Christians: Is the Bible meant to be read literally?

Question

Serious answers only please.

Christians, do you believe the Bible is meant to be read completely literally, or does it contain figurative language that is open for interpretation?

It seems when people use the text of the Bible to explain why something is sinful, they take it very literally. However, when confronted with unpleasant scriptures (The discussion of slavery in Leviticus, for example) they use the text very broadly and figuratively.

So which is it? Literal or figurative?

Answer 1

I think you'll find some selectivity, but most who take Scripture seriously will recognize there are old laws in the Pentateuch that reflect a flawed society. No, we are no longer allowed to hold slaves as in Leviticus, and most would recognize a gross error in invoking the death penalty for killing an ox but not in causing the miscarriage of a fetus.

Many Christians (and most Jews for that matter) disregard the "distancing" laws in the Hebrew Scriptures (ie, no perfume, no clothes made of two kinds of cloth, the umpteen passages regarding sacrifices) as being ways to show that the Hebrews were distinct from the pagan tribes that neighbored them. Christians generally understand that one of the reforms Christ desired was to make worship less legalistic and to end what was seen as a ridiculous set of laws that hindered spiritual growth rather than guiding it.

Today you'll see most of the debate among Christians as to whether the language is literal or figurative as regarding, for instance, the passages in John where Jesus says "if you do not eat the body of the Son of Man, you shall not have life in you."

The parables are understood to be figurative - note that this is taking them literally because Jesus meant them to be figurative.

Answer 2

When reading any document from a different period of time and especially a different language you have to understand that it is subject to interpretation. The original works of the bible were not written in English so some of the words do not translate the same. They may be similar, but not exactly the same. Also, remember the period in time the information was written. A perfect example: 50 years ago if you asked 16 year olds what the definition of the word “gay” was they would almost all say “happy”. Today if you ask that exact same question you would probably get “homosexual”. This just goes to show that the connotation and societal definition of a word can change over time. It is plausible to me that when the Bible refers to Jesus to “healing the sick” that you should ask yourself what the definition of the word “healing” is. You might say today that healing is the removal of any ailments. However, maybe when the writings of the bible were written people said that someone was “healed” if they felt better. Maybe Jesus brought comfort to people and eased their anxiety? I’m not trying to Jesus was a shill, but just rather that maybe some things should be interpreted more FIGURATEVLY in some cases and LITERALLY in others. Thou shall not kill? Literal: kill nothing, no animals or humans. Figurative: no unnecessarily taking of any life.

Answer 3

To be honest, I believe the Bible was not meant to be taken literally, but to be a collection of stories that teach Judeo-Christian morals. Even in Genesis, with the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, one can see the principle message is the importance of not undermining the Patriarchy. This story, it seems, was meant to create stability in a very unstable environment for the early Jewish Tribes. In addition, many human beings have dedicated their entire lives to the scriptures since its first incarnation appeared. To this day people spend their entire existence attempting to understand the Bible. The result of such dedication is countless numbers of Christian denominations. The reason for this, I believe, is that each person, complete with their own ideas, influential histories and environments, interprets the bible in a manner which makes sense to them. It is a natural human tendency to attempt to make sense of the world. That is why an Eastern Orthodox Christian may interpret the same material in an entirely different manner from a Southern Baptist or Mormon, etc. Much in the same way two students might differ when interpreting the meaning of Othello in a High school English class.

Answer 4

LITERAL. There are many archaeological findings to substantiate a lot of The Holy Bible. There has not one been able to dispute it. There are a lot of so called Christians out there that need to wake up. This is not some kind of fictional game to take what you want and leave the rest alone. Look at your church's statement of faith or for that matter any Christian site with a statement of faith and you will see that the entire Bible as a whole is believed. Or should be if we are Christians. That is one reason there is so much false teaching going on in the world today.
Read it and Believe it. God Bless

Answer 5

Extremely important question. The best answer I can give is that you should always understand the scripture your using in the context of the entire book it is in (Hebrews, John, Revelations, etc.). Never try and manipulate a scripture on its own to suit and justify your actions (Many people seem to do that). I wish I could think of an example of heart, but can't right now. Also, Jesus uses a lot of metaphors to explain situations, so no, the Bible should definitely not always be taken literally. For more clarity, seek the advice of an educated pastor on this subject.

Answer 6

It depends which Christians you're speaking to. As a Catholic, I interpret the Bible contextually -- meaning that some parts of the Bible are *supposed* to be taken literally, while the rest is figurative. Some are still open to interpretation of the reader -- for example, the Catholic church allows two lines of thinking on the Adam and Eve story; that it's either allegorical (thus letting a person accept the theory of evolution) or literal (thus letting a person accept the concept of creationism).

Answer 7

The Bible's meant to be read literally if it's a historical book. It's meant to be read as literature if it's literature, read as prophecy if a prophetical book, etc. I wouldn't read Shakespeare's works as literal if it's fictional literature (like Romeo and Juliet). I think the same applies to the Bible.

The Bible should be read within the context of the historical and cultural implications of the time and purpose it was written in and for. Do I read the Bible literally? Yes, when the author intended it to be read as such (which is the majority of the case with the New Testament). If the author's intent was meant for otherwise, it should be read using the methods of interpretation for that genre (Revelation is a prophetical book and should be interpreted as prophecy).

Answer 8

The Bible must be read within its context. Some parts are literal. The Ten Commandments for instance. Some parts are figurative such as Jesus' parables, and prophecy needs to be studied. Some prophecy is literal, some is figurative just as some is conditional and some is not. If you believe that the whole Bible is literal, then you would need to go chop off your hand and poke out your eye because "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Praise God that He purchased our salvation. All WE have to do is choose it.

Answer 9

It depends on the literary genre of the part of the Bible under consideration. Sometimes the authors intended it to be interpreted literally, and they were simply wrong, morally or factually, in their assertions. The real question is, Does the Biblical text contain moral and factual error? And the answer is, obviously yes. Only by auto-suggestion can fundamentalists believe otherwise.

Answer 10

It's both. The bible communicates to us in different ways. There is a golden rule of interpretation: if the most literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense.

The bible addresses slavery because at the time the bible was written, there were slaves.

There is metaphor, similie, parable, symbolism, and of course, literalism in the bible.