Do you believe the Bible literally, or is it open to interputation?

Question

My fiancee' believes that every word of the Bible is literally what it means.. for instance.. God created the Earth in 7 man days about 6000 years ago (although that conflicts with carbon dating completely). She also believes that the imagery John wrote about in Revelations will literally occur. This just makes no sense to me. God spoke through dreams and visions to people.. such as Daniel. These prophetic visions were to be interputed, not taken as is.

Answer 1

Interpretation is not only possible, it is absolutely necessary. The imagery of John's Revelation was never meant for some long distant future age, but was speaking about things which could be seen and interpreted in the world in which he wrote. While we can read about history in the Bible, we need to be very careful not to read the Bible as history. Too many things are displaced and only retold for their moral value, and many of the characters are archetypical rather than historical. Daniel is not found among the prophets in the Hebrew Bible but in the writings because it was written in the time of the Maccabees to counteract the rulers of that time. Genesis was added to the Bible AFTER the Babylonian exile and contains numerous myths which were harmonised to the covenantal view of Israel to support, expand on, and explain the Law of Moses. It is nothing less than sinful idolatry to read this as science, missing entirely the point of its inclusion.

[I think Kate, JosiahB and soul shine are pretty well "on the money" read their answers carefully.]

[Dusty Scribe knows nothing about hermeneutics.]

Answer 2

Is the Bible the "pillar of truth" in the Christian religion? No. According to the Bible Itself, the Church is the "pillar of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), not the Bible. Some "Bible" Christians insist that a "pillar" (the Church) was created to "hold up" another structure (the Bible). They claim the Bible is the structure being held up according to this passage. Well, if that is the case, how did the early Church "hold up" the Bible for the first three to four hundred years when the Bible Itself didn't even exist? Also, even if the Church is only a "pillar" holding up the Bible, doesn't that mean that the Church is the interpreter of Scripture rather than the individual?

Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, No (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals' "different" interpretations of the Bible.

Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "truth" (i.e., the correct interpretation of the Bible)? For that matter, aren't ALL non-Catholic Christians as individuals claiming "infallibility" when it comes to interpreting the Bible? Catholics only believe in the infallibility of the Papacy as an office. Which is more believable - one office holding infallibility or 400 million non-Catholic Christians who can't agree on the interpretation of Scripture all claiming "infallibility?"

Answer 3

The Scripture was never meant to be taken outside of the context of the Church. If you consider history logically, the Church was around and growing and preaching before the New Testament Canon of Scripture was even in place. It is actually the Church which had the authority to decide what is Scripture and what is not. From this point of reference, then, it is then the Church which has authority over the Scriptures and therefore it also has authority over their interpretation. Interestingly enough, the Church used the doctrine it already had to determine what was Scriptural, thus the understanding of the Christian Faith existed before the Scriptures were universally accepted and established, and it was this understanding that determined what would be Scripture. This one historical event shows that the Scriptures did not determine Christian dogma, but rather it was Christian dogma which determined the Scriptures. The understanding used by the Church to determine which Scriptures were acceptable as Scripture is given in the Nicene-Constantinopalean Creed, which was fully completed in 381. From this point of view, it is not a question of whether the Scriptures are to be interpreted or taken literally, but a question of which interpretation of the Scriptures do you follow? The Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, 7th Day Adventist, Pentecostal, Eastern Orthodox, or are you your own authority in this matter, deciding the meaning of the Scripture based on your own assumptions and dogmas? The best way to figure this out is to look at history and see who hasn't changed their doctrine. I suggest starting with the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox Churches, as they are, admittedly, the oldest Churches in existence today.

Answer 4

When I was much younger I had many questions like this to deal with. The question of death and a seven day creation, followed by a 6,000 year history, did not seem right to me; even if one did not consider ideas of evolution.

Still I retained a belief that the Bible was somehow speaking essential truths about life, my own nature and how "things are put together." It seemed apparent that many of these conflicts would never be worked out in my life time.

At this point I did something that has proved very wise. I set aside all the arguments, took what seemed a help or a good rule of thumb for living; and moved on. I put all conflicts in a pending file. I continued to 'argue' these things with atheistic friends; and even get into more than a few debates with Bible thumpers.

Slowly I collected information and opinions. I moved on with education and work; moved into Eastern religions, continued to track my interests in science, and got whole hog into the daily concerns of life. I think the only thing of worth I held from my religious past was a feeling. A feeling that there was a spark of divinity in Jesus Christ that transcended any man who ever lived.

The upshot over many years is that seeming conflicts have resolved themselves. I still hold the same position but my pending file is much smaller. Not once has the Bible proved to be wrong thus far. Consider this about your three questions.

Of 6,000 years: There is nothing in the Bible which says the earth was created 6,000 years ago. The whole idea came from a bishop; who put estimated ages to the geneologies in the Bible and came up with 6,000 years. If you believe that you believe a dead Anglican Bishop and teach that the Bible says something that hit does not say.

What Ussher (the dead bishop) shows, if correct, is that there are 6,000 years to Adam and not to the beginning of creation. Even going with his brain child you must add another seven days! Right? Now were at 6007 years!

Now comes the question how long is a day?. Is it 24 hours, is it sunrise to sunset, is it 1,000 years as a "day with the Lord." A total misquote and misconception by the way. But let's use it. We trade in our seven days for 7,000 years and now we got 13,000 years!! Well, we are going in the right direction at least. But we are still quibbling over something that is not said.

Now consider this. There are two creations in Genesis and both are true. Now the question is: Are Ussher's figures being considered in light of both events?

Here is enough for your answer. Much of the missing time of creation is between verse one and verse two of Genesis. All things are created spiritually then manifest physically.

The seven days is the "show time" or manifesting time. You go to a movie or stage play. You see a story set forth in several acts and scenes. Before that event, weeks of planning and months of work took place. But once "down on paper or in the can" it doesn't take long to show.

God is a gardner or botanist first, last and always. That little tidbit (secret) even explains the nature of time. Bottom line the Bible is not open to any private interpretation, as it says. The Bible interprets itself based on revelation.

Swearing by the Bible and knowing what the Bible swears to are very different things. It is between you and the word and not between you and anybody else on earth; not even you and your girl friend.

As to Revelation, it relates to events going on from before time until the end of time; and in much detail from 2,000 years ago until now. It shows and predicts literal events we see in the news every day; if you have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

Answer 5

The Bible is a small library of books. Different authors, different subjects, different ideals. JosiahB and Father Al are correct. The church was around long before the Nicene Creed and the Vulgate. The text is man's way of communicating the word of God to each other. Mary's gospel, from the woman who actually witnessed the Resurrection, has been tossed aside and her reputation blackened by the wants of men.

Answer 6

The bible is authentic. it rather is the inspired observe of God, in spite of the fact that it is going to be interpreted. The bible is to not be worshiped. the fabulous thank you to interpret passages has been revealed contained in the direction of the Holy Spirit. some passages are figurative, yet some are fairly meant to be taken actually. i replaced into as quickly as analyzing Judges. I executed the e book and felt an inner voice say, "And those issues got here approximately". I knew it replaced into God speaking to me; letting me recognize that the activities recorded have been historic certainty. i've got faith that Jesus will come back as defined contained in the gospels and Revelation.

Answer 7

I believe the bible has very real and even living wisdom for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear.

There are many aspects to it that may not be applicable to every one any or all of the time.

The Bible is a profound compilation or blueprint for earth life and can be considered a manual.

I believe the subtleties of the way it is written to be of great importance.

I read it literally at some points and metaphorically too.

For example I believe that the main message is love, and that every style of person and personality, temptation, lesson etc. is present in the bible....even going so far as to see that parts of the new testament are very legalistic in nature and biased by the writers spiritual growth level.....a lesson in and of it's self if you care to go there...

So I do not take the bible literally most of the time....culturally it is extremely out dated and in our culture is completely out of context when taken literally......for example the bible says women should be silent in church. Now days they are and should have a voice, however it is different now than back in the day because the women used to have to sit in the balconies and were advised not to yell out or down to their husbands during service.

There are MANY instances of this sort of thing and one would be ignorant not to take them into account.

Your wife's heart may be true if not simply naive.

Also there are sacred spiritual teachings in many religious books....it's all in how you look at it.

be gentle with her.

Answer 8

The Bible is a guide to help you grow spiritually. It shouldn't be interpreted litterally.

Unfortunately, religious leaders loving power, they do everything they can to make people believe it word for word, to ensure the blind-loyalty of their followers.

Your wife has probably been brainwashed over the years of worship and lack scientific education. There's little you can do, unless you send her back to high school and force her to re-learn physics, chemistry, biology and the history of religion. You could have her study astrophysics to give her a better view of space-time plus make her realise how old the universe really is. Reading DaVinci Code would probably be too traumatic, so I don't recommend reading that.

Overall, we all live in our little bubbles. The only one who can pop it and get her out of that little Bible-fantasy world she's in is herself.

Answer 9

As a Christian Preacher I take the Bible literally.
As far as your remarks concerning the creation story there is a thing called the Gap Theory which states there may be many years between verses 1 and 2.
Also consider that the Bible IS NOT the history of the world but rather God's attempts to offer reconciliation between man and God.

Answer 10

the Bible is literature - not all of it is literal, not all of it is poetic, not all of it are parables -
how does your girlfriend read the Psalms - they are not literal they are musical but have a real point and real truth
you cant just say I read it literally or not - you need to study it and learn the type of writting that is being used and then you can get the real meaning behind what is being said
there is truth in all the Bible but it is not all literal