Do Fundamentalist take every single passage in the Bible literally?

[Peebo]

As a former Pentecostal of course they don’t take ALL of the bible literally…two examples they certainly don’t take literally are two which we Catholics do…“this is my body…this is my blood…eat it and drink it”…“you are Peter…and upon this rock I will build my church”…to admit to a literal interpretation of those words of our Lord would be to admit that the Catholic Church is the true church founded by Jesus Christ…they…and many other Protestants will never admit that…an example…the Pastor of the church I used to attend gave a sermon on Christs words to Peter…“Peter can mean a stone…(chuckles from the congregation)…or a tiny pebble…(louder chuckles)…was the church founded on a tiny pebble…(laughter)…no…it’s Peters statement of faith in who Christ is…he is the rock…not Peter”…that’s one way they dance around that scripture…I’m sure there are other interpretations out there that others use to deny who Peter is…to suggest that we Catholics actually believe we eat his flesh and drink his blood also fills them with unbelief and disgust.

 

[jmcrae]

Out of curiousity, which parts? all of it?

Sorry - no, just the last line. He does believe that salvation is permanent, and can’t be taken away by a lack of good works, or even by actual sin.

 

[getysbg]

Yes, we’re all silly and small minded with no idea what we’re talking about.

dronald, I owe you an apology. I was not intending to call Evangelicals ‘small minded’ . I do get frustrated with the denying of beliefs that may not be completely clear in the Bible (confession for one, even though it is there) and yet others that are very clear throw Evalgelicals into a state of coming up with the most convoluted ‘proofs’ that scripture just doesn’t mean what it says. This is why the authority of the Church is so important.

Again, my apologies.

 

[Nicea325]

You are correct that Roman Catholics take this literally, while Protestants read it metaphorically. The reading of what Jesus said here in Luke makes it clear that it is metaphorical:

“Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.”

emphasis is mine

If you compare John 20 and Luke 24 you’ll notice that Jesus is speaking to all the disciples, and not just the apostles.

As an anabaptist I do hold to this verse and I don’t believe that saving faith can be devoid of works.

Unfortunately you the early church and early Christians disagree with you. The methaphorical position would be foreign to them.

 

[aragonjohn1]

They take what society has challenges (to be literal or not) to be literal, because
many simply feel that proud urge to be better believers than others. “You believe
in evolution? Ha, I’m a better believer in God than you then!” some people would
think, but then when confronted with that part where Jesus is talking about tear-
ing off body parts, they be like, “Well that’s a metaphor, why would you take ev-
erything so literally?” to which people such as myself would respond, “Exactly
my question to you: ‘Why do you do it?’.”

I infer that we are talking about Creationism, yes? Creationism is a rather modern
movement that rose in response to the increased belief in evolution, 4.5 billion yr
old Earth, and it’s apparent relationship to atheism simply because science does
not say “GOD.” There comes a very satisfying sense of vanity in the Creationist
community, as it sets them apart from, and in their minds “above”, everyone else
who do not take Genesis etc. as 100% literal.

Jehovah’s Witness also, moving on from Creationism, enjoy the idea of the literal
interpretation of Revelation, in which only 144,000 are going to be saved and that
their the 144,000, though they forget that among the 144,000 according to the lit-
eral interpretation of Revelation are to be Jew, Male, and Virgin ONLY, so yeah, lol.

If we are to take everything in the Bible as literal, we make ourselves look stupid.
It was fine for people of old to take it literally because they didn’t know any better,
but in light of this the modern age when we know a lot more, we can take the Bible
for what it says without having to interpret it entirely as literal.

i agree with you except with creationism being “modern”: creationist ideas have been around for millennias starting as far as one knows with both ancient and early monotheistic religions, and a select few pagan beliefs.

God bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

I’m curious, because I know there’s a passage where Jesus talks about tearing off body parts that make a person sin. I wonder how the fundamentalist readers interpret such a passage. I’ve heard they take every single word literally and at face-value.

no, simply not true. just a few passages about biblical Tradition and history.

God bless

 

[MartinJordan]

As a former Pentecostal of course they don’t take ALL of the bible literally…two examples they certainly don’t take literally are two which we Catholics do…“this is my body…this is my blood…eat it and drink it”…“you are Peter…and upon this rock I will build my church”…to admit to a literal interpretation of those words of our Lord would be to admit that the Catholic Church is the true church founded by Jesus Christ…they…and many other Protestants will never admit that…an example…the Pastor of the church I used to attend gave a sermon on Christs words to Peter…“Peter can mean a stone…(chuckles from the congregation)…or a tiny pebble…(louder chuckles)…was the church founded on a tiny pebble…(laughter)…no…it’s Peters statement of faith in who Christ is…he is the rock…not Peter”…that’s one way they dance around that scripture…I’m sure there are other interpretations out there that others use to deny who Peter is…to suggest that we Catholics actually believe we eat his flesh and drink his blood also fills them with unbelief and disgust.

Oh dear. I pray for these individuals. Glad to see you have seen the light

Godbless.
MJ

 

[Lokadottir]

I’m curious, because I know there’s a passage where Jesus talks about tearing off body parts that make a person sin. I wonder how the fundamentalist readers interpret such a passage. I’ve heard they take every single word literally and at face-value.

They SAY they do but they don’t believe in transubstantiation…

 

[JustaServant]

Fundamentalists pick and choose what they take literally and what they do not. Thier interpretation of the book of Revelation is a good example of why such a view falters pretty quickly.

 

[andrewstx]

Hmm. Let’s see:

“Take this and eat it, for this is my body…”

“Whose sins you shall forgive…”

“For you are saved by works and not by faith alone…”

Nope, my experience is that they take literally only those portions that suit them. For the others, they will spend countless hours coming up with the most convoluted responses…

Speaking of convoluted, I have seen repeatedly some people claim the water in “water and the Spirit” is nothing but amniotic fluid to do away with the need for Baptism!

 

[ltwin]

Do Fundamentalist take every single passage in the Bible literally?

You’ve already received the answer from posters both hostile, neutral, and sympathetic to Fundamentalist Protestants. The correct answer from all of them is no.

I don’t identify as a Fundamentalist, but I’ll comment anyway since it is unclear what you’re definition of a Fundamentalist is (some people don’t distinguish between Fundamentalists and evangelicals even though they should).

I’m curious, because I know there’s a passage where Jesus talks about tearing off body parts that make a person sin. I wonder how the fundamentalist readers interpret such a passage. I’ve heard they take every single word literally and at face-value.

Those passages are certainly not literal. They refer to using all possible means to avoid temptation, but they do not condone self-mutilation.

When Fundamentalists say they take the Bible literally, they don’t actually mean they take every single passage literally (and they shouldn’t say that they do). What they do mean is that when the Bible says that

1. There is a God,
2. God created the world and everything in it,
3. there is a personal devil,
4. Heaven and Hell is real,
5. Jesus was born of a virgin,
6. Jesus Christ is God,
7. Jesus healed the sick,
8. Jesus rose from the dead,
9. etc., etc.

that all of that stuff is correct. While there are literary devices in the Bible, Fundamentalists are emphasizing that the entire Bible itself is not one huge literary device.

As a Catholic, you might not understand why they need to do that in their rhetoric, but if you know anything about Protestantism (at least American Protestantism) you’d realize that their is a sharp division between those who think that everything on that list is fact and those who think that much that is on that list is fiction, metaphor, and symbol.

 

[solarguy17]

As someone that would be described as fundamentalist I will just out there my beliefs.

Yes, I do believe that we are to take what God says in a very literal sense, the only exception being when the passages are a parable, metaphor, or dream.

Revelation was a dream that John had, thus we don’t take it literally but it to describe something that I hard to understand. The difference between Heaven and Hell for example.

Regarding the breaking of the bread. The way I have thought about it is as follows. Jesus says (paraphrase) this is my body broken for you and this is blood shed for you. So is He literally saying these are really my blood and body?
Well, literally yes, but could it be a metaphor?
When Jesus says He is a Shepard, is he literally a Shepard? No, he is literally a carpenter. But being described as a Shepard is a Metaphor for for His role.
When you show a picture of you spouse or kids to someone, do you say “this is picture of my wife”? Or do say “this is my wife”?
Literally the picture isn’t you wife, you didn’t marry a picture, the picture represents your wife. It isn’t a part of you wife, but is a representation of you wife at that moment in time.

I think of the “Eucharist” in a very similar way. The bread and wine represent Jesus as He was dead in the cross. Not literally His Blood and Body but a representation of His blood and Body at that moment in time.

I know obviously that most of you won’t agree but that’s an easy way to explain what many “fundamentalists” believe regarding the “Eucharist”

 

[classical_hero]

I’m curious, because I know there’s a passage where Jesus talks about tearing off body parts that make a person sin. I wonder how the fundamentalist readers interpret such a passage. I’ve heard they take every single word literally and at face-value.

What you are arguing is hyper literalism and only idiots believe in that. What we do believe is that we should interpret the Bible in a Grammatical Historical method. We know that the Bible is a work of literature an thus it uses words the way used in common vernacular. That means we know that the Bible uses metaphors, poetry, parables and other methods to get the point across as well as straight historical facts. Often using pictorial language is the best way to get the point across, since it means that the listen is using their imagination and are thinking about things. Like how Jesus said he is the Good Shepherd, he is not literally saying he is a shepherd, but he does things that a shepherd does to his flock. So rather than just point all the things a shepherd does, it is easier to just use the image of a shepherd to get the point across.