• 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!

Why is the literalness of the Bible so important?

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
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?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It is justba matter of how much is
taken literally.

Nobody thinks Jesus is literally a lamb.
For lo, he is also a door!

But all Christians believe there literally
is a god.

And so do you. (God(s)?

Why do you think prayers etc
literally mean something beyond
make-believe?
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
It is justba matter of how much is
taken literally.

Nobody thinks Jesus is literally a lamb.
For lo, he is also a door!

But all Christians believe there literally
is a god.

And so do you. (God(s)?

Why do you think prayers etc
literally mean something beyond
make-believe?

What I mean is why is it important to believe the universe was created in 6 days; that the flood was a real occurrence that created the Grand Canyon; that there were literally a pair of every animal species on the ark. Why literally?
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
So why is it so important that the Bible be interpreted literally?
I suspect it mainly developed from the period of Christianity as temporal government. They needed a literal basis for their authority and a literal basis for the Biblical rules and laws they wished to impose upon their subjects. That would be much easier to sell as the literal word of God than as their human interpretation of allegorical scripture.

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?
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Yeah, it is unfortunate that the bible is taken literally, when it should be understood in the language of metaphors to convey wisdom.

Satan or the Devil is given a lot of undue importance, while in the Dharmic faiths, it as Mara/Maya actually represents the negativity in the mind. The same mind can be a source of positivity as well, depending on one's state of consciousness and attitude.

Maya/Mara stands for the psychological impressions or vasanas in one's own mind that promotes desires in the form of cravings and aversions, and have a diabolical nature, especially when they transcend virtuous conduct for the sake of transitory pleasures.

It is not an actual person or demon, but one's own mind that is the source of negativity.

"Monks, I know not of any other single thing that brings such woe as the mind that is untamed, uncontrolled, unguarded and unrestrained. Such a mind indeed brings great woe.

"Monks, I know not of any other single thing that brings such bliss as the mind that is tamed, controlled, guarded and restrained. Such a mind indeed brings great bliss." - Buddha (Anguttara Nikaya)


So one sees here that it is one' own untamed, wild mind and imagination that is the source of all trouble and not Satan or Loki or Lucifer.

I actually find it amusing that some Christians talk about him incessantly as a real entity instead of understanding him as a metaphor for the aberrant mind and imagination, and had at times even cooked some wild goose stories myself about satan for fun which gave me a lot of laughs later on. :smilingimp:

I guess Hollywood horror film scriptwriters need Satan for their bread and butter and that is why he is still in vogue and will continue to be so in the future as well. Seeing the profits such films make, sometimes I wonder whether I should have joined the horror film business and raked in the moolah.:cool:
 

Audie

Veteran Member
What I mean is why is it important to believe the universe was created in 6 days; that the flood was a real occurrence that created the Grand Canyon; that there were literally a pair of every animal species on the ark. Why literally?

And what I mean is, it is a sliding scale.
You believe some things literally, others
believe more.

What I dont get is how you guys take
any of it literally.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I suspect it mainly developed from the period of Christianity as temporal government. They needed a literal basis for their authority and a literal basis for the Biblical rules and laws they wished to impose upon their subjects. That would be much easier to sell as the literal word of God than as their human interpretation of allegorical scripture.

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?

And next, everything goes spinning seemingly out
of control!
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Does taking it as largely allegorical somehow diminish any truths or lessons it holds? Does that make it false?

No it does not make it false, it distinguishes the truth, the author's intent, the literal truth, from the narrative, the vehicle (allegory etc.) used to convey the intended truth.
 

Sky Rivers

Active Member
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?

If Adam and Eve is allegory, what is there to be understood of the fall of man? The removal of the station of “the serpent”? The very reason for death? The reason we need a saviour?

Furthermore, if Adam and Eve didn’t happen, what else didn’t happen?

The flood? The confounding of language? Moses, parting the Red Sea? The plagues on Egypt? The 90 year old woman who birthed a son?Christ’s miracles? Walking on water? His resurrection from the dead? Was he just some guy? Why would anyone follow him then?

Furthermore, what about what won’t happen? His glorious return? Perhaps?

If modern science is the reason people discount Eden or anything else in the Bible, I question why they bother with Christianity at all. If it’s all allegory, it’s worthless. It has no value outside being another book of morals, perhaps inspired by God, perhaps not.
 
I suspect it mainly developed from the period of Christianity as temporal government. They needed a literal basis for their authority and a literal basis for the Biblical rules and laws they wished to impose upon their subjects. That would be much easier to sell as the literal word of God than as their human interpretation of allegorical scripture.

It might actually be somewhat the opposite of this. Literalism is associated with certain Protestant factions and one important belief in many denominations is that anyone can read, understand and interpret the Bible.

Literalism meant that no theological training or great expertise was required to understand scripture so it was a product of a 'democratisation' of Christianity.
 

Sky Rivers

Active Member
What I mean is why is it important to believe the universe was created in 6 days; that the flood was a real occurrence that created the Grand Canyon; that there were literally a pair of every animal species on the ark. Why literally?

None of this troubles my mind. However, I’m still unclear on whether the Bible has it written of six (dusk to dawn) days or if I’m missing something. Regardless, God certainty could have made creation in six (Biblical days.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
No it does not make it false, it distinguishes the truth, the author's intent, the literal truth, from the narrative, the vehicle (allegory etc.) used to convey the intended truth.

Can you give an example of one of those truths?

Why do you suppose they cannot just say it straight,
instead of all the mysterious metagory stuff?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
If Adam and Eve is allegory, what is there to be understood of the fall of man? The removal of the station of “the serpent”? The very reason for death? The reason we need a saviour?

Furthermore, if Adam and Eve didn’t happen, what else didn’t happen?

The flood? The confounding of language? Moses, parting the Red Sea? The plagues on Egypt? The 90 year old woman who birthed a son?Christ’s miracles? Walking on water? His resurrection from the dead? Was he just some guy? Why would anyone follow him then?

Furthermore, what about what won’t happen? His glorious return? Perhaps?

If modern science is the reason people discount Eden or anything else in the Bible, I question why they bother with Christianity at all. If it’s all allegory, it’s worthless. It has no value outside being another book of morals, perhaps inspired by God, perhaps not.

Why indeed.

It is a wonder how few people seem to notice
that oroblem.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
None of this troubles my mind. However, I’m still unclear on whether the Bible has it written of six (dusk to dawn) days or if I’m missing something. Regardless, God certainty could have made creation in six (Biblical days.

Of course! All one needs is a (literal) god.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
If Adam and Eve is allegory, what is there to be understood of the fall of man? The removal of the station of “the serpent”? The very reason for death? The reason we need a saviour?

Let me ask a return question: How is it that the EOC can reconcile a savior with the need for a talking snake? Could it be because the universe is simply imperfect, created by God with challenges for man's betterment? Maybe the snake and apple are a metaphor for how wrong it is to try to take the easy way out (get knowledge without working for it), and the price to pay for getting something you didn't work for, i.e. cheating the system.

Furthermore, if Adam and Eve didn’t happen, what else didn’t happen?

So it's all or nothing?

The flood? The confounding of language? Moses, parting the Red Sea? The plagues on Egypt? The 90 year old woman who birthed a son?Christ’s miracles? Walking on water? His resurrection from the dead? Was he just some guy? Why would anyone follow him then?

Because he taught a way to draw closer to God?

Furthermore, what about what won’t happen? His glorious return? Perhaps?

Why does that have to be discounted? As a Hindu I don't believe God took the literal form of a man-lion, but the lesson is that you can't cheat and circumvent the system, or that loopholes do get closed. Nor do I believe he's going to return literally on a white horse holding a literal sword. Maybe he'll be arriving in some sort of other white vehicle with something that would take the place of a sword, something that could bring about peace... maybe some sort of multi-govt. accords. We don't need literalism to make it work.

If modern science is the reason people discount Eden or anything else in the Bible, I question why they bother with Christianity at all.

So it's all or nothing. That doesn't display much faith in one's beliefs.

If it’s all allegory, it’s worthless. It has no value outside being another book of morals, perhaps inspired by God, perhaps not.

That's a pretty dim view. Maybe it is just another book of morals. Does that render it worthless given that people have been following those morals for millennia, even though they may be allegorical.
 
Top