?

39 Answers

  • Paul
    Lv 6
    6 months ago
    Best answer

    I take the parts literally that are meant to be taken literally, and I take symbolically those parts that are meant to be taken symbolically. And I have the one Church Jesus Christ founded, to which He promised the fullness of truth, the Church which compiled the Bible from its own writings, to guide me in knowing the difference. Which is why my Church remains one in faith, one in teaching, one in worship, one in biblical understanding after 2,000 years, while those who have defected from His Church have fragmented into thousands of unauthorized manmade denominations who can't agree with one another on the meaning of a single biblical verse, in just a few hundred years. You just can't beat God's plan.

    • Jennifer
      Lv 6
      5 months agoReport

      Jesus also didn't "found" any religions....he was part of and taught solely on an existing one. Peter also was a Torah-observant Jew his entire life. If you want to talk about manmade, we should talk.

  • 5 months ago

    Some parts yes some no.Some are CLEARLY not intended to be taken literally.

  • Al
    Lv 6
    5 months ago

    2 Corinthians 3:6 (KJV) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

    Letter means literal in scripture, and they say it kills which is opposition to Jesus, Jesus message was of the Spirit that gives life......that is a hard pill for modern Christians to swallow, but its in the Bible.

  • 6 months ago

    I follow this logic process when interpreting documents including the Bible.

    Notes: (a) Words and phrases are expression of author’s thoughts. (b) Respect for author means NO absurd, or

    conflicting interpretation unless there is no other way to resolve the absurdity or conflicting interpretation.

    Use to interpret laws, contract, books, sayings, etc. Begin.

    1: Will LITERAL interpretation result in: (a) absurdity, or (b) conflict with other section(s) of document?

    Yes. Go to #2

    No. Interpret literally.

    2: Is the word(s) or phrase(s) meant to be figure of speech (metaphor, idiom, parable, etc)?

    Yes. Explain meaning of figure of speech

    No. Go to # 3

    3: Could the word(s), or (b) phrase be harmonized or reconciled with other section(s) of document?

    Yes. Harmonize with other section(s) of document.

    No. Go to # 4.

    4: Error in document the word(s) or phrase(s) is absurd or in conflict with other section(s) of document.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 6 months ago

    Where I can. For example, the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 should have been translated as indefinite (and very long) "times." As the atmosphere gradually cleared, first light, then the sun, then the moon, then the stars appeared.

  • 6 months ago

    No, it is a collection of morality stories intended to provide you with a framework on how to live.

  • 6 months ago

    The Bible is historical, prophetic, didactic/educational, lyrical, and allegorical.

    Source(s): Greek Orthodox Christian
  • 6 months ago

    I take the meaning of the Bible how the author intended the reader to take it. I do not take the Bible literalistically. The difference? "It was raining cats and dogs." Taking this literally, you know the author meant it was raining really hard. Taking this literalistically, you say that it was actually raining cats and dogs from the sky. So yes, I take it literally.

  • 6 months ago

    I read it as written, i.e. if it is a prophecy, parable, psalm or proverb, then I take it as that. If it is written as literal and referred to by other parts as literal, then I take it as being literal. much of the differences in denominations and individual believers comes from reading meaning into scriptures that isn't there and/or reading it as if it were a legal document, while not understanding the problems in not only translating one language to another but the extreme difficulties in translating a dead language, and splitting the meaning of words to the nth degree.

    Of course, arbitrarily claiming portions are metaphorical or allegorical, even when they are not written as such, is a great way to keep people from questioning sections that are clearly wrong when compared to the existing evidence.

    • Lv 4
      6 months agoReport

      good answer & good point;&also, within then contemporary contexts; &some contemporary versions attempt streamlining text so much, & apparently lacking sufficient scholarly expertise, result in adjustments of nuances of meaning, eg,some aspects of societies then were simply different from present day

  • .
    Lv 6
    6 months ago

    If the Bible was taken literally all those who criticized atheism would not be hypocrites.

    • .
      Lv 6
      5 months agoReport

      I am an atheist and I feel disgusted by seeing how homosexuals believe and worship that disgusting homophobic deity Yahweh.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.