For those who believe in the Bible, but not a literal translation?

Question

What are your interpretations of such things as the vigrin birth, the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, the creation, the end times, etc.?

I ask out of respect and curiosity--I was raised in a mostly-literalist household, and I realized recently that with a few exceptions, I don't really know the non-literalist take on such things. Feel free to take any of the points I have mentioned, or any others that are important to you.

Answer 1

Lets see Virgin Birth - Real
The Resurrection - Real Jesus rose from the grave after 3 days
The Divinity of Jesus - Since HE was born to a virgin and Raised to life on the third day then This is Real
Creation - GOD spoke And that is good enough for me.
The end Times- will happen at a latter date.

k1

Answer 2

I too am a believer that the Bible is true. I see no problem with the things you mentioned as being real literal events. There are places where some things are described in the Bible that people often misinterpret.
For instance in Rev. 1:13-16. John is describing Jesus-he has hair white "like" wool. This does not mean that he had wool hair-but hair white as wool. His eyes were "like" blazing fire. His eyes were not literal fire but "bright" like a fire.
Things like this are all over the Bible and are the best description that the writer could give to describe what they were seeing.
Sometimes people struggle with the story of Jesus walking on water, or Jonah being swallowed by a large fish, God speaking the universe into existance, or Mary giving birth to Jesus without having sex. These are all historical events reported in the Bible and are to be taken as actual literal events. No one has ever proven any story in the Bible to be false. Now there are many who choose not to believe them-thats their choice, But "IF" God can speak light into existence from nothing , then all the rest is easy.
I think that for the most part-people who do not believe in a literal interpretation have been mislead by the evolutionist crowd. They claim to have proof for evolution, and most people simply believe it. I do not. I know how rocks and fossils are dated. There is no evidence that can stand alone, confirmed, that there is anything on this earth that is over 5500 years old. Anything over that is speculation based on the assumed ages assigned to the layers of the geologic column. There are at least two (2) unknowns inherent in the dating process that directly affect the date. It is just a guess. If, if, then. There is no way around this-no one knows beyond recorded history-and that can be suspect. It is a guess.

Answer 3

Do you really... honestly believe that a snake can talk?

Do you really, honestly believe that it took an all-powerful deity an entire 6 days to create something that he could have done within a snap of his fingers?

Do you not question HOW he created the things he did?

Do you honestly believe that a senile old man could build a giant boat and gather 2 of each of the 300K+ species that populated the earth at the time, AND have them survive and cohabitate peacefully for over a month in a cramped space?

Do you honestly believe that there was a worldwide flood, despite NO geological evidence of such an event?

Do you honestly think that a woman can be fertilized with the absence of a sperm?

In order to know the non-literalist take on things, the only thing you have to do is think critically about the stories you've been convinced into believing are 100% true.

Answer 4

Your question shows you suspected Mary's behaviour. I think the virgin birth is a kind of creature mistake, such as bee; the worker bee can be a male bee or female bee, by chance if no more queen bee, the worker bee will be the queen. I have fed a group of male fishes, few months later, some of the male fishes changed to be female and have a baby. Few years ago, China cut out a baby sister from a 17 years ages boy's body, of whom was the trims sister of the boy who had been lived in his body for 17 years long until the boy felt stomatch painful then found out the baby sister. In Budha sutra; the head born King was born from his father's head. Creatures, including human being are developed by one atom shell which might not develope by 2 different female and male shells. It can be develope independently.
What do you think?

Answer 5

i think its a matter of what parts you should take literally and what parts you shouldn't.

the virgin birth i take literally. god created man, why not create one in the womb as well?

the resurrection is also literal. he had to have resurrected. if his body had been removed from the tomb, there is only three groups that could have done it. the romans could have, but if they had, they would have displayed his body to put down the christian movement and jesus as the king of kings, which the caeser certainly didn't like too much. the pharases could have, but they too would have displayed his body to put down the insurrection of the christian movement. the desciples could have taken his body and hidden it, but, since many of the desciples were executed for their teachings we can assess that they didn't take the body. someone will die for a lie if they think its the truth, but someone will not die for a lie if they know its a lie. trust me, the romans would not have been placed at the wrong tomb. the only logical reason is that jesus was resurrected.

the divinity of jesus. the trinity, god the father, the all knowing, all powerful creator. god the son, god in the flesh sent to speak his word. god the holy spirit, his presence we recieve that uses us for god to work through.

the creation i don't think was made in one week. time passed, but how can one measure the time when we weren't there nor did we have the instruments to measure time when it happened. i don't truly believe in the young earth theory, but i also don't trust carbon dating.

the end times, of course calls for a very abstract interpretation. obviously john couldn't accurately describe the technology of the future, and truly understand it. he had to use an accomodation, to describe what he couldn't understand. when you read it you have to almost use a reverse accomodation to think about what he might have been talking about.

Answer 6

I have the literalist view. Revelation , in parts, is more figurative. The virgin birth was necessary to fulfill prophecy. All of the points you listed are critical to Christianity, as this is what much of it is based on.

Answer 7

Wow.Good question. The virgin birth-my interpretation is that God wanted to come to us in a human form to help us; even knowing what would happen. All the rest fall into almost the same lines of thought.

Answer 8

I believe in all of it literally, but creation. I think that God created everything and had evolution help some of it along. I don't think we humans evolved from microscopic cells in pond scum (or whatever) because there are far too many unanswered stages, no proof of what went on in between, and life is far too complex to have evolved from the same set of cells. I do, however, have seen some stages of evolution after the fact of creation, which is why I believe in both.

Answer 9

Wow... many questions. I take the Bible literally when called for, but not woodenly... I take context, genre, sensus plenior (fuller meaning), etc. into consideration. Many things in the Bible do not fit a literal hermeneutic (interpretation) - among them is the so-called "millennium;" the Kingdom of God; the six "days" of creation; etc.

But the Virgin Birth; the Resurrection (of Christ); the divinity of Jesus are doctrines that cannot be "allegorized" without losing the intended meaning of the Biblical writers all together.

(1) The Incarnation: This is a doctrine fundamental to Christianity. We cannot drop it and still call ourselves Christians. When Matthew, Mark, and Luke reported that Mary was visited by an angel who told her that she will conceive "by the power of the Most High" (God), they meant precisely that. So Jesus was conceived without a human father. Since God is responsible for all life, it isn't hard for a Christian to beleive that He can split a single cell in Mary's womb and cause it to develop into a human fetus. The doctrine of the Incarnation is important becuase it shows us that Jesus is God-Man. But why did Jesus have to be God-man in order to be a Savior?
(a) Christ needed to be Fully Human becuase: He needed to be able to die as our sacrifice and destroy the work of the devil; He needed to fulfill God's promise to David (the Davidic Covenant); He needed to be the second (and last) Adam; He needed to be a sympathetic High Priest; He needed restore God’s original purpose for humankind

(b) Christ needed to be Fully God in order to be a sinless sin-bearer for our sins; and to be able to bear the full force of the Atonement. The weight of the wrath of God against the sins of the world, is so great that no mere mortal human being could have borne it.




(2) The divintiy of Christ: The consciousness of the Church regarding who Jesus Christ is was a gradual unfolding that began with the first disciples. In the Gospels, the disciples’ response to Jesus’ question, “Who do you say that I am?” is summed up by Peter’s confession: “You are the Christ” (Mk. 8: 29 par.); but it was apparent that they did not fully comprehend then exactly how Jesus was filling this term with new meaning. After the resurrection, the infant Church as represented by the New Testament writers already had a consciousness of the dual nature of Jesus Christ - that He is God incarnate. But no one passage was specifically penned to explain the mechanics of the union between the humanity and deity of Jesus Christ. The New Testament writers simply affirmed that it was true. For example:

- Christ displays the attributes of deity: Omnipresence (Matt. 18:20); Omniscience ()Mk. 2: 8; Jn. 2: 25);Omnipotence: He calmed the winds and the waves of the sea; walked on water;
performed various miracles; Eternality (Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM"); etc.

- He holds the offices of deity:Creator of the universe (Jn. 1:1 -3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:10); Sustainer and governor of the universe (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3).

- He exercises the prerogatives of deity: Forgiving sins (Mk. 2: 10-11; Matt. 16:19; 18:18; Jn. 20: 23); Raising the dead (Jn 5:21, 25?27; 6:40; etc.); Executing judgment (Jn 5:22; 2 Cor 5:10).

etc. etc....


(3) The resurrection is also something that must be taken literally - that is, that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. In fact, Christianity stands or falls by the truth of the resurrection of Christ. It is fundamental to Christianity. Paul writes:

12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.(1 Cor. 15: 12 – 17; NASB)





Now for those things that I do not take literally:

(1) Creation in six days: The word “day” in Genesis
is not a literal 24-hour day; rather it should be understood as meaning a long indeterminate period
of time or “epoch.” These epochs or creative periods
correspond to the geological and biological history of the earth Why? Becuase the Hebrew word for “day” (yom) is often used symbolically to represent an indeterminate period of time, as in for example the expressions, “the Day of the Lord” or “the Day of Wrath.”

(2) The "millennium": "Millennium" literally means 1000 years. Literalists beleive that Christ will return and reign over a literal kingdom of the Jews for a literal 1000 years. I am ammillenialist in that I beleive that Christ is reigning NOW in heaven. the Church is the expression of the millennial reign of Christ now. The "millennium" does not refer to a literal thousand year period, but to the reign of Christ as experienced between His exaltation at the right hand of God and His Second Coming. In other words, The millennium is not a literal thousand-year period; rather, it is the period between the first coming of Christ and His second coming – a period that coincides with the Church Age.Although amillennialists believe that the Kingdom of God is a present reality, they do look forward to a future consummation of that kingdom when Christ returns and brings this age to a close. In other words, the kingdom is both “now” (Mk. 9:1, Rom. 14:17, 1 Cor. 4:19, Col 1:13) and “not yet” (2 Cor 6:9, Gal 5:21, Eph. 5:5, 2 Tim. 4:18).

Amillennial eschatology is held by probably two-thirds of the Christian world. It was embraced very early by the Eastern (Orthodox) Church (under Origen's influence), and later in the fifth century by the Western (Roman Catholic) Church, largely because of the work of Augustine. It is the view held by the Reformers, and is written into both the Augsburg (Lutheran) and Westminster Confessions (Reformed). In modern times, some of the able scholars, authors and theologians who are amillennialist in their eschatology include such names as Louis Berkhof, Geerhardus Vos, J.I. Packer, George Murray, William Hendriksen, Gleason Archer, Abraham Kuyper, O.T. Allis, G. C. Berkouwer, Anthony Hoekema, Herman Hoeksema, R.C.H. Lenski, Jay Adams, A. Pieters, F.E. Hamilton, W. Rutgers, W. Cox.

Answer 10

Those who read the bible are making a mistake. The true way to understand the bible is to read the original hebrew, and then translate the hebrew letters into numbers. The bible in its purest form is a binary programming code.