Why the Bible cannot be read literally

[hamburglar]

I have many Protestant friends, and they say the Bible needs no interpretation, it is what it is. They read the Bible literally.

What are some ways I can show that you cannot read the Bible literally?

I know at one point I mentioned how the Bible mentioned various reasons to stone people for small little things, such as working on the Sabbath. But they said that the Old Testament was not law anymore, that is the reason Christ died on the cross.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I have many Protestant friends, and they say the Bible needs no interpretation, it is what it is. They read the Bible literally.

What are some ways I can show that you cannot read the Bible literally?

I know at one point I mentioned how the Bible mentioned various reasons to stone people for small little things, such as working on the Sabbath. But they said that the Old Testament was not law anymore, that is the reason Christ died on the cross.

My first response is why are there 33,000 protestant sects today and between 270-300 added per year if its so easy to interpret?

There are goodness knows how many unchurched fundamentalists who are all singly interpreting as well. Who knows what that number is.

For those that say that Jesus supplanted the OT, ask them why their bible has it then? If it is no longer the law, then God apparently would not want it read for any purpose? It can be the word of God any longer it would seem.

 

[tabcom]

What are some ways I can show that you cannot read the Bible literally?

I would tell them that their English Bibles are not the inspired word of God. The inspired word of God in the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament was written in Greek. Is that important? There are many words in the Greek that have ambiguously been translated into the English. For instance, the Greek Language has 24 ways to spell the word ‘the’.
In other words, don’t trust the English Bible’s translation all by itself.

But more importantly, they should do exactly what you are doing, study harder and ask a lot of questions.

they said that the Old Testament was not law anymore, that is the reason Christ died on the cross.

Have your friends open their English Bible’s to this passage:

Matt 5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

the jot and the tittle are letters in the hebrew alphabet.

Think of this passage as saying, "all the ‘i’ will be dotted, and all ‘t’ will be crossed in the Law until Jesus comes back – at the end of time.

If your English Bible friends really, truely believe in Jesus Christ, this verse will prove to them that the Law has not been done away with.

I hope my answer helps.

 

[Valke2]

I have many Protestant friends, and they say the Bible needs no interpretation, it is what it is. They read the Bible literally.

What are some ways I can show that you cannot read the Bible literally?

I know at one point I mentioned how the Bible mentioned various reasons to stone people for small little things, such as working on the Sabbath. But they said that the Old Testament was not law anymore, that is the reason Christ died on the cross.

You can tell them that even before Jesus came on the scene, Jews by and large did not implement the stoneing penalties for many offenses that our Torah required it. That our Talmud teaches that even if one person was put to death in a seven year period, that Sanhedrin (court) was considered to be abnormally bloody.

 

[wardrandolph]

As we all know the Bible is the "Inspired"word of God written over a long period of time by differant people in differant cultures.It containes history,metaphores,parables,poetry and other literary styles.To understand the scriptures,one must be aware of the cultural view the writer is living in.Also discerning what God is trying to reveal to us.Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 both give an account of the creation story but are not exact in the order of creation because the writer is not concerned with exact history, but rather,he is telling us God created everthing.Phil.3:20(KJV)states,Our conversation is in heaven;In the kings english(1600’s) they probubly knew the word "conversation"actually means citizen.The word citizen is used in our Catholic Bible.Peace be with you

 

[teachccd]

Show them that they cannot read the Bible literally when they dismiss the teachings of Jesus in the Bread of Life discourse in the Sixth Chapter of John’s gospel. Almost ALL Protestants do not take Jesus’ words literally. And then mention the Last Supper accounts in the synoptic gospels. “This is my Body”. What about those words?? Literal is literal. So which is it?? Literally His body as He plainly stated or not?? Our Protestant friends cannot say that they take Scripture literally and discount those things that conflict with their misinformed teachings…God Bless…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

Also the Bible plainly states that if your eye causes you to sin you must pluck it out and if your hand causes you to sin you must cut it off. Ask your Protestant friend where all of the one eyed and one handed people sit in his church??? Remember they take Scripture as literal…or do they???

 

[stray]

I think it was said that one must learn the word as that of a child

 

[Bishopite]

[hamburglar;2935385]I have many Protestant friends, and they say the Bible needs no interpretation, it is what it is. They read the Bible literally.

What are some ways I can show that you cannot read the Bible literally?

Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Section 116-119 describe the different senses of scripture which always start with the literal sense.

"116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

However, the literal sense doesn’t mean the literalistic sense, as this is an over literal view of scripture. When Jesus says to pluck your eye out if it causes you to stumble, plucking it out wouldn’t be the literal sense but an over literal sense. Jesus was using hyperboly there. We Catholics take the literal sense of scripture so greatly, we believe Jesus’ words in John 6:47-57 that we believe Jesus was speaking literally when He said “eat My flesh and drink My blood.”

I know at one point I mentioned how the Bible mentioned various reasons to stone people for small little things, such as working on the Sabbath. But they said that the Old Testament was not law anymore, that is the reason Christ died on the cross.

Well, yes and no. Jesus came to fulfill the law, but there are aspects of the law that can not change and will not change. However, we Christians aren’t bound by the Mosaic law in that someone commits adultery we don’t stone them to death. We also aren’t bound by the Old Testament law because Moses handed them down to us. What we ARE bound by is obeying the righteousness behind the Ten Commandments (Old Testament law) given to Moses by God because it reflects the natural moral law of God which is described in Romans 2:14-16 and which is immutable. The Old Testament law had cerimonial and moral aspects within it, and Christians aren’t bound by the cerimonial aspects of it, but are bound always by the moral aspects (moral law) of the OT law. We obey the Ten Commandments by God giving us the grace to obey them and we violate them by a mortal sin.

 

[Teflon93]

I have many Protestant friends, and they say the Bible needs no interpretation, it is what it is. They read the Bible literally.

What are some ways I can show that you cannot read the Bible literally?

I know at one point I mentioned how the Bible mentioned various reasons to stone people for small little things, such as working on the Sabbath. But they said that the Old Testament was not law anymore, that is the reason Christ died on the cross.

During his temptation, Satan took Christ up a mountain in the wilderness to show him all the kingdoms of the Earth. There is no mountain which provides such a vantage point, even were the Earth flat. No vantage point exists outside of cartographic manipulation which can provide such a view, unless one happens to be in orbit and moving at sufficient speed relative to the ground.

Also, the mustard seed grows not into a tree, but a plant.

 

[inthecloud]

What about giving all your goods to the poor and leaving your family to follow Jesus? Are those Bible literalists doing that? I do not see them selling their houses or giving away their clothes.

 

[Teflon93]

What about giving all your goods to the poor and leaving your family to follow Jesus? Are those Bible literalists doing that? I do not see them selling their houses or giving away their clothes.

This reminds me of St Francis of Assisi, who of course did precisely that.

He also read the passage literally which commanded us to proclaim the gospel to all God’s creatures, which is where the preaching to the animals came in.

A literal-minded man, St Francis.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have many Protestant friends, and they say the Bible needs no interpretation, it is what it is. They read the Bible literally.

What are some ways I can show that you cannot read the Bible literally?

I know at one point I mentioned how the Bible mentioned various reasons to stone people for small little things, such as working on the Sabbath. But they said that the Old Testament was not law anymore, that is the reason Christ died on the cross.

How about -​

• 1. The Bible must be be read literally (= according to the letter)
• 1. It must not be understood literalistically
• 1. The literal sense ( = the sense the text bears according to the letter) is the beginning of the interpretation of the text, & not the end.
• 4a. 3. is the reason that it not sound exegesis to suppose that Christ has a mane, whiskers, & tail - even though He is called “the lion of the tribe of Judah” in Revelation 5
• 4b. That is, the relevant part of the text is a metaphor describing His Work - not a taxonomic description of His place in the animal kingdom; Revelation 5 is not talking about zoölogy

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I would tell them that their English Bibles are not the inspired word of God. The inspired word of God in the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the New Testament was written in Greek. Is that important? There are many words in the Greek that have ambiguously been translated into the English. For instance, the Greek Language has 24 ways to spell the word ‘the’.
In other words, don’t trust the English Bible’s translation all by itself.

But more importantly, they should do exactly what you are doing, study harder and ask a lot of questions.

Have your friends open their English Bible’s to this passage:

Matt 5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”

the jot and the tittle are letters in the hebrew alphabet.

Think of this passage as saying, "all the ‘i’ will be dotted, and all ‘t’ will be crossed in the Law until Jesus comes back – at the end of time.

If your English Bible friends really, truely believe in Jesus Christ, this verse will prove to them that the Law has not been done away with.

I hope my answer helps.

*Real *literalists would reject the written NT as ungodly & insulting to God, as it is abundantly clear from the OT that Scripture is not to be added to.​

There is an NT in the NT - but it it is “the NT in My Blood” (Matthew 26. 26); it is of course self-evident that Matthew was not inspired, but was merely recording what Jesus had said.

An argument against the sinfulness of the 27-book NT might go thus:

• The NT is a Popish invention, founded on nothing more solid than post-Biblical traditions: no “true Christian” should touch it, as a written NT is totally unBiblical. There is not a scrap of evidence in the Bible that God was going to provide 27 extra books - not even the NT claims to be inspired. It contradicts the Bible (AKA the OT), & is to be rejected.

 

[inthecloud]

Yeah the NT is a Romanish invention. (good one Michael).
St. Francis and St. Rosa de Lima are examples that the real NT literalist are Catholic!
When a man said St Rosa was a pretty woman, she took a knife to her face to ugly herself up. (If you eye ofends you…).

 

[MCL]

Although a newcomer to CAF, it is apparent to me that the written word is often misinterpreted. There are many posts and threads where people need to elaborate on their original meaning because of misinterpretation. The written word alone is missing something - the emphasis, tone, and gestures of the speaker.

Take the following phrase:

“I never said that you stole the money.”

This simple phrase can be interepreted at least 5 different ways depending on the emphasis intended by the speaker.

Keep in mind that both the OT and NT were first oral tradition. That in transcribing these spoken words, the emphasis, tone, gestures, and background of the speaker are lost on the reader.

 

[hamburglar]

Hehe, now I got thrown that I don’t have to believe the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[fatherx]

I have many Protestant friends, and they say the Bible needs no interpretation, it is what it is. They read the Bible literally.

What are some ways I can show that you cannot read the Bible literally?

I know at one point I mentioned how the Bible mentioned various reasons to stone people for small little things, such as working on the Sabbath. But they said that the Old Testament was not law anymore, that is the reason Christ died on the cross.

I agree with your friends, Christ died for our sins, rose from the dead on the third day. Literally!