If the Bible is to be taken 100% literally, which literal interpretation is right? I know plenty of people with different, literal interpretations of the Good Book...so which one is right? I'm just wondering...not poking fun...
2007-10-13 14:24:20 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
What I mean by "literal interpretation" is the different versions of your book...that's what. Which one is "right?" King James Version, or which one? And if they are all right, then which is right then?
2007-10-13 15:26:51 · update #1
To Are u Randy?- I welcomed atheists because they seem to know the Bible better than most Christians I know...so I thought that they might have a better understanding of it...also, it's not right to forbid others to answer a question...everybody should have the chance for the 2 pts. not just Christians
2007-10-13 16:13:39 · update #2
I'm glad you asked this. I tried for years to find a way to make a literal interpretation work. But I failed because of the contradictions and sequences of some things.
The closest I came was to plug in "the ground of being" or "being-itself" (Paul Tillich's definition of God) or "the universe" (pantheism) in for "God" everywhere in the Bible. Some things made sense following this, like how God could be loving and vengeful. But other things were impossible to reconcile, like who really was the first to see Jesus after he had risen? There are three stories that can't all be true.
So, there is no literal interpretation that is flawless.
2007-10-13 14:37:03 · answer #1 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I just watched Melvyn Bragg's 'The Adventure in English'.
Bible had a lot to do with the English language and how it evolved.
From memory the King James Version of the bible was arrived at by using at least three other English translations that came in the 200+ years before it.
John Wycliffe was the first Englishman to hand-write an English bible in 1380.
The KJV wasn't written till the early 1600s
There are so many versions of the bible; most people have a preference for only one version whilst suggesting all other versions are in error some way ... generally cos they've been programmed to think so.
It sure isn't cos they went back to the original texts to see what the authors really, really meant.
Paul did a really, really good sell job of the Jesus myth, didn't he?
.
2007-10-13 15:09:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To start with, what do you mean by a " literal interpretation" ? To really understand the "Bible", one has to do research of the Word of God. By research, one has to go back to the unbiased translations ( the literal word for word translation) from the Greek and Hebrew, ( what we have available mostly are versions, ie: King James Version, International Standard Version, etc.). One also must do a comparison of the languages as spoken and written when the parchments were written, along with the customs and culture of the people during those times. Once a person has done this, then and only then will he have the true Word of God and gain understanding.
2007-10-13 14:41:22 · answer #3 · answered by blue_dolphin809702001 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Ok, so I know a little bit about this and I would have to say, now this right here is just logic I'm sure you will agree with:
The oldest one because it is closest to the source of when it was written.
I was at a church bible study recently and the pastor running it was saying how we found these scrolls and compared them to our oldest texts and they were the same, and I said, "but were they the same as our knewest texts?"
There is a little confusion as to which is in fact the oldest text, especially for the New Testement, even though the old Testement is debateable too.
Alot of people say Hebrew all the way, but then some say GREEK!
personally I would go for greek.
But I think no matter which we use (they were both the same thing, different language)
we need to go back to the absolute oldest we have and make sure we are teaching the same thing!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anybody else know about languages?
then you will agree, alot of words don't have exact meaning to translate to in English so theres a little interperatation, but we should refer to the context.
2007-10-16 05:04:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, as another person here said, they are Christians and as far as I know, Christians loooove love. Therefore, they marry allot more often. Then they decide "Yo', this woman has homosexual tendencies" or something along the lines of that, argue about the Bible (okay, I'm just using examples, but it's sadly true that "Christians" HATE allot of people for some things different to what they think, similar to the Ned), then they get divorced. Main thing is : More marriage, more divorce. Also, there are allot of people out there who really just claim to be loving Christians when really, they hate allot of things. Y'know, the "Christians" who go around preaching where it's not welcome, or who hate homosexuals/other religions/anything different from them. They are not Christians, I know that even tho' I'm not a Christian myself. So I think you should really have Christians in quotation marks or something like that xD
2016-05-22 07:26:20 · answer #5 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe anyone holds the franchise on the literal interpretation of the Bible. Scripture belongs to everyone and we can each interpret it as we ourselves understand it.
Personally I think the Bible had it's day long ago and people should move on and join the rest of us in the 21st century now, stop hanging back.
2007-10-13 14:30:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
None, to take it literaly would mean that you believe the Earth is flat that Moses actualy parted the Red sea and the Earth is 6900 years old. It is a book, written by mortal humans over a long period of time and whose writings were subject to the prejuduces, attitudes, thoughts and ignorance and the their cultural conditions as well as the knowledge of the writers.
2007-10-13 15:44:54 · answer #7 · answered by chinavagabond94122 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At its heart, the Bible is a very spiritual book meant to be spiritually discerned by men and women filled with the Holy Spirit of GOD.
By design - any dry legalistic literal interpretation will fail. GOD wants us to worship HIM in spirit and in truth.
2007-10-13 14:32:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Who said it was to be taken 100% literally? I know many many Christians and not one of them believe that.
Yes, it is inspired by God. It is the Word of God. It is to be trusted, studied, obeyed - but the bible has poetry, hyperbole, symbolism, dream-like visions, parables... Every Christian understands that it should and cannot be taken "100% literally".
100% inspired -yes! NOT 100% to be taken literally.
god bless
2007-10-13 14:41:56 · answer #9 · answered by happy pilgrim 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
From a historical point of view, all the major versions (like the KJV) deviate from the what the *first* Christians taught.
2007-10-13 14:34:55 · answer #10 · answered by Stedway 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋