Why do Christians Take Some Parts of the Bible Literally but not other Parts? (Gospel, hell)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, that's probably a poor quick rundown of Biblical covenants, and why it seems that Christians are totally picking and choosing which scriptures to follow while they eat their bacon cheeseburgers and wear their polyester/cotton blend t-shirts.
...and when they refrain from stoning children that are disobedient, and not forcing a woman to marry a rapist, and not forcing a widow to marry her deceased husband's brother, and not making women hide away during their periods, and on, and on, and on. Call it a new covenant or whatever but you are still picking and choosing in terms of an interpretation through modern eyes. Fundamentalists love to quote Leviticus and other O.T. books when it suits them (e.g. homosexuality) but conveniently avoid many of the verses covering the aforementioned laws.
What I'm really getting at by this question is the word for word literal acceptance of Genesis as fact while Revelations in particular seems to be open for speculation as to what it means. There is an actual industry of preachers and authors who spend their careers trying to explain various passages of Revelations to their congregations and the public. Since they take Genesis literally why don't they take Revelations literally? I think people should at least be consistent when they study the bible. If Revelations can be interpreted as being symbolic shouldn't the same thing apply to Genesis? Many religious people, particularly fundamentalists, go ballistic when someone suggests that the days of creation might be symbolic and yet these same people accept all sorts of interpretations and speculations in Revelations instead of a literal meaning. The rapture is an interesting example. As far as I can tell the whole idea of the rapture was based on the supposed visions of a Scottish teenager in the 1800's and it was widely publicized and now many fundamentalists accept it as fact even though it's not based on Christian traditions. What do some of those think?
From another thread this is my POV... I think it applies here as well:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559
I believe the Bible to be the word of God. I believe all scripture is God-breathed. Human man wrote the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and wrote what God told them to write. God is the author and man was the pen.
When you read the Bible, read it straight-forwardly and interpret it in the context in which it was written. If it's clearly poetry or clearly allegorical, interpret it as such. If it's straight-forward narrative prose, read it accordingly. If it's historical narrative, accept it as such. This is what I mean when I say I take the Bible literally. When Jesus says I am the gate.. he's not a literal wooden door. That's obvious symbolism.
Again, Scripture interprets Scripture. The Bible is a cross-reference lover's dream. Most topics are touched upon more than once in more than one book. This, I would say, is the proper way to determine if you're properly 'interpreting' something you've read. God is not the author of confusion, as blue so rightly points out. The Bible also does not contradict itself. If it appears to do so, then something is not right with our understanding.
You also have to take the Bible as a whole and evaluate what you're reading against the entire counsel of God. Such as whether or not the Levitical laws still pertain in light of the NT. IMO, some do and some don't. But the reason why is explained within the Bible.
IMHO, the Word of God is never in error, but our understanding can be.
Many moderate Christians understand that the bible cannot possibly be all literally true. I think most like to believe in a higher being, and take many positive messages from the bible, and use it as a bedrock of moral teaching.
For Christians who take it to be 100% literal/word of God.. then the fact is that they might as well believe that Santa Clause parades around the earth on a raindeer driven sled, and the tooth fairies come to collect our children's teeth from under the pillow!
For Christians who take it to be 100% literal/word of God.. then the fact is that they might as well believe that Santa Clause parades around the earth on a raindeer driven sled, and the tooth fairies come to collect our children's teeth from under the pillow!
Hey, that's great. Didn't we just have a discussion about chickens?
Ok, I see what you're saying about history versus prophesy but just because the topics are different why does that have to change from a literal to a symbolic style of writing about it? I mean the Bible doesn't come right out and say this part is literal and this part isn't, that's just an interpretation. The language and style of writing in Genesis could easily be taken in a symbolic way. It has kind of a poetic and descriptive style that doesn't resemble a textbook on history at all. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate your ideas.
Hi, Montana Guy: It's nice to see you in the Christianity thread! My beliefs I'm sure concerning the book of Revelation will probably go against the grain of most here, but that's ok.
It is my contention that the Book of Revelation was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (ca. early to mid-sixties A.D.). This was a time of extreme persecution against the church. John, the author, was in exile at the time of the writing. The things given in symbolism in the Revelation were done so by John because to be clear and precise about the political powers at the time would have been very costly and deadly.
John was shown those things which were in his day to SHORTLY take place--a fact completely ignored by futurists in the Church today. The time was then NEAR for these things to unfold.
As far as Genesis is concerned, most agnostics or atheists will never accept a literal six-day creation by God. There are even believers who believe in a day-age theory. I see within the first chapter of Genesis the entire foundation for the world we see around us today. I believe in a mighty, awesome omnipotent God who is perfectly capable of creating our universe and anything He wants in a mere six days. Someone once asked (I believe it was Tom Brokaw), how could God create the world in just six days? I wrote him and said, "Your god is so small that you wonder how he could create the world in just six days; My God is so big that I often wonder what took Him so long!"
Many moderate Christians understand that the bible cannot possibly be all literally true. I think most like to believe in a higher being, and take many positive messages from the bible, and use it as a bedrock of moral teaching.
For Christians who take it to be 100% literal/word of God.. then the fact is that they might as well believe that Santa Clause parades around the earth on a raindeer driven sled, and the tooth fairies come to collect our children's teeth from under the pillow!
What do you mean by the Bible being "100% literal/word of God?" Are you saying that everything that everyone says within its pages is true? That is not what inspiration is. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." But one requires circular reasoning, I admit. One must use the Bible to prove the Bible. It is a matter of faith. It is pointless to use the Bible with those who do not accept its truthfulness.
Actually, ian6479, the Bible is a whole lot easier to believe in than Santa Claus and the tooth fairies! Have you read it?
What I'm really getting at by this question is the word for word literal acceptance of Genesis as fact while Revelations in particular seems to be open for speculation as to what it means. There is an actual industry of preachers and authors who spend their careers trying to explain various passages of Revelations to their congregations and the public. Since they take Genesis literally why don't they take Revelations literally? I think people should at least be consistent when they study the bible. If Revelations can be interpreted as being symbolic shouldn't the same thing apply to Genesis? Many religious people, particularly fundamentalists, go ballistic when someone suggests that the days of creation might be symbolic and yet these same people accept all sorts of interpretations and speculations in Revelations instead of a literal meaning. The rapture is an interesting example. As far as I can tell the whole idea of the rapture was based on the supposed visions of a Scottish teenager in the 1800's and it was widely publicized and now many fundamentalists accept it as fact even though it's not based on Christian traditions. What do some of those think?
Hi Montana Guy. Why do u care what Christians believe about the Bible since u don't believe in God or the Bible? Are u just being critical or attacking the merits of Christianity? Or have u had a change of heart about God and want to receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and personal Saviour?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Answer to OP only
