Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?

CatholicExchange.com ^ | April 17, 2007 | Mary Harwell Sayler

[Salvation]

Mary Harwell Sayler	Other Articles by Mary Harwell Sayler Printer Friendly Version
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?

---

April 17, 2007

Question: I started going to a Bible study in our parish and usually enjoy it but am thinking about dropping out. Several people in our group said we should never take the Bible literally, but what's the point of reading the Bible if it doesn't mean what it says?

Discussion: The Bible does mean what it says. However, God's ways can be so mysterious that people do not always understand what's said or why, especially on first reading. Some may write off the whole Bible as being merely symbolic or allegorical, while others take every word as the kind of literal truth you get when you say something like, "The fire is hot." Symbolically, that same fire represents the power, warmth, and enthusiastic fervor poured into Christians by the Holy Spirit. You can approach the flame literally or figuratively, but either way, the fire is "true." 

As the living word of God, the Bible is also true to itself and the spiritual truths expressed in a variety of tones, formats, and literary styles. Many themes and purposes arise in its pages, but the overall goal shows the salvation and redemption of man by the Almighty God, beginning in Genesis and going all the way through the final Amen in Revelation. So as you study the Bible, don't worry about whether you should take the words literally or figuratively. Just take them. Read them. Study them, and get to know what the Biblical record shows about the ongoing relationship between human beings and the God of love.

You might also take another tack in your Bible study. For instance, try thinking of yourself as an investigator or a Christian reporter looking for the who, what, when, where, why, and how of your Judeo-Christian heritage and the life-giving truth of God's loving mercy and forgiveness. As you do this, consider:

the Who of God — i.e., the character and power of the One to Whom you speak;

the what of the conditions, circumstances, or context surrounding the larger spiritual truth that a book or chapter presents;

the when of the past, present, and future as well as the timelessness of eternity in which a Biblical truth or statement affects God's people, including you;

the where of the place and culture from which the text arises;

the why of the law recorded, the wisdom taught, or the prophecy spoken;

the how of the literal, figurative, or poetic words that the inspired writer utilized to tell a story and present a spiritual truth in the most effective way.

Generally speaking, the Who, what, when, where, and why of the Bible will express our Judeo-Christian background and beliefs, whereas the how has more to do with the means by which the Bible presents a spiritual truth. Unlike modern libraries that separate fiction from nonfiction and both genres from poetry, a single book of the Bible may contain an eclectic mix of Godly commands, historical events, poetic lines, and allegorical tales. Between genres, thin lines may overlap, but don't let them trip you up. For instance, if you read something that troubles you or that you don't understand, just do a little research by looking up the verse or passage in a reputable commentary. Better yet, see if the Catechism of the Catholic Church covers that specific topic. To ease the search, just look for a key word on a website that contains the complete Catechism.

Most importantly, begin and end each Bible study session or independent reading with prayer for God to guide the discussion and increase your understanding. Then trust that He will. The same Holy Spirit who scripted the story of God's love into the Holy Scriptures knows how to write His word into your spirit today.

 

© Copyright 2007 Catholic ExchangeMary Sayler has studied the Bible since early childhood and leads discussion groups in her local parish. In addition to being a poet, freelancer, and assignment writer for the religious markets, she works with other writers and poets through her website http://www.catholicpoetsandwriters.com/.

[kerryusama04]

Are you saying you have no self-discipline? I really doubt that??? Then who are you blaming?? Or are you blaming anyone at all??

I blame you and the other Catholics who keep trying to make this a thread about the Sabbath.

[pa mom]

bump

[MarkBsnr]

Clearly, you are an Idiot.

---

Jimmy Swaggart, shame on you. You weren’t supposed to leave your kennel until you were fully deloused.

Well, friend, as an idiot and a purveyor of genuine Christian doctrine, I would invite you to consider your words. Words do have meaning. And if you would blaspheme, then, it is incumbent on me to attempt loving correction of your error. If you would then continue that error beyond my abilities to instruct you, then upon your soul be your own works.

I take the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ seriously. It’s a shame that you don’t.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.

[D Rider]

Words do have meaning.

I could not agree more.

The Catholic Church produced the Bible. The Bible didn’t produce the Catholic Church. It is a document of and by the Church.

Are you stating the Septuigent (3rd century BC) was created by Catholics? Why don't you explain yourself and/or show us your proofs. Because on the face of it, that is just a plain stupid statement.

[MarkBsnr]

And, of course, in the interests of online forum discussions, you are absolutely correct.

If, hypothetically, a knuckle-dragger and mouth breather, bereft of both intelligence and education were to label such as myself an ‘idiot’, then that label might be so laughable so as to cause merriment rather than annoyance. In that case, I would absolutely agree as to the reminder to avoid the personal, and keep it to the general.

[MarkBsnr]

Is this a demand from one of the churches of men?

Or is this a demand from an individual bereft from even a church?

Regardless; we of the Church of Christ will attempt our best to convince even through layers of solid bone.

[Enosh]

[annalex]

Are you stating the Septuigent (3rd century BC) was created by Catholics?

I am sure he is not. The Old Testament was obviously a product of inspired Hebrew writers. The Holy Scripture in its entirety, however, is a part of the revelation received by the Catholic Church; Catholic men wrote the books of the New Testament and the Christian Canon was determined by the fathers of the Catholic Church, as well as the Christian creeds, the liturgy, and the theology.

Of course, the same can be said of the Orthodox Church, and in some part of the pre-Chalcedon Churches of the East, as the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were one and the same through that formative period, and the pre-Chalcedon Churches for the substantial part of it.

[D Rider]

If, hypothetically, a knuckle-dragger and mouth breather, bereft of both intelligence and education were to label such as myself an ‘idiot’, then that label might be so laughable so as to cause merriment rather than annoyance. In that case, I would absolutely agree as to the reminder to avoid the personal, and keep it to the general.

While I strongly disagree with your contention that Catholicism is the one and only true church, I do enjoy your prose.

[annalex]

Flag to the above.

[MarkBsnr]

Very nicely put.

I don’t differentiate between those that label themselves Orthodox and Roman. They’re all part of the Catholic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. They come from the Source of All.

They aren’t man made.

[Diego1618]

And, of course, the Resurrection itself is Scriptural ground enough to keep the first day of the week holy.

You will not be able to find one scripture reference indicating the resurrection occurred on a Sunday morning. You will find the tomb empty.....but the resurrection itself took place on the Sabbath.

[MarkBsnr]

The sincere appreciation of oratory skills does tend to raise one above the level of the duckweed in the pond.

However, there is a distinct difference between understanding and imitation.

[D Rider]

Are you stating the Septuigent (3rd century BC) was created by Catholics?

    I am sure he is not.

But how are we to Know? As he said words have meaning. ; )

Catholic men wrote the books of the New Testament and the Christian Canon was determined by the fathers of the Catholic Church, as well as the Christian creeds, the liturgy, and the theology.

This was before the Catholic Church existed, and the eastern church has as much a right to the same claim, such as it is.

This history of the papacy is dark and disgusting. ( Including two popes murdered by jealous husbands when caught in the act of sex...etc) Any claim of Apostolic succession has been clearly broken, assuming it ever existed at all.

[D Rider]

The sincere appreciation of oratory skills does tend to raise one above the level of the duckweed in the pond.

However, there is a distinct difference between understanding and imitation.

I am sorry, I didn't hear you. I was commenting that you are fun to read. You would probably make your point more clearly if you did not try so hard.

[MarkBsnr]

The Orthodox and the Roman Church are one.

Next.

The Apostolic Succession is clear and unbroken.

Next.

One wonders if this is the frontal assault on the Church by elements of either the uninformed or the inebriates, or if it is a feint and the real attack will happen at some point in the distant future after the elevation of the entirely apostate to Congress.

[annalex]

It is right that the Orthodox have the same claim, and I explained that in the post you are responding to.

The Catholic Church, one and the same at the time with the Orthodox Church, existed since the Pentecost AD 33. The word "catholic" was first used by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans: "wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" in 1c or at the latest early 2c.

Yes, we had pretty bad popes from time to time. This does not break the apostolic succession though because it cannot.

[D Rider]

Yes, we had pretty bad popes from time to time. This does not break the apostolic succession though because it cannot.

Pretty bad Popes does not cut it. You had centuries of Whore mongers and Murderers. And the Papacy was bought and sold by the leading families in Europe. But anyway, lets get back to my point. Where are the proofs that the Apostles and authors of the new testiment were Catholic?