The bible, should be interpreted not literal only?

[souldiver]

Is every word in the bible shouldn’t be literally interpreted? Didn’t Jesus made explanation of his parables? Are those explanations should still not be taken as literal? Like those that things that are not easily acceptable such those that are that are like fantasy like the creation of the world, some people interpret it not as it says. It’s like not believing that God has powers, and you can make up other meaning of teachings, and the histories in the bible were only made up.

It’s like when the israelites shout God reigns(I forgot what exactly), the enemy’s wall broke down. If it’s taken literally, it’s the power God, but if taken not literally such as saying “They shout God reigns and the walls on their enemies hearts broke down” which is more possible, but as if they’re denying God’s power.

The bible literally says that Jesus is walking on the water, and he invite one of the apostles with him and he falls, Jesus said something like, don’t you have faith then the no literal interpreters would say “Jesus was walking by the water”, it’s pretty out of the context.

Another example is that when Jesus commanded the storm to subside, the no literal interpreters would say “Jesus just commanded a crowd of people to be quiet”.

What about hell? For a long time it’s common belief that it will be a geographical place in the revelation or a place in the present(in Catholic). The no literal interpreters would say it’s separation from God.

I was mad while I’m writing this so it might not be that understandable. So, can’t we interpret anything as literal in the bible?

 

[SaintPatrick333]

context is everything my friend. Much of what Christ did and said is literal Truth and must be taken as such. Some of His stories (the samaritan being an example) were parables to preach to the masses and doesn’t mean that it literally happened. Obviously any time Christ demonstrated His divinity was always literal Truth. It’s important to learn the context for each message, otherwise you end up cherry picking and come out with mish mashed interpretations which is what is found in literally every protestant and non denominational church (no offense intended to my protestant/non-denom brothers and sisters in here).

 

[souldiver]

Obviously any time Christ demonstrated His divinity was always literal Truth.

I’m glad to hear that.

For a verse like

Luke 10:27
New International Version (NIV)
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’**

I think we can take literally. After checkingthe context, like what you mentioned, SaintPatrick333.**

 

[sparrowhawk28]

Of course, some things can be interpreted literally. Sometimes that is intended, but other times it can lead to problems.

I personally believe Jesus really did walk on water and really did calm a storm. I believe Jesus really was born of a virgin, performed miracles, died on a cross and rose from the dead. But a lot of people don’t take these things literally or truthfully and don’t believe them.

A lot of what Jesus said is considered allegorical. He uses many examples to illustrate points, so interpreting some of what he said as literal can be problematic. There are even examples of these difficulties in the Bible:

John 2: 18-22 - ‘The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.’

Or in Matthew 10, Jesus says - “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Of course, he didn’t mean a REAL sword, but rather he was referring to division and argument.

Even Jesus’ own disciples didn’t understand what he was saying sometimes. There is a deeper meaning to be found behind his words, extending far beyond the literal or superficial meaning.
The Bible is a book of history. It documents the real history of the Jewish people and of other peoples they interacted with. But that is not its main purpose. Ultimately, it is a book of inspiration, of guidance, of revelation - and in many instances, these things are made clear and profound through example and allegory.

Luke 10:27
New International Version (NIV)
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’**

I think we can take literally. **

Yes, I believe that should be taken literally.

 

[Crumpy]

In the Catholic Church, Catholics are to follow the teachings of the Church. Jesus told his disciples, he who hears you hears me. This invested a lot of teaching authority in them.

So, when it comes to the Bible, this rule should apply. We should listen to the teaching of the Church about the Bible.

The Bible is a big book, and it is not easy in a little post like this to answer the question about “literal.”

Certainly, nobody takes literally the command that if our hand causes us to sin, we should cut it off, for example. In this case as in the entire Bible, we are told to look for the lesson that God, the divine author, has caused to be written in the Bible.

There are many different types of writing in the Bible. The Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) is neither a history book (in the sense that we understand history today) nor is it a science book. For example, a trivial example: if the Bible refers to the rising of the sun and the setting of the sun, we know that sunrise and sunset are caused by the rotation of the earth, not the simple motion of the sun.

In the U.S., the Seventh Day Adventist church tries to literally follow the commandment about observing the Sabbath on Saturday, instead of the Sunday observance of the Lord’s day which is even mentioned in the New Testament. They do that, to make a point, but they do not observe the commandment about circumcision.

The Jews around the world don’t have the Jerusalem temple any more, so they cannot practice all the animal sacrifice that is commanded in the Hebrew Bible.

In a previous post, there is a quotation from the Gospel about loving God with all our strength. What does that mean? How do you do it? The Jews believe (because this command is also in the Old Testament) that it means we may even have to spend all our money for the sake of our faith in God. Some commands like this are vague and require some interpretation, right from the get-go.

Also, in this command about loving God with all our heart, exactly what does THAT mean, too? Does this command us to have an emotion? or it something else? From similar wording in documents in other countries documents of the ancient biblical era, “love” means “loyalty.” So, this would mean not an emotion, but that we should be 100% loyal to God.

In Old Testament times, the writings in the scroll ALWAYS required interpretation which takes the shape of what we call “tradition” over time. I’ve been reading essays about this in The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford U. Press) and the Jewish traditions were written down in documents called the Talmud (“study”) and the midrash (rabbinic teachings about the Bible). In Judaism, interpretation of scripture has never come to an end, and to make matters worse, there is no central authority to interpret scripture, that corresponds to the magisterium in the Catholic Church.

In the final analysis, in our every day lives, we HAVE TO interpret the scripture in applying it to everything in our lives. There is no book that gives us 100% of that interpretation. We have to do it ourselves – with the guidance of the Church. In other words, we don’t automatically apply the literal meaning or what we think is the literal meaning. It’s impossible, in the first place. In many cases, it wasn’t intended to follow what was actually written.

 

[Iotaunum]

The Catholic Church has always insisted on a literal interpretation of Scripture. This does not mean that every word or verse must be interpreted in the same sense however. Primarily a Catholic must acknowledge that all of Scripture is inspired by God and contains no errors.

Now although Scripture is always interpreted literally, the sense may change and will show the actual meaning of the text. When we interpret in a literal sense, we can refer both to a proper truth immediately indicated by the words, or in a figurative manner. They are both literal senses.

A verse may also be interpreted in a literal sense, and yet have multiple meanings, or refer to more than one truth - e.g like places in the Apocolypse etc. However, we are not free to exegete these passages, and put extra meanings in addition to the clear meaning of the text. The multiple literal sense must be demonstrable from the Scripture itself.

Verses may also be understood in a Typical sense, as for example when the Old Testament fortells of Christ - Christ being the new Adam etc.

Above all, hermeneutics must be guided by a mindset which is in conformity witht the traditional exegesis and teaching of the Church and accepts all of the Scripture as infallible. In modern times we hear people all over the world “interpreting” Scripture to their own destruction. They will claim that Jesus did not exorcise demons - “they were epileptic and He didn’t know” - but these people know better, and they are gonna set you straight! In their minds, Scripture must conform to what they know - or think they know. So if they hear doctors and “scientists” saying people thought demonic posession was the explanation before we found out about epilepsy etc then they force that nonsensical interpretation on Scriptre. Now to interpret literally does not always mean each word is understood for its immediate meaning. If I were to say “you reap what you sow” and hundreds of years later people reading that interpreted it at its face value- they would think I am referring to having to harvest crops that I had planted. Now we know that is a saying, as it is used in our times. However someone years later - when that saying is no longer used - may misinterpret it. This is why we also examine the possible historical and gramatical senses intended.

So in a nutshell - Scripture is always interpreted literally - but with different senses. As to which sense applies (when it is not immedietly obvious) we must rely on the Church’s official exegesis, and consider the interpretation of the Fathers and doctors of the Church.

 

[1ke]

How many threads are you going to start on this topic? This is #3.

 

[Cristiano]

How many threads are you going to start on this topic? This is #3.

Are you the one that posted a long series of Church references in regard to this topic? I remember a couple of threads but I could not find the specific post and I do not know if it was you or Thistle that posted the references. I was looking for it today but I could not find what I seem to remember.

 

[souldiver]

My opinion is that not everything is non literal.Some such as parables are explained by Jesus himself, or it can be seen in the context or if it doesn’t fit, use its representative. I don’t like that it gets interpreted to conform to current Science as if not believing in God’s powers. I got some answers I liked.

How many threads are you going to start on this topic? This is #3.

Why? Is it illegal to post many topics?