Quick question about literal bible interpretation...

[Redbeard]

Please, no debating, I HONESTLY do not know, I am not trying to spark debate, I am simply wondering if there is anything in the bible that states that it should be taken literally. Direct quotes would be INCREDIBLY helpful. Thanks in advance!

And please, no need for debate, just looking for quotes!

[Islander]

Please, no debating, I HONESTLY do not know, I am not trying to spark debate, I am simply wondering if there is anything in the bible that states that it should be taken literally. Direct quotes would be INCREDIBLY helpful. Thanks in advance!

And please, no need for debate, just looking for quotes!

Well, I guess you see now why there are so many denominations. Not only are we left with a translation of the original 3000 years after the fact (OT), but we are now, 600 years after the translation trying to make sense of the scriptures.

Context has everything to do with it. Nephi said:

"Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews." 2 Ne 25. In order to determine if a certain scripture is literal or not you must understand the context in which it occurred. That means history, geography, politics, natural history, social norms and the like.

"The people that walked in darkness have seen a great blight: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." Isa 9:2

Here the prophet is talking about something that could have dual meaning or it could be literal. The valley of of the shadow of death was the region north of Israel, the Galilee. There was a city named Megiddo and the region was constantly under attack from the Egyptian, the Ethiopian, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Philistines. It seats in teh crossroads of east and west thus its strategic value. They lived under constant threat and literally under the shadow of death. They were also in spiritual darkness and the Savior brought light to them. Now, which one will you pick. I suggest both since they are are not exclusive of each other.

That pretty much holds true for the rest of the scriptures. But, that is why we have prophets seers and revelators. They discern and share the word of God with us and provide counsel and guidance on a number of subjects.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Islander

[Traveler]

Please, no debating, I HONESTLY do not know, I am not trying to spark debate, I am simply wondering if there is anything in the bible that states that it should be taken literally. Direct quotes would be INCREDIBLY helpful. Thanks in advance!

And please, no need for debate, just looking for quotes!

Any Biblical scripture written in an ancient Hebrew poetic form should be understood to have deep symbolic meaning and often the form indicates multiple understanding. The Book of Isaiah is the most complex of all ancient Biblical text and thus the most difficult to understand in our time.

All of the Old Testament scriptures were maintained as variant scriptures during the time of Christ – we know this because of the Dead Sea Scriptures found by the Dead Sea. Only by understanding why there were versions of the scriptures can we understand the depth of the message. For example: the prophet Moses leading the children of Israel from Egypt to the promised land has symbolic meaning to believers leaving the things of the world and taking a journey to an eternal promised land (heaven).

Jesus in his teachings taught with parables for the very reason that his teaching were to reach beyond literal meaning. Thus we have the word of G-d being represented symbolically as a seed.

I for one think if someone read the scriptures for literal meaning – they do not have nor do they want a relationship with the G-d spoken of in the scriptures.

The Traveler

[beefche]

Please, no debating, I HONESTLY do not know, I am not trying to spark debate, I am simply wondering if there is anything in the bible that states that it should be taken literally. Direct quotes would be INCREDIBLY helpful. Thanks in advance!

And please, no need for debate, just looking for quotes!

One thing to keep in mind, when the bible was written, it wasn't compiled as we have it now. It was simply epistles and recordings placed together (sometimes). Furthermore, the Bible as we have it today, is not compiled into chronological order.

[Heavenguard]

The people of the day used a lot of imagery, poetry and other storytelling devices, as much was passed by word of mouth. It would have been understood by the people of the time that much was not meant to be taken literally without the author of any book/letter saying it specifically.

In order to read the Bible, you must take on the mindset or understanding of the audience of the time, and then learn how it applies now. The principles of the Bible are timeless, but the way in which the principles were conveyed are lost through time, translation, cross-cultural references, if read without that understanding.

[Snow]

Please, no debating, I HONESTLY do not know, I am not trying to spark debate, I am simply wondering if there is anything in the bible that states that it should be taken literally. Direct quotes would be INCREDIBLY helpful. Thanks in advance!

And please, no need for debate, just looking for quotes!

You'd need at least one quote from each author and nobody knows how many of them there were.

[abqfriend]

I am not LDS, but I have found that one's faith community-such as the LDS Church can be helpful in a person's understanding of Sacred Scripture/The Bible. I am a Roman Catholic, so my Church helps me understand Sacred Scripture. The leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can be helpful in instructing a member in understanding the Sacred Scriptures of your faith tradition.

Most faith traditions have publications by that faith tradition to instruct the members of the faith community.

So-when you have what you consider a difficult Biblical passage or a passage from The Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants-seek the guidance of the leadership of your faith community. There are many excellent resources that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints makes available to its members in helping the members live their faith to the fullest!

The people of the day used a lot of imagery, poetry and other storytelling devices, as much was passed by word of mouth. It would have been understood by the people of the time that much was not meant to be taken literally without the author of any book/letter saying it specifically.

In order to read the Bible, you must take on the mindset or understanding of the audience of the time, and then learn how it applies now. The principles of the Bible are timeless, but the way in which the principles were conveyed are lost through time, translation, cross-cultural references, if read without that understanding.

[Listener]

Having come through fellowship with those who seek a literal reading of the Bible, I can support everyone's comments.

Language and communication are such slippery things. What would appear to one person as the simplest and clearest of sentences is likely to be read completely differently by someone else. And that's just when we're on LDS.net!

I have a sneeking suspicion that this is why we need the Holy Spirit to lend a hand when reading Scripture, as well as earnest study, and a willingness to seek out wise teaching.

[Moksha]

I have heard that even ancient Rabbis viewed the Bible on different levels and not all parts of the Bible were meant to be taken seriously, let alone literally.

For instance, if one was to view the Genesis story as being literal, you would confine yourself to a magical view of the world that would by necessity need you to disavow a greater understanding of the creation provided by science.

My own view is that God wants us to view and understand his methodology through an understanding of science. Primitivistic stories suffice for primitive man, and yet we have moved far beyond that. I suspect God would applaud our efforts at trying to gain a mature understanding.

[Islander]

Having come through fellowship with those who seek a literal reading of the Bible, I can support everyone's comments.

Language and communication are such slippery things. What would appear to one person as the simplest and clearest of sentences is likely to be read completely differently by someone else. And that's just when we're on LDS.net!

I have a sneeking suspicion that this is why we need the Holy Spirit to lend a hand when reading Scripture, as well as earnest study, and a willingness to seek out wise teaching.

I second that view as well. We have the testimonies of the prophets and the apostles in regards tot he revealed word of God. We are then encouraged to find out for ourselves thru the Spirit and gain our own testimony of what God is revealing..

Before the Rabis, the prophets had no question in their minds about what the scriptures said. It is when the prophets are silent after the return from the Babylonian exile that even in Israel they begin to seek the help of angels, and recite incantations as in the midrashim.

I tend to disagree with Moksha above in one point. It was never the intent of God for his people to approach Him in "scientific" or academic way. That was never the case before de advent of the Rabinical schools of Judaism. It was precisely this approach that gave raise to the pharisaic and legalistic view of God. It elevated the Torah and the study of it to the point of worshiping the law instead fo the Law Giver. The Rabinic hedge added hundreds of commandments to the law of Moses.

Except Isaiah, who was a pretty well educated man and related to royalty by marriage, all other prophets were simple folk, including his father. I am not negating that we should not pursue inquiry of the physical world as a way to understand creation and the history of world and God. But it (academic or scientific models) should not be the the primary frame of reference thru which we hope to understand the word of God. I hope you understand my view point.

[Redbeard]

I totally forget I made this thread!

Thank you all for posting, your opinions were very helpfull!

[Moksha]

I totally forgot I made this thread!

Welcome to the world of senior moments!

[JustMiss]

Here is what I could gather up

This might help look at what Jesus said.

Luke 24:44-45, "Now He said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. "

Jesus speaks about what is written regarding him in the Old Testament. Then John the apostle writes that Jesus opened their mind to understand the Scriptures. What Scriptures? The Law (Moses), the Prophets, and the Psalms. This was a common designation for the Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus says that the written form of the Old Testament is Scripture.

Jesus never said the scriptures contain the word of God. He said they were the word of God. Therefore, we can see that the word of God is the written form of Scripture. In fact, we are told by Paul not to exceed what is written. Note, Paul doesn't say to not exceed the parts of the scripture that contain God's word, he says not to exceed what is written!

1 Cor. 4:6, "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."

It is the written form that is proclaimed as being Scripture, unbreakable, the word of God, and the standard of which we are not to exceed. This can only be true, if the written form is the Word of God, not just something that subjectively contains the word of God.

Also

2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

[abqfriend]

I am a Catholic-just to let you know and others my background on this post.

We do not today have the written Word of God as it was originally written. At best-we have copies and translations of what was written.

None of the NT Quotes refer to the NT, as the NT was not written down as the NT and codified or made into a canon of the New Testament till the Council of Nicea held in the 300's. At that point some writings that were considered as the Word of God by some Christians were thrown out or not included in what we now call The Bible. This decision was a council decision. Some of the so-called Gnostic Gospels, such as The Gospel of Thomas and others are examples of this-what was not included in what we now call The Bible NT.

The Word of God is indeed inspired by God and the OT passages that you refer to from the words of Jesus indeed point to Him. What is not understood or looked at differently by different denominations or faith traditions is if the Word of God is meant to be taken Word for Word-as in totally literal or in its meaning for us given in more general terms and being divinely inspired in matters of faith.

I personally-do not believe in a literal word-for-word interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

I believe that Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired in matters of my faith. I look to my Church for an interpretation and guidance of my understanding of the Word of God.

Language changes over time-and so do words and their meanings.

Many Churches and denominations have teaching authorities-our church it is called (The Teaching Magesterium). Another church may have prophets to help explain and further clarify for the followers of that faith tradition the meaning of Sacred Scripture and the underlying doctrines of their faith as well as provide new revelations on their faith.

-Carol

Here is what I could gather up

This might help look at what Jesus said.

Luke 24:44-45, "Now He said to them, 'These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.' 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. "

Jesus speaks about what is written regarding him in the Old Testament. Then John the apostle writes that Jesus opened their mind to understand the Scriptures. What Scriptures? The Law (Moses), the Prophets, and the Psalms. This was a common designation for the Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus says that the written form of the Old Testament is Scripture.

Jesus never said the scriptures contain the word of God. He said they were the word of God. Therefore, we can see that the word of God is the written form of Scripture. In fact, we are told by Paul not to exceed what is written. Note, Paul doesn't say to not exceed the parts of the scripture that contain God's word, he says not to exceed what is written!

1 Cor. 4:6, "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other."

It is the written form that is proclaimed as being Scripture, unbreakable, the word of God, and the standard of which we are not to exceed. This can only be true, if the written form is the Word of God, not just something that subjectively contains the word of God.

Also

2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

Edited July 9, 2008 by abqfriend

[Yekcidmij]

Please, no debating, I HONESTLY do not know, I am not trying to spark debate, I am simply wondering if there is anything in the bible that states that it should be taken literally. Direct quotes would be INCREDIBLY helpful. Thanks in advance!

And please, no need for debate, just looking for quotes!

I try take it as the author literally intended it. When John sees a 7 headed, 10 horned monster coming out of the sea should we take it literally that there is such a beast at the bottom of the Med Sea? Probably not. I like Greg Koukl's example: When you read the sports page of the news paper and it says something like "The Bears crush the Vikings", are we to read it literally as in, a bunch of grizzly bears stepped on, sat on, and squished a bunch of poor Scandinavian men? Probably not. The author intended to men that a team called the Bears won against a team called the Vikings.

Silly example, I know.

I have heard that even ancient Rabbis viewed the Bible on different levels and not all parts of the Bible were meant to be taken seriously, let alone literally.

Many Rabbi's practiced a technique called "Midrash" and taught there were 4 levels of interpretation to scripture:

1) Plain, literal meaning.

2) Deeper meaning ("hints")

3) Comparative meaning

4) Hidden meaning

It may involve linguistic connections: Example: ben/eben are words for son/stone, which makes some verses a little interesting like in Psalms where it says "the 'stone' the builders rejected became the cornerstone"! Or it may involve themeatic analysis of passages: Example: Moses in the basket or the Red Sea crossings as foreshadowings. Perhaps some type of gematria (the number 666). Etc..

The Rabbi's works are available to read.

Some people believe that the gospel writers, and possibly even Jesus, used Misrash techniques on occasion. One example might be "the sign of Jonah".

Edited August 6, 2008 by Yekcidmij

[HiJolly]

Jesus never said the scriptures contain the word of God. He said they were the word of God.

Umm... None of the quotes you provided in your post said that, so I was wondering if you could show us where the Bible says that. Not that the Bible contains anything Jesus wrote, but, I'm still interested.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Many Rabbi's practiced a technique called "Midrash" and taught there were 4 levels of interpretation to scripture:

1) Plain, literal meaning.

2) Deeper meaning ("hints")

3) Comparative meaning

4) Hidden meaning

Excellent. Would you say that these correspond to the four worlds?

1) Assiyah

2) Yetzirah

3) Briah

4) Atziluth

HiJolly

[Yekcidmij]

Excellent. Would you say that these correspond to the four worlds?

1) Assiyah

2) Yetzirah

3) Briah

4) Atziluth

HiJolly

I don't see a connection between Kabbala and Midrash there other than the fact that both are Jewish, but I'm not familiar or into Kabbala so there may be something I'm not aware of.

[FernRL]

I seriously doubt there are any quotes of anything in the Bible that would suggest that it should be taken entirely literally. I have never read anything in the scriptures that would lead to that viewpoint.

But here are some quotes suggesting that it should NOT be taken literally:

John 3:3-5; About the use of Parables: Matt. 13:13-15; Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; Mark 4:33-34; The whole point would be missing, if every word of Matt. 27:52-53 were taken literally.

[Islander]

The chaos and confusion arises when EVERYBODY begins to pick and chose, buffet style, what to take literally and what to interpret figuratively. The schisms within the early church started precisely over matters of doctrine and interpretation over the Eucharist, church authority, ecclesiastic administration and ordination. By the end of the first century certain congregations begin to separate themselves from the primitive church. Some refuse to receive the apostles and other church representatives as early as 80 AD.

It could be a pitfall to try and approach first century Judea with 21st century eyes. They spoke in parables, using shadows and types as a way to illustrate philosophical and theological points. I think Nephi hits the nail on the head when he said:

"Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews." 2 Ne 25:5

We must understand the history, the customs, sayings, traditions, history, geography and other elements of the social environment in order to really understand the scriptures as it happened. Last but not least, we must understand and judge the translation of the text.

Some things were expressed in figurative speech and some in more direct and concrete prose. But it was ALL intended to be understood and comprehended as factual and useful information. Illustration does not mean imagination. There were literary tools used then as we use them now to help visualize the setting/issue but that does not make it less real.