• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What does "Bible literalism" mean? according to this definition.

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
According to one source, "Biblical literalism is the belief that the Bible, or at least large portions of it, should be read literally, not allegorically. This means the language should be interpreted as used in everyday writing and speaking."
Can someone explain what that means? I don't even understand that definition, reminds me of what evolutionists say in a way -- say something without explaining it. So what's really "Bible literalism" according to the above definition?
Biblical literalism - Religions Wiki
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
According to one source, "Biblical literalism is the belief that the Bible, or at least large portions of it, should be read literally, not allegorically. This means the language should be interpreted as used in everyday writing and speaking."
Can someone explain what that means? I don't even understand that definition, reminds me of what evolutionists say in a way -- say something without explaining it. So what's really "Bible literalism" according to the above definition?
Biblical literalism - Religions Wiki
Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
According to one source, "Biblical literalism is the belief that the Bible, or at least large portions of it, should be read literally, not allegorically. This means the language should be interpreted as used in everyday writing and speaking."
Can someone explain what that means? I don't even understand that definition, reminds me of what evolutionists say in a way -- say something without explaining it. So what's really "Bible literalism" according to the above definition?
Biblical literalism - Religions Wiki

It means that they believe the Bible is the literal truth, written by men with God speaking through them.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It means that they believe the Bible is the literal truth, written by men with God speaking through them.
Some expressions would have to be taken with a "grain of salt," right? Such as how Jesus described his disciples at Matthew 5:13 when he called them the salt of the earth.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Bible literalism is the simple straight forward understanding of the text. In Judaism it's called Peshat.

Peshat - Wikipedia.
I'd have to look up Peshat because your first sentence makes sense. You use the term 'understanding.' We'd have to understand, or interpret a text, wouldn't we?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I agree with your definition so far -- not the wiki initial definition, which frankly, I don't understand.
Is it the part about allegory that's confusing? Or is it that some prophecies aren't easily understood literally. Example, Daniel's prophecies?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I'd have to look up Peshat because your first sentence makes sense. You use the term 'understanding.' We'd have to understand, or interpret a text, wouldn't we?
As an example, the simple literal understanding of the Adam and Eve story involves a literal serpent. Looking at it allegorically, one could understand the serpent as a symbol for an person's internal selfish desires.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
I don't understand it. For instance, "This means the language should be interpreted as used in everyday writing and speaking." ? What does that mean in relation to literal meaning?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Is it the part about allegory that's confusing? Or is it that some prophecies aren't easily understood literally. Example, Daniel's prophecies?
First of all, Daniel's prophecies either must be seen or interpreted, right? I'm speaking specifically of those that might believe that each "day" of creation was 24 hours long? But even so, I still don't understand wiki's initial statement.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
As an example, the simple literal understanding of the Adam and Eve story involves a literal serpent. Looking at it allegorically, one could understand the serpent as a symbol for an person's internal selfish desires.
One could. However, that interpretation wouldn't make sense in reference to the curse afterwards put on Eve. Also the serpent, let me not forget that. Or the tree. And the banishment from the Garden of Eden. I don't like snakes anyway, I know some people do. I don't even like things like the little lizards in the south with curled tails. But that doesn't mean God is going to obliterate these lizards.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
According to one source, "Biblical literalism is the belief that the Bible, or at least large portions of it, should be read literally, not allegorically. This means the language should be interpreted as used in everyday writing and speaking."
Can someone explain what that means? I don't even understand that definition, reminds me of what evolutionists say in a way -- say something without explaining it. So what's really "Bible literalism" according to the above definition?
Biblical literalism - Religions Wiki
Well, first you have to discount the second sentence -- the Biblical language that you have access to has many variations, because you don't read it in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Thus, you use translations, and they can be quite different. KJV, RSV, Jerusalem --- oh, never mind, there are over 100 of them!

Having put that little language issue aside, Biblical literalism means that you should read the Bible (in whatever translation you happen to be using) as being true descriptions of events as they happened -- rather than as stories meant to exemplify religious values.

Thus, you can't read Genesis 1 as a metaphorical description of the Creation as an allegory, any more than you can read Genesis 2 as the same thing. This, of course, presents a tiny problem in that they say quite different things. The same is true of the two (quite different) stories of the Flood, and any number of other stories.

So, can you see the problem? If one part of the Bible says 7,000 people died in a particular battle, and another part says it was 70,000, you are required to accept both as being true. No doubt this will take a little mental gymnastics on your part, but I've not found many believers who couldn't manage it.

The more wild the stories are, of course, the harder this gets. But as long as your faith is strong, you can believe in the most bizarre contradictions.

On the other hand, you'll have to accept that your rational faculties need to be tuned out a bit. But no worries, I've never met a Christian who couldn't do that.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Well, first you have to discount the second sentence -- the Biblical language that you have access to has many variations, because you don't read it in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Thus, you use translations, and they can be quite different. KJV, RSV, Jerusalem --- oh, never mind, there are over 100 of them!

Having put that little language issue aside, Biblical literalism means that you should read the Bible (in whatever translation you happen to be using) as being true descriptions of events as they happened -- rather than as stories meant to exemplify religious values.

Thus, you can't read Genesis 1 as a metaphorical description of the Creation as an allegory, any more than you can read Genesis 2 as the same thing. This, of course, presents a tiny problem in that they say quite different things. The same is true of the two (quite different) stories of the Flood, and any number of other stories.

So, can you see the problem? If one part of the Bible says 7,000 people died in a particular battle, and another part says it was 70,000, you are required to accept both as being true. No doubt this will take a little mental gymnastics on your part, but I've not found many believers who couldn't manage it.

The more wild the stories are, of course, the harder this gets. But as long as your faith is strong, you can believe in the most bizarre contradictions.
On the other hand, you'll have to accept that your rational faculties need to be tuned out a bit. But no worries, I've never met a Christian who couldn't do that.
OK, I appreciate your answer. As far as differences in statements, I know there are commentators that make sense, in other words, realize that there have been some errors of copying throughout the centuries. As for the perceived differences of the creation account, I'll have to look at that again.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Bible literalism is the simple straight forward understanding of the text. In Judaism it's called Peshat.

Peshat - Wikipedia.
Do I understand this correctly? In other words, is this right? "numerous scholars and rabbis have debated this for centuries, giving Peshat many uses and definitions,: (From the article) many uses and definitions...ok...you won't get a debate about that from me. about the definition or description, anyway.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Looking at it allegorically, one could understand the serpent as a symbol for an person's internal selfish desires.
Not too long ago I heard a Christian group interpreting serpent, representing selfish desires, quite specific, meaning "penis". First time I heard that, never thought of that myself

You had that in mind with "selfish desires"? Just curious if more Abrahamics think this
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Thus, you can't read Genesis 1 as a metaphorical description of the Creation as an allegory, any more than you can read Genesis 2 as the same thing. This, of course, presents a tiny problem in that they say quite different things. The same is true of the two (quite different) stories of the Flood, and any number of other stories.

So, can you see the problem? If one part of the Bible says 7,000 people died in a particular battle, and another part says it was 70,000, you are required to accept both as being true. No doubt this will take a little mental gymnastics on your part, but I've not found many believers who couldn't manage it.
Thanks for sharing
I really like the "mental gymnastics" part

This is solid proof for me, that some Bible verses are not meant to be taken literal
 
Top