I grew up in the Church. Grandfather worked there. Sunday School, Bible School, RA's , Training Union, revivals, I was there for all of it. I grew up in a fairly conservative Southern Baptist church. In later years, I have attended other churches from time to time. Many of those churches believed in the literal interpretation of Scripture and I know many people today that I have met over the years in those churches that believe strongly in a literal interpretation.

 

What about you? Do you believe the Bible literally from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 or do you pick and choose certain parts to view literally and others as just symbolic or parables to teach us a moral lesson? Examples. Were Adam and Eve real people? The story of Noah and the Ark? Jonah? Did the serpent really speak? Did God make Eve from the rib of Adam? Is Hell a literal fire? Can we believe every single word as the literal truth? Some say(many, in fact) you must believe it all as stated or else believe none of it. What do you say?

 

Thanks.

I do not believe in a literal interpretation from Genesis 1:1all the way through Revelation chapter 22. But I do believe Some of the stories that you cite are actually happened as they are written in the bible

We do know that the Bible is a compilation of writings from various authors separated into the Old Testament (before Christ), and the New Testament (After Christ).

 

Aside from just being told that it is the inspired word of God, (The Old Testament for the Jews, and its entirety for Christians), how do they actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

For some it's just what they've been taught since childhood, so it's deeply rooted in them to believe this, but how do they actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

Christianity and Judaism is firmly based on the books of the Bible, and both religions have existed for generations, and believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but how do they actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

The Islamic religion has been in existence for generations and follows the writings of the Koran, and believe that it is the inspired word of God, but how do they actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

Christians, Jews, and Muslims have similarities in that they follow ancient writings and consider them to be the inspired word of God, but how do they actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

Aside from believing that the Bible or the Koran is the inspired word of God, many people throughout time, and even today adamantly profess and defend that these writings are the inspired word of God, but how do they actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

Usually the way that humans come to believe that these ancient writings are the inspired word of God is by parents telling their children that they are, just as their parents were told by their parents that they are, as well as preachers within various religious denominations preaching that they are, but how do they actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

Some people who believe that these ancient writings are the inspired word of God can become angry if others ask them how they actually know this to be true, but how do they actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

Some people say that it's their faith that allows them to believe that these ancient writings are the inspired word of God, but how does their faith ensure this to them that this is actually true, if by chance it is?

 

Who originally said that these ancient writings were the inspired word of God, and how did they actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

If someone today were to write a book and say that it was the inspired word of God, how would they actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

If someone today were to write a book and say that it was the inspired word of God, what are the chances that anyone would believe them, and if by chance anyone believed them, how would they actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

If someone today were to write a book and say that it was the inspired word of God, and you didn't believe them, why wouldn't you believe them, and how would you actually know this to be untrue, if by chance it is?

 

If you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but wouldn't believe anyone today if they said that they wrote a book inspired by God, what would make you believe that the Bible was the inspired word of God, but that this newer work is not, and how would you actually know this to be true, if by chance it is?

 

A large portion of people raised as a Christian believe that Christianity is the truth, and a large portion of people raised as a Jew believe that Judaism is the truth, and a large portion of people raised as a Muslim believe that the Islamic religion is the truth, and a large portion of people raised as a Hindu believe that Hinduism is the truth, and a large portion of people raised as a Buddhist believe that Buddhism is the truth, but how do any of them actually know that it's the truth, if by chance it is?

 

If any of these religions are the truth, how does anyone actually know, if by chance it is?

I don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I'm sure many parts of the Bible are historically based but when it comes to the the Great Flood, the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve, parting the Red Sea, and many more stories, I believe they are myth. All religions have creation stories and end of times stories, and laws/rules to live by. But they're written by men in the customs, traditions, and of the times they are written. Just because they are written doesn't make them true.

As I've grown older I've become very skeptical in many of my views. I like a certain amount of proof before I take Big Foot, aliens, copper bracelets for arthritis, and Blood Moons seriously.

But with religious beliefs it is said that all one needs is faith. That's been a stumbling block for me since my college days in the '70s. I need little more evidence than "It Is Written.

My late mom and dad were devout Baptist, and my 5 brothers and sisters are very religious. But I can remember sitting in church when I was a teenager and and having skeptical thoughts about some of the Bible stories. They just seemed farfetched to me. It is said that everyone doesn't get the "Word". I suppose in my family of 8 that's me.

Christians follow both the Old and New Testament, and therefore believe that Jesus is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament.

 

Jews follow only the Old Testament, and claim that Jesus did not fulfill the Old Testament's prophecies in the way foretold, so therefore do not view Jesus as the Messiah, so therefore they do not follow the New Testament.

 

If these foretold prophesies from the Old Testament are actually true, and Christians follow the Old Testament, but Jesus didn't fulfill the foretold prophecies within it, how do Christians explain following the New Testament as well, and considering Jesus to be the Messiah?

My post from another thread:

 

 

The Bible is not meant for our interpretation. I, for example, leave interpretation to a group much smarter than me. Catholic priests and scholars have dedicated their entire life to theology. So just as I would trust a rocket scientist's opinion on interpreting an astronomical publication about the Moon, I will trust a priest/representative from the Vatican's opinion on interpreting the Bible.

 

My post from another thread

 

The Bible is not meant for our interpretation. I, for example, leave interpretation to a group much smarter than me. Catholic priests and scholars have dedicated their entire life to theology. So just as I would trust a rocket scientist's opinion on interpreting an astronomical publication about the Moon, I will trust a priest/representative from the Vatican's opinion on interpreting the Bible.

 

Why would the Bible not be meant for our interpretation? If this is the book that we are urged by both the Christians and Jews to read to dedicate our lives to following, what would be the point in doing so if we're not supposed to garner understanding from it by doing so?

 

Assuming it's not meant for our interpretation, how do human scholars garner understanding from it by doing so?

 

I'm assuming that the answer to that is they have a firmer grasp on the history of the time various books were written to make better sense of them.

 

There are Judaic scholars and Christian scholars who have arrived at different significant conclusions about what they believe to be the truth about the Messiah. How do those who rely on experts for guidance decide which experts to follow?

 

Though I don't know how I could conclude that either are correct, but if either one actually is, how would one begin to know how they could conclude which one is the correct one in order to follow them?

 

-Can they both be correct?

 

-Is one of them correct?

 

-Are both incorrect?

 

How do either of the experts conclude what is the truth, and how would they conclude this, and how would one looking for guidance be able to discern the difference?

 

If the Old Testament spells out certain prophecies foretelling of the Messiah, and Christians and Jews alike believe in those prophecies, but if those prophecies weren't fulfilled the way foretold by Christ's existence as stated in the Old Testament, how do Christians who follow the Old Testament's foretold prophecies justify believing that Jesus is the Messiah if they weren't fulfilled as stated in the Old Testament?

 

Whether any of it is the truth or not, The Jews somehow seem to have a point when basing their conclusions on the Old Testament that Jesus didn't fulfill prophesy as foretold in the Old Testament, yet both Jews and Christians follow the Old Testament, but Christians only the New Testament, though it conflicts with the prophesies of the Old Testament.

 

The Jews obviously believe that The Messiah is to one day come, as did the Jews who converted to Christianity upon the arrival of Jesus, but the ones who didn't convert resisted because the prophesy wasn't fulfilled as foretold, and are still waiting. The converted Christians, though believing in the prophesies of the Old Testament, still believed that Jesus was the Messiah though he didn't fulfill the foretold prophesies.

 

It's as if the prophesies were laid out and the Christians said we're cool with that, but ultimately forewent completely following them, and became convinced that the arrival of Jesus was the sign they were looking for though it didn't match up with the sign they were foretold to be looking for.

 

It's puzzling.

I've never met a single person who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible...:idunno:

I've never met a single person who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible...:idunno:

 

I have. Well, they claim to until I ask them specific questions. In my opinion only, most people that claim to believe in a literal interpretation of everything (100%) don't realize what that means exactly.

I've never met a single person who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible...:idunno:

 

Wow! Have you ever been to a lot of very Conservative churches. I have. I've met a lot of literalists. Sincere people, most of them. I just disagree with their interpretation.

Wow! Have you ever been to a lot of very Conservative churches. I have. I've met a lot of literalists. Sincere people, most of them. I just disagree with their interpretation.

 

I know Christians from all different sects. Not a one believes anything even remotely similar to what you're suggesting...

Wow! Have you ever been to a lot of very Conservative churches. I have. I've met a lot of literalists. Sincere people, most of them. I just disagree with their interpretation.

 

 

My net is probably a little wider. When people understand what 100% literal means, they usually back off.

 

For example....

 

In Luke 13, Jesus called King Herod a "fox." To take this literally you would have to believe that Jesus is calling him an actual furry animal that runs in the field.

 

When you bring an example like this up, the person who claimed to believe in literal interpretation of everything will recognize that Jesus is calling Herod a sly dishonest person.

 

In Isaiah 55 it says "The trees in the field will clap their hands." A true literal would have to believe that trees have hands that they will clap.

 

Some things in the Bible are indeed literal and are meant for us to treat them that way. But much of it is meant to be figurative or symbolic language.

 

I had a really good sermon about 15 months ago about the #666 and what it actually means. Anyone interested?

My net is probably a little wider. When people understand what 100% literal means, they usually back off.

 

For example....

 

In Luke 13, Jesus called King Herod a "fox." To take this literally you would have to believe that Jesus is calling him an actual furry animal that runs in the field.

 

When you bring an example like this up, the person who claimed to believe in literal interpretation of everything will recognize that Jesus is calling Herod a sly dishonest person.

 

In Isaiah 55 it says "The trees in the field will clap their hands." A true literal would have to believe that trees have hands that they will clap.

 

Some things in the Bible are indeed literal and are meant for us to treat them that way. But much of it is meant to be figurative or symbolic language.

 

I had a really good sermon about 15 months ago about the #666 and what it actually means. Anyone interested?

 

 

Yes, I agree with you in those kind of examples. I was referring more to certain stories or aspects of those stories. Do you believe that God created Man as depicted in the Bible? Adam and Eve were real people, created as the Bible says? Noah's Ark? etc...

My net is probably a little wider. When people understand what 100% literal means, they usually back off.

 

For example....

 

In Luke 13, Jesus called King Herod a "fox." To take this literally you would have to believe that Jesus is calling him an actual furry animal that runs in the field.

 

When you bring an example like this up, the person who claimed to believe in literal interpretation of everything will recognize that Jesus is calling Herod a sly dishonest person.

 

In Isaiah 55 it says "The trees in the field will clap their hands." A true literal would have to believe that trees have hands that they will clap.

 

Some things in the Bible are indeed literal and are meant for us to treat them that way. But much of it is meant to be figurative or symbolic language.

 

I had a really good sermon about 15 months ago about the #666 and what it actually means. Anyone interested?

 

Sure.

Prophecy doesn't mean what "will" happen, it means what "could" happen if the message is not understood and followed. Jonah is an example of how listening can change things.

 

I have zero belief that God knows or sees the future.