Christians - how do you justify taking some parts of the Bible literally and not others?

Answer 1

"We just pick and choose according to the occasion"

Answer 2

Which Christians are you speaking to? Liberals, moderates, or conservative, Protestant, or Catholic or Orthodox?

Fundamentalists tend to apply the "plan meaning rule", which basically says that the author obviously said what he meant, unless you have some sort of historical or archaeological or literary evidence that implies that perhaps the author was simply using an ancient figure of speech. So fundamentalists have no need to "justify" taking some parts of the Bible more literally than others, since they try to take the whole book as it is.

Since I am not a liberal Christian, I cannot explain why they decide which parts are literal, and which are not. Different liberals seem to have different ideas about how to interpret the bible.

Answer 3

Do you have examples?

I take everything the Bible says literally, but there are some stories in the Bible that are obviously just stories. They didn't actually happen in a historical sense.

From the Bible, I get many of my beliefs:
I do believe God created the universe.
I do believe the earth was flooded.
I do believe Sodom and Gomorrah (and many other cities) were destroyed.
I do believe that many men, including Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, David, and Solomon were used mightily by God.
I do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin.
I do believe that Jesus performed every miracle (and more) written about in the gospels.
I do believe that Jesus was crucified, and raised from the dead.
I do believe that Paul saw Jesus on the way to Damascus.
I do believe that the disciples spread the Good News throughout the known world.
I do believe that Jesus is coming again someday to judge the living and the dead.

Answer 4

There are degrees to which parts of the Bible can be accepted as literal truth. The creation stories of Genesis are clearly myths that are not intended to be interpreted literally. In other words, they are not meant to be statements of scientific truth, but rather poetic imagery, a way of describing the indescribable: creation, the origin of mankind, and man's relationship with the Creator.

Other parts of the Bible are more historical, or at least they relate events that are closer to us in time. Some biblical history has been called into question, so even these so-called historical accounts must be taken with a grain of salt.

We must remember that the concepts of history have changed over time. Luke's Gospel, for instance, begins very much as a Greek account of history would have in his day, naming the various rulers of Rome, Palestine and Judea, and thus situating the story of Jesus in time and place.

However, the writers of the Bible did not share our concept of historical research with primary and secondary sources, and the notion of weighing facts and correcting for bias.

Ultimately, we should not seek literal truth in the Bible, but rather philosophical, moral, ethical, and religious truth -- which is no less true in its own way than scientific fact.

Answer 5

Because some things in the Bible are meant to be taken figuratively. Read the Book of Daniel when Daniel interprets King Nebuchadnezzar's two dreams. Others things in the Bible are meant to be taken literally. God's commandements, creation in six days, Christ risen from the tomb, birth of a virgin, etc.

Answer 6

It depends on the context of what's being said. Some things are meant to be taken literally, and some things figuratively. Such as the woman, the baby and the dragon mentioned in Revelation. That's a figurative illustration for Israel, Jesus, Satan and the struggle of Satan trying to overcome Jesus, and then persecuting Israel. But the judgements described in the same book, Revelation, will be sent upon the world as wake-up calls. I could go further into it if you'd like to e-mail me. :)

Answer 7

I didn't intend to respond to this question, however one of the answers compelled me to answer.

whitehorse456: Jesus did not uphold all the teaching of the Torah. In fact, the religious leaders of the day, often accused him of heresy due to his errant and blatant display of NOT following the Torah completely. I realize that Christians are taught that Jesus upheld all the laws of the Torah... and that he, in fact, fulfilled all the law of Moses, however, he associated with those considered "unclean," he and his disciples ate without traditional cleansing rituals, and they walked from one city to another on the Sabbath

I know those examples seem silly to our society, however it was SERIOUS deviation from the traditional values of that time period.

Christians want to believe that Jesus was the perfect Hebrew, however he was not. Those who followed the Hebrew law to the "T" wanted Jesus dead.

It would be helpful if those who follow the life and ministry of Christ... and consider themselves to be working toward being like HIM, would at least be familiar with who and what he was and the things he did and said.

It is pathetic when people who call themselves "Christian" can quote more of what the Impostor Paul wrote than the words spoken by their alleged savior.

Dustin K. Lochart, Jr.

Answer 8

The most damaging way to interpret a biblical passage is to rip it from its context. Taking a passage literally and cutting it out of its natural "home" almost always leads to abusing the Scriptures. The late Father Raymond E. Brown, S.S., one of the greatest Catholic biblical scholars of the 20th century, used to say, "A biblical passage is only biblical when it is in the Bible." You can’t go wrong looking carefully at the context.

Granting the Bible spiritual authority does not mean rejecting or ignoring the impact of time and culture on its formation. The Bible came into existence over thousands of years through oral, written, edited and collected traditions.

Passages from the prophetic literature may be most vulnerable to abuse. Many Christians think of prophets as fortunetellers. They saw into the future, predicted what would happen, and it came to pass. Often fundamentalist preachers speak as if the prophets were only talking about the late 20th century. This is a sinister corruption of the authority of the Bible. What does such a position imply about preceding generations of Christians (and Jews!) who used God’s Word for spiritual enrichment?

1) The Bible is God’s word in human words. Calling the Bible God’s inspired text does not alter the human dimension of that word. Remember that culture, historical setting and means of expression all influenced how the Bible came to be and needs to be read.

2) Not every passage is equally applicable in every age. The Bible contains apparent contradictions (compare, for example, Isaiah 2:4 and Joel 3:10 which give opposite advice). God’s word in a given circumstance may not apply in exactly the same way at another time in history.

3) The literal meaning is not the only meaning. The meaning of any given biblical passage is multilayered. The literal meaning cannot legitimately be ignored or contradicted, but to get to the deeper spiritual meaning of some passages requires a more thorough understanding of the historical and cultural background.

4) There is no one foolproof method of biblical interpretation. Each passage must be handled on its own in its various contexts.

5) Your personal interpretation is not the interpretation. This is why Bible study is so important and why it is necessary to consult respected commentaries for guidance.

6) The Bible does not contain every detail for living an ethical life. Strict fundamentalists would disagree with this statement. But from a Catholic perspective, the Bible alone does not give us every detail of God’s revelation. Many modern ethical dilemmas (nuclear arms, genetic engineering, cloning, etc.) are not specifically addressed in the Bible, even if it contains basic principles from which we can deduce proper ethical directions. The Church, through its magisterial teaching, provides an authentic guide to discerning God’s will through the Bible.

7) The Bible concerns as much what happens in this life as what takes place in the next. Despite the popular urge to speculate about heaven and hell, angels and devils, end-of-the-world timetables and catastrophic events, these issues are treated in only a small percentage of the Bible.

8) Some biblical passages reflect an earlier moral perspective no longer acceptable. The acceptance of slavery or the total annihilation of an enemy, essentially genocide, is not part of our moral fabric today even if the Bible assumes or condones such practices in some passages. As the faith has grown, so has our moral perspective.

9) Nothing in the Bible justifies hatred of others. Even passages that speak of God’s destruction of Israel’s enemies (Joshua 8:24-29) or of condemnation for sinners (Jude 7) do not permit humans to act violently against one another. Nor can the Bible be used to justify the superiority of one race over another, such as some hate groups have asserted. Controversial passages, such as those on homosexuality (like Romans 1:27), also do not justify intolerance and persecution. Jesus’ command to judge not, lest we be judged (Matthew 7:1; cf. Romans 2:1-2), takes precedence over any such warped interpretation. In instances of true sinfulness, we are still called to hate the sin but love the sinner (Matthew 9:13; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:32).

10) Some parts of the Bible remain a mystery. Even for scholars, the wording of some passages is so ambiguous, or the background so obscure, that no one can be said to have the final word on interpretation. If a passage does not make sense to you, move on to an easier passage. We need to apply the sacred text faithfully to our own lives, but we must do so with careful attention to context, history and literary form. To use the Bible is admirable, to abuse it is to wield a weapon to achieve our own warped ends. There is a fine line between these two poles. With the Holy Spirit’s guidance and a willingness to expand our knowledge, we need not worry about which pole will be our guide.

Answer 9

I like to call this "adaptive reinterpretation" which I think you will agree has a nice ring to it.

It means that you select a literary device from a mental toolbox in order to tweak it to say what you want it to say. With very little or even no practice, this can be done completely transparently - like a skilled language interpreter - so that the adaptive reinterpreter no longer realises they are doing it.

Answer 10

Some parts are symbolic:
John 1:29-31
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”

Note: if you notice Jesus is reffered to as the Lamb of God, It doesn't mean literally that Jesus was a Lamb, He was the sacrifice to wash our sins away..

Some Parts are Literal and symbolic:
Matthew 19:19
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother, and 'love your neighbor as yourself.

Note: Love your neighbor as yourself not literal, it means basically treat people as you want to be treated.

Answer 11

Jesus did and so I figure if he can do it then so can we.
Can a rich man go through the eye of a needle? No it was a hyberpolie or like saying she was as big as a house to mean she was large.
You have to drink my blood and eat my flesh to go into the kingdom of God. Did they literally eat his body? NO
Any record of someone drinking his blood?
He was referring to his body as a sacrifice for our sins.
Then in other parts he said "we had to watch what we were thinking because that could lead to sin." Which is literal.