Why bible shouldn't be taken literally

[gonkm]

I'm putting this in the discussion section because I'm more interested in why people agree that not everything, but some things in the bible should be taken literally. I'm not interested in a debate so much as reasons some may agree with this. If you don't believe in the bible at all, you should probably debate this in the debate area, and same goes if you claim to take it *all* literally.

thanks.

[jerickson314]

I'm putting this in the discussion section because I'm more interested in why people agree that not everything, but some things in the bible should be taken literally. I'm not interested in a debate so much as reasons some may agree with this. If you don't believe in the bible at all, you should probably debate this in the debate area, and same goes if you claim to take it *all* literally.

thanks.

For the same reason I take only some of the things in my English textbook literally. I take the biography of John Donne literally. I take his poems that follow figuratively.

Context can yield similar inferences for the Bible. Swords coming out of people's mouths are probably figurative. Lists of detailed measurements regarding the temple are probably literal.

[Forge]

There was a saying... I forgot who made it.

"A text taken out of context is a pretext for a prooftext."

Meaning, if you muddle the text and it's context (Jesus stories as parables, Genesis as de facto literal, Moses as a myth, etc.) you'll end up with really, really weird messages.

Geez, Infalliable != Literal

[gonkm]

I'm putting this in the discussion section because I'm more interested in why people agree that not everything, but some things in the bible should be taken literally. I'm not interested in a debate so much as reasons some may agree with this. If you don't believe in the bible at all, you should probably debate this in the debate area, and same goes if you claim to take it *all* literally.

thanks.

For the same reason I take only some of the things in my English textbook literally. I take the biography of John Donne literally. I take his poems that follow figuratively.

Context can yield similar inferences for the Bible. Swords coming out of people's mouths are probably figurative. Lists of detailed measurements regarding the temple are probably literal.

What about things that are cultural? It seems like some ignore the statements about women wearing head coverings, yet insist that women should never teach (some argue never in any case, some only in assembly, others only when it comes to church "doctrine", others only when it comes to adults, others only when it comes to adult males. Never mind that Paul gave instructions for how a woman should prophecy, which usually includes teaching. Never mind that there were women deacons at the time, which placed them in authority over men. Never mind people like Deborah in the old testiment who spoke God's Word to the people and led them, or that Jesus entrusted many of his messages to women to teach to others.). None of these reflects our culture today any more than "slaves obey your masters". And what about the statement "women shall be saved through childbearing"? I didn't think anyone thought about that until I met some literalists who insist on it. I guess those of us who are unmarried had better find ourselves a man to hop in bed with fast or we might miss out.

[author@ptgbook.org]

I take what the Bible says at face value. When a figure of speech is used, it is obvious, otherwise I take it literally. You can tell when the Bible is speaking figuratively because it uses an obvious figure of speech or it wouldn't make sense and be consistent with the rest of the Bible if it were literal. The same is true when we talk to each other. If you tell me you have a frog in your throat or that it is raining cats and dogs outside, I know you are speaking figuratively.

After God brought Israel out of Egypt, He told them "‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4). This is obviously a metaphor because the previous passages describe how Israel walked out of Egypt in orderly ranks, and the Israelites would know that this was a metaphor. But the creation account in Genesis uses no well-known figures of speech and it does not contradict the rest of the Bible when taken literally, and I take it literally.

When I speak to someone, I don't use figures of speech to deceive or confuse someone. I only use a figure of speech if I know the person listening to me will know that it is a figure of speech. I believe God is the same way. If the six days of creation were metaphors, God would have made that clear within the Bible itself.