This isn't really a question as much as a survey. It consists of just one simple question. When answering this, only state YOUR opinion. DO NOT sit here and bash anyone else's. I'll state my own opinion in the added details section.
Q: Should everything written in the Bible be taken literally?
2007-06-24 08:51:34 · 34 answers · asked by Dan L 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Personally, I do not think the Bible should be taken literally. I think the Bible is just a book full of stories to live by, and inspire readers to lead a better life. I don't think anyone should care whether or not the events written in the Bible happened the way they were written, because it's not a history book. It's all about symbolism.
2007-06-24 08:53:52 · update #1
NO! We don't want Christians to start flying airplanes into buildings, too!
2007-06-24 08:54:16 · answer #1 · answered by Scheidemann 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I'm interested in contemplative spiritual experience (e.g., John of the Cross, the Cloud of Unknowing, Zen master Dogen, Rumi, the Baal Shem Tov, Shankara, and the like), where there's a deep attention to the fact that our most profound, nearest-to-the-divine experiencing, is something quite literally too simple and too fundamental for words.
I very much suspect that such contemplative experiences--in addition to all the petty and vicious human tendencies that can and do come into any social institution--are the healthy core and true foundation of the world's great spiritual traditions. And those experiences, while too basic and original for discursive language--something for which our words are always already "too late"--those experiences are metaphorically expressed and figuratively gestured towards by our religious symbols and ritual forms.
So, no, I don't feel religious language should be taken literally, because when we do, we do not escape idolatry, making that language mean whatever it is we personally think it must mean.
In other words--when we take religious language literally, we are not taking it seriously enough.
2007-06-24 09:39:17 · answer #2 · answered by bodhidave 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The stories told in the second person role could be literal such as what Jesus said but the stories told first hand have to be taken as doubtful because Gods power is so great that what he does reverberates down generations of people, not just to the individual.
2007-06-24 10:22:39 · answer #3 · answered by Marcus R. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most parts should be taken literally: Exceptions: I think that the 7 day creation story and the book of Revelation , serve as metaphors, because the writers weren't physically there to witness what they were inspired to write. The Gospels on the other hand, should be taken literally, because they were written by eye-witnesses! The Bible is full of history, metaphors, songs, poems, etc. God bless!
2007-06-24 08:54:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is nice to hear from christians who understand that the bible should be seen as symbolic and such.
But i also feel that even taken on the "symbolic level" the bible can be, well, dumb.
Nonetheless, i have no problem with christianity surviving a little longer on the coat tails of liberal theology.
2007-06-24 11:37:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the Bible shouldn't be taken literally. It's the very nature of language to be highly dependent on interpretation. If we cannot agree on an absolute meaning of any given word, how can a collection of words then magically gain absolute meaning?
Regarding the creation vs evolution "debate," it's curious that proponents of literal interpretation deny evolution as a possibiliy. To this I ask: before the earth was formed, what defined "a day"? What if, to God, one day was really more like 10 billion years? What if God's plan = evolution? Couldn't evolution and a God-driven creation co-exist?
2007-06-24 08:58:19 · answer #6 · answered by youbabii 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. It is a book of personal letters (giving personal opinions), mysticism, legend, and mythology. Biblical literalism fails to provide anything resembling sanity. Cases in point: Kent Hovind, Michael Behe, Ken Ham, Ron Wyatt, and other Creationists.
2007-06-24 09:00:41 · answer #7 · answered by Scott M 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most people don't know how to interpret the bible,therefore it can't be taken literally.
People should know that 2000 years ago,people were thinking differently,speaking differently. If you try to interpret something that old with your modern-day knowledge literally,then you will clearly interpret half of it in error.
2007-06-24 09:11:35 · answer #8 · answered by Laff -Hugs 4all- 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
With the exception of poetic language, parables, symbolic visions, anthropomorphism's of God, idiomatic speech, and other similar literary devices the Bible should be taken literally.
2007-06-24 09:07:09 · answer #9 · answered by Martin S 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No,
Parts are historical, which of course should be taken literally.
Jesus taught in parables. Daniel saw visions. So did John. Joseph and others had symbolic dreams.
Therefore, it depends on just what you are reading because some accounts are literal accounts, some have symbolic meaning, some are parables which have to be decerned and studied to understand
2007-06-24 08:57:13 · answer #10 · answered by rangedog 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think the bible should be taken literally. I believe it was not meant to be taken that way. I feel it was more of stories to teach christians how to live. Maybe not the part about killing people but you know...
2007-06-24 08:59:11 · answer #11 · answered by Janet L 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋