Literal and Contextual readings, how do we know?

[clem456]

Couple of points.
The difference is not between literal reading and contextual reading. *All of scripture *must be read in context. Christ is the key to that context, Christ is the hermeneutical key to unsealing the scrolls. (Pope Benedict Verbum Domini)

Q. When is the bible meant to be taken in a straightforward literal fashion?
A. When it is *meant to be taken *in a straightforward literal fashion.
Sounds like a smart aleck answer but through reading, prayer, and submission to the Church, we can have a common and true reading of scripture.
What is the intention of the author?
What is God trying to reveal to us? It takes, as Pope Benedict says, “a degree of expertise”.

Thank God we have the living Magisterium!

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in reading scripture is the confusion between the literal sense of scripture and a fundamentalist, or literalist, reading of scripture. The literal sense is not the same thing as a literalist reading of scripture. The literal does not mean merely historically, factually true, although there are elements of these in the literal sense. Fundamentalism takes words written by inspired human authors from centuries ago, and imposes narrow modern understandings on the words, out of all context.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Like what for ex? I have found that the Church says something about the entirety of Scripture. Maybe look for some good commentaries, and get a Catholic bible with wonderful footnotes for a start.
The Bible Timeline is a FABULOUS series. See if your parish offer it, or purchase it. A great investment. You could gather some other parishioners for a class in your home or a night out in your parish.
As a DRE, I would be delighted if someone offered to host it and then I’d seek out a Deacon LEM to help facilitate it.

Ok, could you point me to the places where I can get an infallible interpretation of scripture?

I am asking knowing that the Church has interpreted very very few verses of scripture.

One can read what a Saint thinks or a theologian or even the Pope himself. But that is personal interpretation. Wouldn’t it save a lot of time and confusion if the Church could identify what scripture means instead of what it is TRYING to say?

Lets start with the beginning.
Creation. A Catholic can believe,

1. The earth is 4000 years old and created in 6 days.
2. Evolution took about 4.63 Billion years
3. Something in the middle
4. That the entire story was metaphorical as long as we believe in the first couple and that God was the driving force.
5. Now even polytheism is a viable option in some circles.

5 Options. One is true or maybe one we haven’t come up yet with is true. But not all can be true. But a faithful Catholic can hold most of those opinions about what scripture means and be in union with the Truth. But why? Why do we have a book smaller than Harry Potter and still thousands of years later we are trying to figure out what the author meant. And we claim to have a direct line to the Author who gives us answers readily… We have a vicar of Christ on Earth and the Church He established to help interpret scriptures. Has the Church been lax on this?

 

[pianistclare]

Ok, could you point me to the places where I can get an infallible interpretation of scripture?

I am asking knowing that the Church has interpreted very very few verses of scripture.

One can read what a Saint thinks or a theologian or even the Pope himself. But that is personal interpretation. Wouldn’t it save a lot of time and confusion if the Church could identify what scripture means instead of what it is TRYING to say?

Lets start with the beginning.
Creation. A Catholic can believe,

1. The earth is 4000 years old and created in 6 days.
2. Evolution took about 4.63 Billion years
3. Something in the middle
4. That the entire story was metaphorical as long as we believe in the first couple and that God was the driving force.
5. Now even polytheism is a viable option in some circles.

5 Options. One is true or maybe one we haven’t come up yet with is true. But not all can be true. But a faithful Catholic can hold most of those opinions about what scripture means and be in union with the Truth. But why? Why do we have a book smaller than Harry Potter and still thousands of years later we are trying to figure out what the author meant. And we claim to have a direct line to the Author who gives us answers readily… We have a vicar of Christ on Earth and the Church He established to help interpret scriptures. Has the Church been lax on this?

I’m not sure why you think that the posters here have not already answered that question?
Your Genesis example is fine. God is the Supreme first cause. The essential Truth is that HE is, and He created and it is good. The particulars really don’t matter. If you hold to science, (which btw, the Church has some of the most advanced scientists on staff at the Vatican) you’re not in denial of the truth UNLESS you deny God’s involvement. But it’s about the lesson for us. The message. Does every priest give the same homily every week? no. But they mostly speak on the same topic.
It’s not an either/or question. The point of Scripture is to educate us on what God says we need to know. Do we need to know exactly how many animals were on the ark? Nope.
There are many places where you can study Scripture as Catholics and get a good understanding. But if you are looking for a reference book that tells you everything?
Well, that would be the Bible.
Seriously,
I get what you’re saying. But nothing replaces Scripture study with a good timeline, plan, and someone knowledgeable and educated leading it. The Church has oodles of Saints who speak to things, and as a people we evolve in our thinking. The truth remains, but the way we speak about it tends to be expressed based on language norms and illustration. Doesn’t mean that past Popes and Saints save lied. But that they had a different audience. Like in the Bible, we must always recall the audience of the Scripture writers.
We must always look at the “sense” of what the Greek says in the New Testament. This is why translators differ so much. Those who know Koine Greek know that the way WE in the modern world express something, can be very different from what a Greek writer would have ever said. Their worldview was not exactly like ours.
How do we know? Because we know that the Church does interpret Scripture appropriately, and thank God that she has supported the publications of some great, learned people. You have to seek out good books, and a good Biblical scholar in your area. It happens all the time in many parishes.
Kind of like the eye of a needle and the camel story. Not about a sewing needle.
But you have to study the culture of the day to know what they are talking about. Or listen closely to your homilist.

 

[pianistclare]

Couple of points.
The difference is not between literal reading and contextual reading. *All of scripture *must be read in context. Christ is the key to that context, Christ is the hermeneutical key to unsealing the scrolls. (Pope Benedict Verbum Domini)

Q. When is the bible meant to be taken in a straightforward literal fashion?
A. When it is *meant to be taken *in a straightforward literal fashion.
Sounds like a smart aleck answer but through reading, prayer, and submission to the Church, we can have a common and true reading of scripture.
What is the intention of the author?
What is God trying to reveal to us? It takes, as Pope Benedict says, “a degree of expertise”.

Thank God we have the living Magisterium!

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in reading scripture is the confusion between the literal sense of scripture and a fundamentalist, or literalist, reading of scripture. The literal sense is not the same thing as a literalist reading of scripture. The literal does not mean merely historically, factually true, although there are elements of these in the literal sense. Fundamentalism takes words written by inspired human authors from centuries ago, and imposes narrow modern understandings on the words, out of all context.

YES> Thanks!

 

[Joe_5859]

Ok, could you point me to the places where I can get an infallible interpretation of scripture?

I am asking knowing that the Church has interpreted very very few verses of scripture.

One can read what a Saint thinks or a theologian or even the Pope himself. But that is personal interpretation. Wouldn’t it save a lot of time and confusion if the Church could identify what scripture means instead of what it is TRYING to say?

Lets start with the beginning.
Creation. A Catholic can believe,

1. The earth is 4000 years old and created in 6 days.
2. Evolution took about 4.63 Billion years
3. Something in the middle
4. That the entire story was metaphorical as long as we believe in the first couple and that God was the driving force.
5. Now even polytheism is a viable option in some circles.

5 Options. One is true or maybe one we haven’t come up yet with is true. But not all can be true. But a faithful Catholic can hold most of those opinions about what scripture means and be in union with the Truth. But why? Why do we have a book smaller than Harry Potter and still thousands of years later we are trying to figure out what the author meant. And we claim to have a direct line to the Author who gives us answers readily… We have a vicar of Christ on Earth and the Church He established to help interpret scriptures. Has the Church been lax on this?

For me, it helps me to think of it in terms of not just what the word of God is, but Who the Word of God is.

Scripture is communicating the very revelation of God in human language. For the Church to come out with a verse-by-verse commentary saying “This is exactly what this passage means and all other interpretations are incorrect” would be very limiting. it would presume that we can hit the bottom when we plumb the depths of the Infinite Mysteries. But we can’t.

Which, of course, is not to say that the Church doesn’t have a lot to say about Scripture. While it is true that the Church doesn’t often come out and directly say “X passage means exactly Y”, She uses Scripture in everything She does and teaches. That tells us a lot, too.

I know I would love to have an official CDF biblical commentary. But I think it exhibits great humility that he Church does not do this.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The use of the word ‘blood’ is not mentioned in the Greek. That was added to a couple of translations. The bible used on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops leave the word ‘blood’ out. Also, the Douay-Rheims 1899 (DRA) along with most others do not use the word ‘blood’. Those two verses, in context, have nothing to do with the Eucharist.

Read the chapter, its not their because it is implied in the verse that the wine is the blood of the altar.

 

[thetazlord]

So, the Bible is full of both literal and contextual readings. But here is the problem. A protestant might say that the Eucharist is metaphorical in the Bible. That it is a sign but it is not really Jesus Body Blood soul and divinity. Then, they may say that the book of Daniel or the Book of Revelation is down to the number accurate. Or perhaps believe in a 6 day creation. And we too might have some confusion on why John Chapter 6 is literal but other things are metaphorical. The question is, how does one know? Why would God be ambiguous?

The key to understanding any particular passage of Scripture - whether it’s meant to be literal or figurative - is to read the surrounding passages, rather than “lift” a particular passage out of Scripture & out of context, and compare it to the Bible’s message as a whole. Also, consulting the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek), rather than a translation, like English or Latin is important, and even then words can have multiple meanings.

For example, when Jesus says in John 6:54 that those who “eat My flesh and drink My blood have eternal life,” if He’s referring to “literal” eating & drinking, then Jesus is saying that ANYONE who doesn’t do this will not have “eternal life,” because in the previous verse (v.53), Jesus says “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man & drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” So, a literal meaning of this verse would mean that literally eating & drinking Jesus would be the ONLY way to have “eternal life.” Therefore, “everybody” who has never literally ate & drank Jesus would end up in Hell (“not have eternal life.”) Also, there is no indication that communion was occurring at that time. In fact, earlier passages tell us that Jesus was on the other side of the sea (v.25), from where He originally was. The breaking of bread occurred EARLIER & in a DIFFERENT location (v.23). Plus, there is no indication anywhere in this passage that Jesus is describing the concept of transubstantiation of bread (let alone communion bread) in John Ch.6. So, “if” Jesus is speaking literally here, He would be commanding people to begin literally eating Him & drinking Him, right then & there, since communion bread & wine were not there to “turn into” Jesus. And as SJacob7 pointed out the OT commands people not to drink any blood (Acts 17:10), not strictly the not the blood of animals. Also, the key passage in John Ch.6 to understand that Jesus is speaking figuratively is John 6:35 - a song that I remember singing frequently during Mass when I was Catholic.

As far as the books of Daniel & Revelation go, they are prophetic & apocalyptic books, because they discuss future events that are either about to happen or haven’t happened in Daniel’s & John’s lifetimes, based on the text.

The 6 day creation is literal, again, based on the original Hebrew, because whenever “day” (“yowm”) is used with a number (like “first,” “second,” etc) along with “evening & morning” it always refers to a “literal” 24-hour day, not an indefinite period of time.

So, God isn’t being “ambiguous,” when you take the “whole” of Scripture into account, plus consulting the original languages of the text. It is when we “add” our own personal views that are not supported by, nor found in, the text that it becomes ambiguous. Hope this helps.

 

[SJacob7]

Read the chapter, its not their because it is implied in the verse that the wine is the blood of the altar.

It is not implied. In Zechariah 9:11 (NABRE) the blood mentioned is the blood of the new covenant, which we know is Jesus’s blood. In verse 15 it’s the blood of the enemy. It has nothing to do with the Eucharist.

You may also want to look at Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary for more of an explanation. Thanks.

 

[fred_conty]

The key to understanding any particular passage of Scripture - whether it’s meant to be literal or figurative - is to read the surrounding passages, rather than “lift” a particular passage out of Scripture & out of context, and compare it to the Bible’s message as a whole. Also, consulting the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek), rather than a translation, like English or Latin is important, and even then words can have multiple meanings.

For example, when Jesus says in John 6:54 that those who “eat My flesh and drink My blood have eternal life,” if He’s referring to “literal” eating & drinking, then Jesus is saying that ANYONE who doesn’t do this will not have “eternal life,” because in the previous verse (v.53), Jesus says “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man & drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.” So, a literal meaning of this verse would mean that literally eating & drinking Jesus would be the ONLY way to have “eternal life.” Therefore, “everybody” who has never literally ate & drank Jesus would end up in Hell (“not have eternal life.”) Also, there is no indication that communion was occurring at that time. In fact, earlier passages tell us that Jesus was on the other side of the sea (v.25), from where He originally was. The breaking of bread occurred EARLIER & in a DIFFERENT location (v.23). Plus, there is no indication anywhere in this passage that Jesus is describing the concept of transubstantiation of bread (let alone communion bread) in John Ch.6. So, “if” Jesus is speaking literally here, He would be commanding people to begin literally eating Him & drinking Him, right then & there, since communion bread & wine were not there to “turn into” Jesus. And as SJacob7 pointed out the OT commands people not to drink any blood (Acts 17:10), not strictly the not the blood of animals. Also, the key passage in John Ch.6 to understand that Jesus is speaking figuratively is John 6:35 - a song that I remember singing frequently during Mass when I was Catholic.

As far as the books of Daniel & Revelation go, they are prophetic & apocalyptic books, because they discuss future events that are either about to happen or haven’t happened in Daniel’s & John’s lifetimes, based on the text.

The 6 day creation is literal, again, based on the original Hebrew, because whenever “day” (“yowm”) is used with a number (like “first,” “second,” etc) along with “evening & morning” it always refers to a “literal” 24-hour day, not an indefinite period of time.

So, God isn’t being “ambiguous,” when you take the “whole” of Scripture into account, plus consulting the original languages of the text. It is when we “add” our own personal views that are not supported by, nor found in, the text that it becomes ambiguous. Hope this helps.

Thank you for your observatons about this passage. Here are some ideas you make want to think over as well.

When Jesus said, “unless you eat my flesh…” to the crowd, he didn’t say “right now”, or “immediately”.
He was saying this because he would leave them his flesh to eat thru the power of his apostles to make it present when he was gone…after he ascended to heaven. The apostles did eat his body and drink his blood at the last supper when Jesus turned the bread and wine into his body and blood and said, “take this”.

Only those who knew that it was necessary to eat his flesh are bound by it. Obviously others who do not know about this teaching of Jesus are not bound until they do hear it with the ears of grace.

The old testament laws do not hold in the new testament except those that are mentioned in the new testament. For example stoning people for acts of sin. All the washings for spiritual purity. No protestant or catholic today keep these old testament laws. And this too would hold for viewing food as unclean.

Jesus did describe the concept of transubstantiation of bread into his body by saying at the last supper, “this is my body…” and “this is my blood”, which is transubstantiation, changing the bread and wine into his body and blood.

If I’m not mistaken, a catholic may take the 6 day creation as factual if they wish.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[clem456]

The key to understanding any particular passage of Scripture - whether it’s meant to be literal or figurative - is to read the surrounding passages, rather than “lift” a particular passage out of Scripture & out of context, and compare it to the Bible’s message as a whole.
…

Christian has the word “Christ” in it.
Who is the Christ?
Jesus of Nazareth, the Word Made Flesh, born of a woman, living in a community, giving his mission to others. He is God’s full and final revelation. Scripture is part of God’s revelation, but Christ fulfills Scripture, not the other way around.

Surely exegetes do look at the surrounding literal context, but
“The key to understanding any particular passage of Scripture”
is the person of Christ. Pope Benedict calls Christ “the ultimate hermeneutical key” to interpreting scripture. Your understanding of Scripture runs into serious difficulty when you accept the basic Christian doctrine that Christ lived in and established a community. The incarnation of Christ gives full meaning to “he who hears you, hears me”.

A Christian is invited to read scripture in the context of Christ.

 

[Gorgias]

The 6 day creation is literal, again, based on the original Hebrew, because whenever “day” (“yowm”) is used with a number (like “first,” “second,” etc) along with “evening & morning” it always refers to a “literal” 24-hour day, not an indefinite period of time.

Not so.

A few examples exist; this one is the counter-example, though, that disproves your assertion:

In 1 Samuel 27:1, David bemoans the fact that Saul wants him dead: “And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul.”

Literally, we have ‘day’ + the number ‘one’: יֹום־אֶחָ֖ד (yom echad). Not only does this not “refer to a ‘literal’ 24-hour day”, it explicitly does refer to an “indefinite period of time”!

Therefore, your assertion fails: a literal six-day creation cannot be proven by an appeal to a literal interpretation of ‘yom’ in the presence of a number.

 

[clem456]

…
The 6 day creation is literal, again, based on the original Hebrew, because whenever “day” (“yowm”) is used with a number (like “first,” “second,” etc) along with “evening & morning” it always refers to a “literal” 24-hour day, not an indefinite period of time.

So, God isn’t being “ambiguous,” when you take the “whole” of Scripture into account, plus consulting the original languages of the text. It is when we “add” our own personal views that are not supported by, nor found in, the text that it becomes ambiguous. Hope this helps.

All of scripture has a literal sense. This sense is the meaning of the words. So, yes, Genesis can be read in a literal way, but not a literalist way.

There is a difference between literal, and literalist.
There is a difference between literal, and factual, or historical. Facts and history are part of the literal sense, but the literal sense is not rigidly and narrowly limited to facts and history.
Inspiration does not require inerrant and rigidly defined facts to be inspired. God Inspires (breathes life into) scripture, human beings pass down this Inspiration, tell the deeds and wonders of God, record simple histories, tell fables, parables, etc…Inspired human authors “write” scripture, it is not recorded word for word by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is revealed through a Divine/human relationship. Human beings have imperfect eyes and ears and expressions. Our humanity takes nothing away from Inspiration. Every word accomplishes the will of God, just not in scientific and literalist fashion.

Literalism (aka fundamentalism) insists on the rigid and narrow interpretation of the literal words, as understood by the current reader, outside any other context. Literalism does not allow for Inspiration, it does not allow the scriptures to live and breathe in Christ.

An example:
In Genesis, texts that were never meant to be understood in a rigidly factual way are taken to be scientific facts, because modern humanity emphasizes provable science. The Inspired early texts of the OT were never meant to be science textbooks. Yet these texts convey profoundly life-changing inspired truth.

Do you believe that God’s Inspired Truth is limited to provable facts and literalist words?

 

[thetazlord]

Thank you for your observatons about this passage. Here are some ideas you make want to think over as well.

When Jesus said, “unless you eat my flesh…” to the crowd, he didn’t say “right now”, or
“immediately”.

Actually, it was a command given by Jesus right then & there. That’s part of the reason many of His disciples abandoned Him. There is no indication from the text that Jesus “meant” a future period of time.

He was saying this because he would leave them his flesh to eat thru the power of his apostles to make it present when he was gone…after he ascended to heaven. The apostles did eat his body and drink his blood at the last supper when Jesus turned the bread and wine into his body and blood and said, “take this”.

The Last Supper foreshadowed the breaking of His body & shed blood, which hadn’t happened yet at the Last Supper. Plus, although Jesus was God, He was also human by “emptying” Himself. So, as a human, Jesus couldn’t be two places at the same time (at the Last Supper AND in the communion bread & wine).

Only those who knew that it was necessary to eat his flesh are bound by it. Obviously others who do not know about this teaching of Jesus are not bound until they do hear it with the ears of grace.

The Greek word “unless” in John Ch.6 doesn’t allow for that interpretation. They, too, would be “bound” to it as well.

The old testament laws do not hold in the new testament except those that are mentioned in the new testament. For example stoning people for acts of sin. All the washings for spiritual purity. No protestant or catholic today keep these old testament laws. And this too would hold for viewing food as unclean.

But when Jesus ministered the OT laws were still in effect. So, Jesus would have been violating them “if” He was speaking literally.

Jesus did describe the concept of transubstantiation of bread into his body by saying at the last supper, “this is my body…” and “this is my blood”, which is transubstantiation, changing the bread and wine into his body and blood.

Nowhere in that passages does it describe the “process” of transubstantiation in the way the CC teaches it. That has to be (unnecessarily & unbiblically) read INTO the text.

If I’m not mistaken, a catholic may take the 6 day creation as factual if they wish.

That doesn’t change the fact that the original Hebrew doesn’t allow for that personal “interpretation”

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

The same to you.

 

[thetazlord]

Christian has the word “Christ” in it.
Who is the Christ?
Jesus of Nazareth, the Word Made Flesh, born of a woman, living in a community, giving his mission to others. He is God’s full and final revelation. Scripture is part of God’s revelation, but Christ fulfills Scripture, not the other way around.

Surely exegetes do look at the surrounding literal context, but
“The key to understanding any particular passage of Scripture”
is the person of Christ. Pope Benedict calls Christ “the ultimate hermeneutical key” to interpreting scripture. Your understanding of Scripture runs into serious difficulty when you accept the basic Christian doctrine that Christ lived in and established a community. The incarnation of Christ gives full meaning to “he who hears you, hears me”.

A Christian is invited to read scripture in the context of Christ.

But that “community” can’t take liberty with God’s Inspired Word & impute their “opinion” that doesn’t have Scriptural support for it.

 

[thetazlord]

Not so.

A few examples exist; this one is the counter-example, though, that disproves your assertion:

In 1 Samuel 27:1, David bemoans the fact that Saul wants him dead: “And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul.”

Literally, we have ‘day’ + the number ‘one’: יֹום־אֶחָ֖ד (yom echad). Not only does this not “refer to a ‘literal’ 24-hour day”, it explicitly does refer to an “indefinite period of time”!

Therefore, your assertion fails: a literal six-day creation cannot be proven by an appeal to a literal interpretation of ‘yom’ in the presence of a number.

You missed the part where I ALSO mentioned “along with ‘evening & morning.’” Your example didn’t include that.

 

[thetazlord]

All of scripture has a literal sense. This sense is the meaning of the words. So, yes, Genesis can be read in a literal way, but not a literalist way.

There is a difference between literal, and literalist.
There is a difference between literal, and factual, or historical. Facts and history are part of the literal sense, but the literal sense is not rigidly and narrowly limited to facts and history.
Inspiration does not require inerrant and rigidly defined facts to be inspired. God Inspires (breathes life into) scripture, human beings pass down this Inspiration, tell the deeds and wonders of God, record simple histories, tell fables, parables, etc…Inspired human authors “write” scripture, it is not recorded word for word by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is revealed through a Divine/human relationship. Human beings have imperfect eyes and ears and expressions. Our humanity takes nothing away from Inspiration. Every word accomplishes the will of God, just not in scientific and literalist fashion.

Literalism (aka fundamentalism) insists on the rigid and narrow interpretation of the literal words, as understood by the current reader, outside any other context. Literalism does not allow for Inspiration, it does not allow the scriptures to live and breathe in Christ.

An example:
In Genesis, texts that were never meant to be understood in a rigidly factual way are taken to be scientific facts, because modern humanity emphasizes provable science. The Inspired early texts of the OT were never meant to be science textbooks. Yet these texts convey profoundly life-changing inspired truth.

Do you believe that God’s Inspired Truth is limited to provable facts and literalist words?

So what are you asserting? That we can impute our own personal opinions into the text to make it say whatever we want it to? What if two opinions conflict? Are they both equally valid? I don’t think this post-modernist view is why God gave us His word to understand it.

 

[clem456]

So what are you asserting? That we can impute our own personal opinions into the text to make it say whatever we want it to? What if two opinions conflict? Are they both equally valid? I don’t think this post-modernist view is why God gave us His word to understand it.

I am asserting nothing. I am observing how the Catholic Church reads scripture. It’s not mine to assert.
What if two opinions conflict? We defer to the Church. In some matters it pronounces definitively, in some it does not.

This is nothing like a post modernist view.

 

[spockrates]

Ok, thanks. I’m assuming that people in the OT were not to drink human blood either? So, if they weren’t, then how could Jesus tell people they had to drink his blood, literally? Wouldn’t it be a sin to tell people to break the ‘law’?

SKacob: Yes, I wonder about that. So the question to ask, I suppose is this: How can eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a human being be wrong but eating the flesh and drinking the blood of God be right? How would you answer the question?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

SKacob: Yes, I wonder about that. So the question to ask, I suppose is this: How can eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a human being be wrong but eating the flesh and drinking the blood of God be right? How would you answer the question?

You don’t even have to separate the two (humans a God) We believe Jesus is both FULLY Human and Fully Divine. So in fact we are eating and drinking the blood of a real human being.

 

[pianistclare]

All of scripture has a literal sense. This sense is the meaning of the words. So, yes, Genesis can be read in a literal way, but not a literalist way.

There is a difference between literal, and literalist.
There is a difference between literal, and factual, or historical. Facts and history are part of the literal sense, but the literal sense is not rigidly and narrowly limited to facts and history.
Inspiration does not require inerrant and rigidly defined facts to be inspired. God Inspires (breathes life into) scripture, human beings pass down this Inspiration, tell the deeds and wonders of God, record simple histories, tell fables, parables, etc…Inspired human authors “write” scripture, it is not recorded word for word by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is revealed through a Divine/human relationship. Human beings have imperfect eyes and ears and expressions. Our humanity takes nothing away from Inspiration. Every word accomplishes the will of God, just not in scientific and literalist fashion.

Literalism (aka fundamentalism) insists on the rigid and narrow interpretation of the literal words, as understood by the current reader, outside any other context. Literalism does not allow for Inspiration, it does not allow the scriptures to live and breathe in Christ.

An example:
In Genesis, texts that were never meant to be understood in a rigidly factual way are taken to be scientific facts, because modern humanity emphasizes provable science. The Inspired early texts of the OT were never meant to be science textbooks. Yet these texts convey profoundly life-changing inspired truth.

Do you believe that God’s Inspired Truth is limited to provable facts and literalist words?

Well stated. An excellent post on the topic. Thank you.