Is the bible meant to be taken literally? (gospel, tradition)

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by JamesThePersian

This is simply not true. There are plenty of early Church Fathers that do anything but take certain passages in the Bible literally and that has absolutely nothing to do with replacement theology. St. Basil the Great's Hexaemeron is a great example (relating to Genesis) and St. John Chrysostom is another that springs to mind.

James

I did not mean that it is the only reason for allogorizing of scripture but for a lot of current misinterpretation of Scripture.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Jesus always took it literally.

The idea that passages mut be taken for other than what they mean seems to go back to the idea of replacement theology. There were too many confusing passages while the state of Israel did not exist. "Scholars" got around this by either allogorizing passages or replacing Israel with the church. Unfortunately the tradition has carried on, possibly by sheer momentum. It is now fashionable to allogorize passages when one does not care to agree with them.

What causes you to think "Jesus always took it literally?" What about the parables?

It's not "replacement theology," it's higher criticism, which applies as well to very clear passages as to unclear passages.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by MdmSzdWhtGuy

No Sandy,

It has become popular to allegorize those passages when they are known to be false or impossible.

B.

Allegorization has been around for a while. It only seems like it's popular because it's got a perceived foe [Science].

[wmam]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Jesus always took it literally.

Good point. I agree.

[wmam]

Originally Posted by kal-el

Is the Bible meant to be taken literally?

I believe the Scriptures where suppose to be taken literally.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by sojourner

What causes you to think "Jesus always took it literally?" What about the parables?

It's not "replacement theology," it's higher criticism, which applies as well to very clear passages as to unclear passages.

Because every time He quoted the Old Testament he took it for what it said.

Generally then "higher criticism" must be fancy language for allegorizing the Bible because it doesn't prove one's point or that some part of the Bible conflicts with another (in one's interpretation) so obviously (the Bible being correct) one part must mean something other than what it says. Constantine had that problem

[Lindsey-Loo]

In my experiences, once the bible is shown to contain numerous errors, theists assert, "That's not to be taken literally". I usually take things literally unless told otherwise. Something that's meant to be fiction usually begins with "once upon a time". The very name Gospel means truth. It seems to me that the bible goes to great lenghts to show that the bible is the infallible word of god. And an "omniscient" entity wouldn't be so incongrous as to leave his word up to interpretations.

I agree. The Bible is not all symbolism. I think that it is mostly to be taken literally. When God is using symbolism in the Bible, I think we can tell. (Like during parables, or descriptions of people's visions and stuff.)