Why is the literalness of the Bible so important?

InChrist said:

All born again believers do not get diametrically opposed answers concerning the foundation truths or doctrines of the Bible. I think puesdo-Christian religions are a different story and from my perspective are hearing from a different god.

At least in my own experience I became acutely aware that the god I believed in as a Mormon was not the same One who saved me and I now know.

Click to expand...

What are the pseudo Christian religions?

Jainarayan said:

Not all of Christendom believes all of the Bible literally. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, and probably Anglican Churches view it as largely metaphorical and allegorical. Even when I was Christian I did not take it literally. My priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church used to say "what does it matter if Adam and Eve actually existed? The important thing is that we do exist to give glory to God". Yet there are large numbers in various Christian denominations that take the Bible literally. Why? Does taking it as largely allegorical somehow diminish any truths or lessons it holds? Does that make it false?

Using my own Hinduism for example, it's safe to say the overwhelming number of Hindus do not take most of our scriptures or stories literally, specifically the puranas. The Vedas are the exception in that they're generally accepted lock, stock and barrel because they are apauruṣeya (lit. means "not of man", i.e. divinely inspired). But they are not the equivalent of the Bible. The Vedas are hymns, poems, prayers, musings and treatises on theology, ontology and epistemology, and the world, etc. In the Nasadiya Sukta the Rig Veda even questions how creation came about. That said, that we don't take most of our texts literally doesn't diminish their value as being divinely inspired and holding truths.

So why is it so important that the Bible be interpreted literally?

Click to expand...

Wonderful insight and question.

adrian009 said:

If Adam and Eve did not exist, if Israel did not have an exodus out of Egypt, if Jonah was just an allegory, or if Jesus did not walk the earth then the entire Christian religion can potentially crumble at those points.

Click to expand...

Good points, however, about the only thing fairly certain in the Hindu mythos is that the Mahābhārata War was historical, at the very least as a local tribal conflict. Yet Hinduism has survived for over 5,000 years based on what are probably purely fanciful stories.

That an eight-armed woman riding a tiger while kicking demon butt probably does not physically exist doesn’t shake my faith in the least. My faith is in what she represents... powers greater than me, a loving mother who, along with her blue four-armed brother (Vishnu and Durga are brother and sister) protects her children from bullies, and who keeps universal evil at bay. Ridiculous and allegorical stories? IMO of course. Great truths and morals to live by? Absolutely.

If there was no Mahābhārata War, no Krishna, no Arjuna, we still come away with the Bhagavad Gita which to millions, hundreds of millions, of Hindus is the equivalent of the Sermon on the Mount, something people base their lives on. And if not the Bhagavad Gita (not all Hindus know it), then we have the Puranas, Agamas, Tamil scriptures and literature.

So, here we have billions of people, who for thousands of years have been living their lives according to principles laid down in allegories. I don’t think Christianity, Judaism or Islam would be any less true or worthy as faiths if they were based purely on allegory.

So when it comes right down to it I’m not interested in debunking or denigrating the stories, even I like them, but my basic question is why fight so hard to prove they’re historical? Why not simply accept, enjoy and live by them without attaching historicity to them? And to force it on others... fighting to get creationism taught in schools as historical and scientific fact, when it’s just religious belief. “He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." Matthew 17:20 As it was explained to me, the mountain is not Mt. Everest, but the mountains that are obstacles to faith.

Yes who says that they must be viewed as entirely literal as in essence it is a spiritual book addressing spiritual matters.

Sky Rivers said:

I tend towards not using Wikipedia for anything. Furthermore, since we're on the topic of Hebrew... "Nachash" can refer to a serpent (literal snake) but it can also refer to a "shining one" and often is associated with shining metal. If my recollection doesn't fail me, that metal is bronze.

My point is that just because a Hebrew word CAN mean something, doesn't mean it DOES mean that thing. Context is key.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia is perfectly fine as long as there are professional citations and references. Discernment is the key. I’m skeptical of entries that do not have them, or if the references themselves are suspect.

Sky Rivers said:

If you disbelieve Adam and Eve existed, it's not rational for you to believe that the "serpent" existed, nor that Eve sinned. It's not rational that you believe Adam also sinned and the two were banished from Eden as a result of sin. Neither is it rational to believe sin resulted in death, literal or "separation", nor that we need a savior because sin couldn't be overcome without him. Why did Jesus Christ die? Is the account of his ministry, death, and resurrection also just a story? Is that too fiction?

Continuing on and in the context of this post, it's certainly not rational to believe in any part of Genesis, be it Genesis 1, 2, 3 or further into the book. If Genesis 2 is wrong, it's not rational to think Genesis 3 isn't and if Genesis 3 is wrong, Genesis 1 is also (and so on). In fact, I reason that it's not rational to believe ANYTHING in the Bible to be true if something as clearly written as Genesis 2-3 is just a story. Why would you? If Genesis 2-3 is fiction, all of Genesis is fiction. Furthermore, if Genesis 2-3 is fiction, how could the Bible be inspired by God? God lies? He tells tall tales which never happened?

Click to expand...

Dont you agree that "irrational" is, in this context, to believe
that what one reads (interpret) is true, when all evedence
shows it is not?

Actually that is irrational anywhere.

None would be happy with a jury that believed in
their guilt tho innocence be proven.

"Not rational to believe anything in the
Bible if..."

But there are things in the Bible that are
true, obviously and indisputably!

Jainarayan said:

Wikipedia is perfectly fine as long as there are professional citations and references. Discernment is the key. I’m skeptical of entries that do not have them, or if the references themselves are suspect.

Click to expand...

Due diligence involves cross checking!

Sky Rivers said:

Neither is it rational to believe sin resulted in death, literal or "separation", nor that we need a savior because sin couldn't be overcome without him. Why did Jesus Christ die? Is the account of his ministry, death, and resurrection also just a story? Is that too fiction?

Click to expand...

From a personal perspective I don’t believe in the resurrection. That he existed, taught what he taught and died? Sure, why not? He died for his beliefs. But we still have evil, suffering and death in this world. We didn’t go back to a lush garden with fruit trees’ branches bending under the weight of so much food, or cheetahs and antelopes frolicking happily. Promise of a better life in ‘paradise’ after this one? Heck, I have that too. I have no proof but I take it on faith.

Audie said:

Due diligence involves cross checking!

Click to expand...

Exactly. Some things you don’t take on faith or at face value.

Sky Rivers said:

Paintings aren’t the same thing as written words.

Click to expand...

Sometimes they’re better. “A picture is worth a thousand words” is more than just a saying. If you look at the iconography of almost any religion: especially Eastern Orthodox, Hindu, or Buddhist you’all find a complete story. If you look at the Nativity or Resurrection icons of the Eastern Orthodox Church, a single painting tells the whole story of those events. You just have to know what to look for, and have a bit of written background.

Jainarayan said:

Not all of Christendom believes all of the Bible literally. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, and probably Anglican Churches view it as largely metaphorical and allegorical. Even when I was Christian I did not take it literally. My priest in the Eastern Orthodox Church used to say "what does it matter if Adam and Eve actually existed? The important thing is that we do exist to give glory to God". Yet there are large numbers in various Christian denominations that take the Bible literally. Why? Does taking it as largely allegorical somehow diminish any truths or lessons it holds? Does that make it false?

Using my own Hinduism for example, it's safe to say the overwhelming number of Hindus do not take most of our scriptures or stories literally, specifically the puranas. The Vedas are the exception in that they're generally accepted lock, stock and barrel because they are apauruṣeya (lit. means "not of man", i.e. divinely inspired). But they are not the equivalent of the Bible. The Vedas are hymns, poems, prayers, musings and treatises on theology, ontology and epistemology, and the world, etc. In the Nasadiya Sukta the Rig Veda even questions how creation came about. That said, that we don't take most of our texts literally doesn't diminish their value as being divinely inspired and holding truths.

So why is it so important that the Bible be interpreted literally?

Click to expand...

They say that all sacred writings are food for the soul.
But what makes a sacred writing?
What really makes a food for the soul?

For me I would like my food done by a known establishment, a friend, a parent, a sibling or myself.
It would be perfect if the food was prepared by a Decorated Michelin Star Chef.
I bet it would be delicious, nutritious and nice.



However a food done by a fly by night establishment, an enemy, a stranger or some unnamed cook would be risking one's life. It might be delicious but it won't be nutritious. Who knows if the food was cooked in some ghastly place?



So a sacred text is like food. It should be sanitary, clean and healthy. And if such is the requirement, we should be a skeptic and investigative as to where this "food" was cooked, who cooked and when it was cooked. Other than that, you might as well eat all your food from the floor.



The Bible was written as God spoke through his chosen servants.

Hebrews 1:1-3 New International Version (NIV)
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven

and who are these ancestors and prophets?
who wrote the Old Testament scriptures and who wrote the New Testament ones?

You can check that out at any encyclopedia
Old Testament - Wikipedia
New Testament - Wikipedia

So we know that these food for the soul weren't cooked up by some unknown cook in some unsanitary situation.

The Bible was written as a chronicle for God's chosen people, as a record of prophecies of things to come, a set of instructions on what must be done and it is God inspired.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 New International Version (NIV)
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

some of the writings are hidden and kept secret and are meant for God's chosen people to reveal.

Romans 16:24-26 New International Version (NIV)

Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith—

Hence are not for all people to read.
If God made it a mystery and hide it, it would be futile to interpret such things.

Having said these things.
We now focus on the Vedas?
Who wrote the Vedas?
I have been scouring the internet for answers.
And a Hindu scholar says this answer:


Who wrote the VEDAS according to him?
I'm sure he is a competent individual regarding these matters since he has his own wikipedia page:

Jay Lakhani (born December 5, 1948) is a theoretical physicist and a speaker on Spiritual humanism. He is the editor of two books related to the teaching of Hinduism in schools in the UK; Hinduism for Schools and Primary Hinduism. He received an MSc in Theoretical Physics in 1970 and is the first Hindu tutor to be appointed by Eton College for religious study.[1] He is also an Education Director for the Hindu Council(UK) and the head of The Hindu Academy(UK).[citation needed]

He presented several TED talks and television debates, challenging the paradigm of strict monotheism, materialism, and the connection between spiritual humanism and science.[2]

Jay Lakhani - Wikipedia

Jainarayan said:

Sometimes they’re better. “A picture is worth a thousand words” is more than just a saying. If you look at the iconography of almost any religion: especially Eastern Orthodox, Hindu, or Buddhist you’all find a complete story. If you look at the Nativity or Resurrection icons of the Eastern Orthodox Church, a single painting tells the whole story of those events. You just have to know what to look for, and have a bit of written background.

Click to expand...

Ttue but she is right, they are not the same things
in very important ways.

The Bible speaks of a covenant.

Nobody uses a painting of what would be nice, in
place of a contract!

The stakes set out in the Bible are very high.

Unfortunately the Bible was not vetted by
lawyers, but it is clear in that one is expected
to hold up his end of the contract.

The Bible is literature. That was how it was written. Stories and histories and laws were skillfully interwoven, adapted from local and foreign traditions and in the poetic style of a culture late on the scene of the story told. No eyewitness testimony, no literal god's view narration. This is the truth of what has actually happened in the creation of this narrative.

The New Testament is, perhaps, more of a collection of sermons given by letter. The extraordinary thing is that it begins with four different versions of the same story. To me this says that the community which assembled the texts probably had a deep reverence for the story being told but could not choose one version as the final authority. The gospels were creative works in progress and those chosen were seen to be the best of their kind.

The gospels show mutual sources, sometimes rearranged and altered. Some have significant new content which shows the authors own creative talents. The author of Matthew, for instance, had a knowledge of other religions and their teachings which he used to demote Judaism and promote the need for a new religion even as he utilized the Jewish Testament's prophecies to support the narrative of Jesus' life.

To read the Bible primarily as literal history without all of the limitations of the skillful but still human author's limitations is to do a great disservice to both God and humanity. It is to severely limit the mystery of God and our own nature and ability to reach out to God.

The Bible speaks of different covenants.

Very true.

The Old Covenant was for the Israelites.
It was not for the Egyptians, Moabites, Hittites, Philistines and the rest of the world.
Even ancient China or India isn't included in this covenant
Ancient civilizations in Mezoamerica, Africa or the Barbarian tribes of Europe
are also excluded from this covenant. - No promise, No hope, No God.

Only Israel had a covenant with God.
Unfortunately, the Israelites failed to follow and even killed God's prophets.
So God said:

Jeremiah 31:31-33 New International Version (NIV)
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

The New Covenant was with the Church
The Church established by Christ Matthew 16:18
It is open to all nationalities provided they are part of the Church.
It is not the Church of Satan, not even the Church of by any other name

Only this church has the covenant with God.
It comprises of all races - white, black, yellow or brown.

Hebrews 8 New International Version (NIV)
Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being.

Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises.

For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said:

“The days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them,
declares the Lord.
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

How about the present day Israel?
Do they still have the covenant with God made in Sinai?
How about other churches, other religions or no religions?
I think the Bible is self explanatory.

sealchan said:

The Bible is literature. That was how it was written. Stories and histories and laws were skillfully interwoven, adapted from local and foreign traditions and in the poetic style of a culture late on the scene of the story told. No eyewitness testimony, no literal god's view narration. This is the truth of what has actually happened in the creation of this narrative.

The New Testament is, perhaps, more of a collection of sermons given by letter. The extraordinary thing is that it begins with four different versions of the same story. To me this says that the community which assembled the texts probably had a deep reverence for the story being told but could not choose one version as the final authority. The gospels were creative works in progress and those chosen were seen to be the best of their kind.

The gospels show mutual sources, sometimes rearranged and altered. Some have significant new content which shows the authors own creative talents. The author of Matthew, for instance, had a knowledge of other religions and their teachings which he used to demote Judaism and promote the need for a new religion even as he utilized the Jewish Testament's prophecies to support the narrative of Jesus' life.

To read the Bible primarily as literal history without all of the limitations of the skillful but still human author's limitations is to do a great disservice to both God and humanity. It is to severely limit the mystery of God and our own nature and ability to reach out to God.

Click to expand...

Beats Hollywood and MCU writers, you mean?

Then it must be one helluva job!


Then count me in!
I am more than a fan.

sealchan said:

The Bible is literature. That was how it was written. Stories and histories and laws were skillfully interwoven, adapted from local and foreign traditions and in the poetic style of a culture late on the scene of the story told. No eyewitness testimony, no literal god's view narration. This is the truth of what has actually happened in the creation of this narrative.

The New Testament is, perhaps, more of a collection of sermons given by letter. The extraordinary thing is that it begins with four different versions of the same story. To me this says that the community which assembled the texts probably had a deep reverence for the story being told but could not choose one version as the final authority. The gospels were creative works in progress and those chosen were seen to be the best of their kind.

The gospels show mutual sources, sometimes rearranged and altered. Some have significant new content which shows the authors own creative talents. The author of Matthew, for instance, had a knowledge of other religions and their teachings which he used to demote Judaism and promote the need for a new religion even as he utilized the Jewish Testament's prophecies to support the narrative of Jesus' life.

To read the Bible primarily as literal history without all of the limitations of the skillful but still human author's limitations is to do a great disservice to both God and humanity. It is to severely limit the mystery of God and our own nature and ability to reach out to God.

Click to expand...

History, as presented in the Bible is written a lot
like the way the Chinese write histoty.

Things are omitted, altered, emphasized in terms of
how they illustrate Confucian / Maoist / state
ideology.

A style not at all unlike how official facts
and history is done elsewhere.

HonestJoe said:

There is also defence against the obvious question that comes to my (admittedly agnostic) mind; If some parts of the Bible are accepted as allegorical, why couldn’t the parts establishing the existence of God himself be allegorical too?

Click to expand...

Well, if there were boatloads of evidence for the literal existence of God independent of the Bible, then that would be an excellent reason to say that the parts of the Bible establishing that God should be taken literally.

IMO, when a believer argues that if people don't adopt a general attitude that their scriptures are literal, they won't have reason to take any of it literally, they're effectively arguing that there is no evidence to support the idea that any of the core claims in their scripture are literally true.

MJFlores said:

Beats Hollywood and MCU writers, you mean?

Then it must be one helluva job!

Then count me in!
I am more than a fan.

Click to expand...

If we lifted the restrictions of copyright on MCU or Tolkiens Middle Earth and encouraged our greatest artists, authors, philosophers and filmmakers to put in their own two cents imagine what could be created. Or even if we made the copyright limited to a much shorter time.

Interest in superheros is clearly tapping into today's mythic heartbeat. Just witness how many batman and Spiderman reboots there are. Look at the proliferation of vampire stories. Look at how much money is coming into these media franchises.

Clearly the people are thirsty for an experience that only the theater can provide these days. Special effects allow us the sensorially witness miracles and spectacles of God-like majesty. People are seen in the act of willing self-sacrifice for something greater than themselves. Human technology is seen as both problem and solution giving us contexts for understanding the rapid changes we are experiencing faster than the progress of generations can track.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Well, if there were boatloads of evidence for the literal existence of God independent of the Bible, then that would be an excellent reason to say that the parts of the Bible establishing that God should be taken literally.

IMO, when a believer argues that if people don't adopt a general attitude that their scriptures are literal, they won't have reason to take any of it literally, they're effectively arguing that there is no evidence to support the idea that any of the core claims in their scripture are literally teue.

Click to expand...

It is too bad for any recruiting efforts they may want to make
with people with an analytical bent.

And really, as honest and sincere as they may actually are,
you see absurdities presented as fact, well what credibility
do they have in other things?

Audie said:

Ttue but she is right, they are not the same things
in very important ways.

The Bible speaks of a covenant.

Nobody uses a painting of what would be nice, in
place of a contract!

The stakes set out in the Bible are very high.

Unfortunately the Bible was not vetted by
lawyers, but it is clear in that one is expected
to hold up his end of the contract.

Click to expand...

That’s why I said sometimes.