Why do Christians tell me not to take the Bible literally? Did Jesus literally get crucified and resurrected?

Question

If God exists, and became the flesh, and died and ascended, why do you tell me not to take any other part of it literally?

If God chooses to create the Earth and the stars and the Sun in a week, why not take this literally, its God of course its possible with God!

If God wants to make a man named Jonah and send him to Ninevah and he wants to go his own way of course God can make a fish to swallow him up, its God, of course its possible.

If God wants to literally flood the Earth, why say this isn't literal, its God, of course it could be possible with God!

If God wants to reign fire and sulphur from heaven, don't suggest this isn't literal, of course its possible with God!

If God wants to send the Angel of Death to Egypt, don't say this isn't possible, with God its possible!

Don't tell me the Earth isn't flat, of course this is possible, with God all things are possible! Don't tell me to pick and choose what is literal and what is not its GOD ITS ALL POSSIBLE

Answer 1

This is always a good question, and as a Christian I'll give my best informed answer.

First, theologians show us in all they've written throughout the ages that none of them took scripture to be understood literally word-for-word.

In fact, there's a well documented shift in biblical interpretation that began in America in the late 1800's that began to focus on the literal nature of scripture. These specifics were used primarily in support of particular cultural positions. So, reading the Bible as as a word-for-word literal translation of the Word of God is a reasonably new approach.

Also, it's extremely difficult to embrace an English interpretation of the Bible as "literally" from God. The Hebrew (Old) Testament doesn't translate directly to English, because Hebrew thought and understanding doesn't jive with English words, so it's always an interpretation.

And, though old Greek translates somewhat better, the only things we have close to the original Greek writings of the New Testament are much older than the events in which they portray.

I love the Bible, read it often, and find strength, guidance, and comfort from it. But, I also believe God still speaks to humanity and is not bound by 1500+ yr old writings.

These are some of the reasons believing Christians struggle so much with the "literal" interpretation of scripture. (Of course "interpretation" implies non-literal).

Answer 2

Again, Jim, the question isn't whether it's literal or not; the question is what the authors/compilers intended to convey, and whether that's correct. The "literal/figurative" thing came in as a means of rescuing the Biblical text's inerrancy when it became patently absurd or incoherent, or when the compliers wanted to find their own doctrine in the text. Technically that's called "eisegesis": reading things into the text, instead of interpreting its meaning.

As far as determining whether what the text asserts is correct, and in exactly what sense: you have to decide. How on earth could that be a problem for you? You are the one who, in any event, is deciding, even if you decide to cede your responsibility to some external authority. How do you decide? You think deeply, first of all, about what your most profound existential convictions are. Then you subject those to every criticism you can imagine. When you're done with that, you start reading people who disagree with your convictions, on the chance that their criticisms might hold water. If your convictions survive all that, you can begin to use them as a basis for discernment of truth and error (and truth and error on various levels -- historical, typological, moral, symbolic, etc.) in the Biblical texts. But of course you've also got to acquaint yourself with the best modern Biblical scholarship, so you have the clearest shot at understanding the authors' intended meanings. Does it sound like work? Hell yeah. But why should you shy away from that, if you're really determined to be responsible, stand on your own two feet, and reach your own conclusions, instead of meekly and blindly accepting what some authority says?

As far as the Resurrection goes: look closely at the various accounts and carefully note the multitude of inconsistencies between them. The conclusion I draw is that none of them is historical. Modern commentators and liberal theologians have various ways of talking meaningfully about the resurrection without interpreting it as an empirical bodily resuscitation. For myself, I would talk about the continued power of Jesus's message in the Christian community and in the world, and about the experience of Jesus' continued presence in the experience of believers as they are able to witness with extraordinary power to the hope of God's coming reign.

Answer 3

For you Jim the earth is flat, even though the bible says round.. Most of the Bible is literal except for a few things. Ecclesisates was written from the point of view of a human person instead of God's point of view and the Song of Solomon is poetry.
Yes most of it is literal. Yes the Angel of Death is real .. And heaven and hell are real.. Angels are real and they violate the laws of space travel and can also take on the appearance of a human.

Answer 4

maximum of our imagery of Heaven comes from the e book of Revelation, very last interior the Bible. because you're a extremely new Christian, i'd recommend reading it and then looking someone (except yet another new believer) with whom to debate what you've study. If talk isn't an determination, stumble on a sturdy statement on it. Ask your pastor or church elders to signify one. The "streets of gold beside a crystal sea" comes from Revelation, as does the idea of a sparkling Heaven and a sparkling Earth. That e book is the perfect position to get solutions to those questions.

Answer 5

i suppose we cant ever know for sure whether a certain passage is to be taken literally, until we see Christ face to face. but a good tool is "if the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense". i think that the Bible is to be read and interpreted in both a literal and metaphoric sense, but i think it is literal much more often than not. but many people dont take the Bible literally. I think that is because it can be offensive if taken literally, but i pray that God helps me never to be ashamed of the gospel, no matter how offensive it is to me or others.

Answer 6

Have you been drinking? None of these people can give you the answers any more than that stupid book can. Just put it down, and have some crackers with that wine, and you'll feel closer to god. O.K.? You freak out your atheist friends when you get all juiced up on the bible. Chill bud.

Answer 7

Others say don't take the bible literally.........
I always found it easier,( not just with my faith) to follow my heart, that's where I found the answers to everything that I questioned or wondered about, but it was only ever time that told me my heart was right, not that I often followed in my youth
The bible helps people to find the faith, strength and love-how can you knock that?

Answer 8

What? The Flood wasn't global? Why would Noah waste so much time collecting so many animals if it was just a localized flood? That makes no sense.

Answer 9

God did not hang on the cross,his son did,but you know that and much more.I know this because I have told you before,all you want to do is have a debate and I wouldn't even call it intelligent.

Answer 10

Oh, only SOME parts are literal. Which ones, you ask? The ones that haven't been debunked yet. Convenient, no?