Should the Bible be interpreted literally?

Self | June 25, 2003 | Gargantua

[Gargantua]

A question has arisen among FReeper believers, and deserves a thread on which to air beliefs.

Is it right to take, for instance, the New Testament books of John, Luke and Mark as literal history, but then to interpret the Old Testament books, Like Genesis or Job as being merely symbolic?

I believe in the perfect, complete, inherent and inerrant literal truth of all the books of the Bible, both Old and New Testament.

Also, does believing literally in the New Testament but perceiving the Old Testament as "symbolism" disqualify one from Salvation according to the Bible?

I am a born again, evangelical Baptist from New England.

[Gargantua]

May our discussion here be fruitful and Spirit-led. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen.

[atlaw]

Hey Gargantua. I sent a message to TonyRo76 that this thread was up to carry forward our digression in the origins thread. Hope we get some good posts.

I'm going to be in and out today, so my posting will probably be kind of sporadic, but I'll try to keep up. I like the way you set this thread up, by the way -- nice introduction.

[LiteKeeper]

Please read The Doctrine of Scripture

[Gargantua]

According to the Bible, once one is saved by sincerely inviting Christ into his or her heart, salvation is assured. God is very jealous of all His children, and truly desires than none should die eternal death.

Whether we accept his "olive branch"... Jesus... is up to us, but once we make that choice, we belong to God.

It is possible, once saved, to continue to sin without repenting to the point where God will take our earthly life (to prevent us from corrupting the rest of the Church {those who believe in the salvation found in Christ's blood}), but we continue to be saved from eternal death even then.

To claim that the threat of hell is an invention of the church to "control" the masses is a claim which falls apart very quickly when we admit that this threat never stopped anyone from sinning, even devout Christians.

We all continue to sin despite the threat of hell, and that threat never has nor never will deter a man from lust or greed or anger or hatred, from jealousy or covetousness or sloth or gluttony. This is why we continue to need Jesus' blood to wash us that we may stand before God clothed in Christ's righteousness... for we have none on our own without Jesus.

So, even if hell were an invetion of the church intended to "control" the populace, it never worked and would have been a comlete failure as an ineffective ploy.

The Truth, however, (as the Bible makes clear) is that there is a heaven, there is a hell, there is a God and there is a Satan. These are not merely naively held superstitions, they are parts of a reality which transcends what we can see and/or prove as mere human beings. Which is where faith comes in:

For it is by Faith alone that one is saved; faith in God's Son Jesus, and faith in God's promise of Salvation through Christ as found in the Bible.

[Gargantua]

Unless I know them personally, I tend to shy away from other people's interpretations and explanations of scripture, as I generally prefer to receive such straight from either the Bible, or from those whom I know to be able to offer wise counsel.

BUT... this link is exceptional, and I'm very glad; both that you posted it, and that I read it. Thank you, and God bless you.

[LiteKeeper]

Additional articles by the same person

Page of links on Bible

[atlaw]

I fully agree that sin is an inevitability even with the threat of hell. But it cannot be denied that the threat itself is a powerful tool in coercing parishioner compliance and, upon the occurence of the inevitable sin, bringing the sinner back to the flock.

I am not arguing (which perhaps has been unclear) that hell as a first principal does not exist. The Biblical references to hell cannot be revised out of existence. (See, e.g., Matthew 25:41, 46, speaking unambiguously about "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" and "eternal punishment".)

The issue is perhaps better phrased as "what is the nature of hell" rather than "is there a hell." The nature of hell, in short, should not contradict what we otherwise know about the scope of forgiveness inherent in the teachings of Jesus. It is the nature of hell that, it seems to me, has been the subject of polictical manipulation (not to mention non-biblical literary manipulation).

The Christian approach to hell has taken many paths, including the concepts of annihilation, variations on the idea of purgatory (including an interesting one posed by C.S. Lewis), and hell as a non-spatial form of separation from God.

Augustine posited hell as a lake of fire in the literal sense, where there is a physical form for the soul that permits eternal physical punishment. The contradiction here with the actions of Jesus as both a moral and physical salve for the sinner are apparent. What Augustine posits is plainly sadistic, and therefore not easily reconciled.

I am curious what others think about the nature of hell, and what they base their conclusions upon.

[The_Reader_David]

As an Orthodox Christian I regard the very notion that one can believe a text literally (yes even the Holy Scriptures) as a denial of the whole problem of textual interpretation. Texts have meanings in the context of communities which use them. In the case of the Holy Scriptures, the Church is that community.

It is thus instructive to see how the early Fathers of the Church, who had the added advantage of speaking and writing in Greek, viewed the Scriptures. While the Gospels are plainly understood to be histories of Christ's earthly ministry and the Acts to be a history of the early days of the Church (and even here what does 'literal' mean? Like all histories with multiple sources, the Gospels appear at places to disagree about small details.), nonetheless, the Father did not take all of the Scriptures as 'literally true'. Taking as an example the first chapters of Genesis, St. Basil the Great wrote "It matters not whether you say 'day' or 'aeon' the thought is the same," while the other great Cappadocian, St. Gregory of Nyssa described the first two chapters of Genesis as "doctrines in the guise of a narrative."

As an Orthodox, of course, I regard the Church as present in the world today to be that which is commonly called the Eastern Orthodox Church. Nonetheless, I think the principle that a community determines the meaning of its texts applies operationally even to those sects which follow what they regard as the "literal meaning" of the Bible, since that 'literal meaning' is really determined by the common consent of their leaders and/or members. (Of course, I regard such sects as having appropriated our Scriptures.)

[Reagan79]

New Testament and Evangelical scholar Ben Witherington III always says, "a text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean."

It is most valuable to understand the historical Judean context in interpreting scripture. Some scripture is not meant to be interpreted literally. The majority of passages are however clearly meant to be read literally. I don't think just because a portion of scripture is not meant for literal interpretation (at least the way we contempraries understand it) that it is not fully inspired, it just serves a deeper (beyond surface level) purpose.

Unless of course you read the King James Red Letter...haha : )

[SoothingDave]

Is it right to take, for instance, the New Testament books of John, Luke and Mark as literal history, but then to interpret the Old Testament books, Like Genesis or Job as being merely symbolic?

The question you need to answer is "are all of the books of the Bible intended to be 'literal history'?"

If they are, then by all means read them as such. If they are not, then do not.

SD

[Gargantua]

"Augustine posited hell as a lake of fire in the literal sense, where there is a physical form for the soul that permits eternal physical punishment. The contradiction here with the actions of Jesus as both a moral and physical salve for the sinner are apparent."

Augustine was not alone. Jesus (for it was He who revealed to John the book of Revelation) in the book of Revelation also refers to Hell as a "lake of fire and brimstone" where "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Revelation 20: 10,13-15

It is inappropriate in the extreme to deign to contradict the explicit Word of God. If God says that hell is a lake of fire where all the unsaved in Christ will be tortured forever (and He clearly does)...

...and regardless of how personally distasteful or "unfair" you may find this, it is nontheless God's own Truth. And anyone who attempts to change one word of this..., well, I refer you to Revelation 22:18,19. 'Nuff said.

[Gargantua]

"The question you need to answer is "are all of the books of the Bible intended to be 'literal history'?"

I needn't answer any such question. If you would like to pose such a question, please do..., that's what this thread is all about. God Himself answers all such questions, and we have His Word on it.

I refer, of course, to the Holy Bible. :-)

[SoothingDave]

Jesus (for it was He who revealed to John the book of Revelation) in the book of Revelation also refers to Hell as a "lake of fire and brimstone" where "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Revelation 20: 10,13-15 It is inappropriate in the extreme to deign to contradict the explicit Word of God. If God says that hell is a lake of fire where all the unsaved in Christ will be tortured forever (and He clearly does)... ...and regardless of how personally distasteful or "unfair" you may find this, it is nontheless God's own Truth.

The idea that Revelation might just be using figurative language is not on your radarscope, huh?

John is describing visions that he is seeing and these, to most readers, have some meaning beyond the barest literal meaning.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I needn't answer any such question.

Then I am puzzled as to why you started this thread. If you have no need to examine your pre-conceptions, what is the point?

If you would like to pose such a question, please do..., that's what this thread is all about. God Himself answers all such questions, and we have His Word on it.

Where in His Word does He say that every one of the books within is literal history?

SD

[Gargantua]

"But it cannot be denied that the threat itself is a powerful tool in coercing parishioner compliance and, upon the occurence of the inevitable sin, bringing the sinner back to the flock."

I do deny it. The threat of hell never stopped anyone from sinning.

More to the point, neither is it the "threat of hell" which redeems one to God, or returns the sinner to the flock. Anyone who claims Jesus only because they fear hell is lost to hell. Fear of hell will delay neither sin nor sin's consequences.

If you, in your heart, truly love God and need Jesus as your Lord, then you are saved. Fear of hell is something which anyone with a brain should understand, but that fear saves nobody, nor does it guide their actions.

;-/

[RightWhale]

Is it right to take, for instance, the New Testament books of John, Luke and Mark as literal history

To a degree they are historical, but the style is allegorical. It's not the events that are so important, but the meaning of the events, the story. Every event was given meaning, and that's what we need to study: the meanings. So, we might consider the OT and the NT to be equally historical, but also filled with metaphor. The whole can be taken literally, although some things are a little difficult to picture on the material earth. Or the whole can be taken as symbolic. You can do both.

[Gargantua]

"Then I am puzzled as to why you started this thread. If you have no need to examine your pre-conceptions, what is the point?"

First, we should all examine our pre-conceptions... myself included. However, I began this thread at the suggestion of other FReepers who felt we should have a thread on which these very topics could appropriately be discussed.

"Where in His Word does He say that every one of the books within is literal history?"

Given that the Book of Revelation is the last chapter in what is generally accepted by believers to be a book completely inspired by God as an entire, single work, I refer you to Revelation 22:18,19... where all are warned not to alter (add or take away) one word in this book, or suffer the consequences.

It is here where God thus instructs.

[Gamecock]

Great Question!

The way I see it, we must read the Bible in the context in which it is written. First and Foremost, the Word of our God. Inside of the Bible we have Prophecy, History, Wisdom, Poetry, etc. Each is to be taken in that context.

Now, the literal part. It is all literal in it's context. Christ clearly took the OT as literal, so will I. Once a person/denomination starts down the slippery slope of explaining away certain passeages, others fall like dominos Just look at the Presbyterian Church, USA, the United Methodists, and their journey down that slope.

Just my 0.02 cents