Poll for Bible readers: Do you take the Bible literally?

[Anonymous]

Nobody is "taking the bible out of the hands of the believers", most people have responded that they read the bible, they just take it as lessons explained figuratively not literally.

Hmm, it would be fun to have an exam of all of us who were polled here (and others of the Religion forum) and find out about real knowledge of the Bible. The technology is not there yet. I would imagine that the results would be quiet revealing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nobody is "taking the bible out of the hands of the believers", most people have responded that they read the bible, they just take it as lessons explained figuratively not literally.

Hmm, it would be fun to have an exam of all of us who were polled here (and others of the Religion forum) and find out about real knowledge of the Bible. The technology is not there yet. I would imagine that the results would be quiet revealing.

What do you mean by "real knowledge"? And what do you suspect the results would be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope--raised Catholic, and attended Catholic school through university.

I mean, the Bible clearly isn't meant to be taken literally. If it was, there wouldn't be two, contradictory creation stories, would there? It's a collection of books, written over a long period of time, that includes stories, poetry, proverbs, etc. If you take it literally, you have to tie yourself into knots to make sense of it.

+1
There also wouldn't be four different versions of the gospel, the accounting of the event that Christianity hinges on.

Really? I'd be more skeptical if there were 4 IDENTICAL accounts. No two people see the same event in exactly the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nobody is "taking the bible out of the hands of the believers", most people have responded that they read the bible, they just take it as lessons explained figuratively not literally.

Hmm, it would be fun to have an exam of all of us who were polled here (and others of the Religion forum) and find out about real knowledge of the Bible. The technology is not there yet. I would imagine that the results would be quiet revealing.

It's the only part of trivia i ever get right. 12 years of Catholic education plus a seriously Catholic grandmother and mother.

It would be fun. I'd be in. Loser turns to salt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope--raised Catholic, and attended Catholic school through university.

I mean, the Bible clearly isn't meant to be taken literally. If it was, there wouldn't be two, contradictory creation stories, would there? It's a collection of books, written over a long period of time, that includes stories, poetry, proverbs, etc. If you take it literally, you have to tie yourself into knots to make sense of it.

+1
There also wouldn't be four different versions of the gospel, the accounting of the event that Christianity hinges on.

Really? I'd be more skeptical if there were 4 IDENTICAL accounts. No two people see the same event in exactly the same way.

There are significant differences between the accounts, who Jesus revealed himself to first and all of the implications of that, being one of them. If it's to be taken literally, one story must be true/factual. We aren't talking about perceptions of emotions here, where I agree accounts can differ, but facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope--raised Catholic, and attended Catholic school through university.

I mean, the Bible clearly isn't meant to be taken literally. If it was, there wouldn't be two, contradictory creation stories, would there? It's a collection of books, written over a long period of time, that includes stories, poetry, proverbs, etc. If you take it literally, you have to tie yourself into knots to make sense of it.

+1
There also wouldn't be four different versions of the gospel, the accounting of the event that Christianity hinges on.

Really? I'd be more skeptical if there were 4 IDENTICAL accounts. No two people see the same event in exactly the same way.

There are significant differences between the accounts, who Jesus revealed himself to first and all of the implications of that, being one of them. If it's to be taken literally, one story must be true/factual. We aren't talking about perceptions of emotions here, where I agree accounts can differ, but facts.[/quote

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/aid/v7/timeline.gif

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nope--raised Catholic, and attended Catholic school through university.

I mean, the Bible clearly isn't meant to be taken literally. If it was, there wouldn't be two, contradictory creation stories, would there? It's a collection of books, written over a long period of time, that includes stories, poetry, proverbs, etc. If you take it literally, you have to tie yourself into knots to make sense of it.

+1
There also wouldn't be four different versions of the gospel, the accounting of the event that Christianity hinges on.

Really? I'd be more skeptical if there were 4 IDENTICAL accounts. No two people see the same event in exactly the same way.

There are significant differences between the accounts, who Jesus revealed himself to first and all of the implications of that, being one of them. If it's to be taken literally, one story must be true/factual. We aren't talking about perceptions of emotions here, where I agree accounts can differ, but facts.

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/aid/v7/timeline.gif
https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/resurrection/the-sequence-of-christs-post-resurrection-appearances/

[Anonymous]

No. Episcopalian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nobody is "taking the bible out of the hands of the believers", most people have responded that they read the bible, they just take it as lessons explained figuratively not literally.

Hmm, it would be fun to have an exam of all of us who were polled here (and others of the Religion forum) and find out about real knowledge of the Bible. The technology is not there yet. I would imagine that the results would be quiet revealing.

What do you mean by "real knowledge"? And what do you suspect the results would be?

Real knowledge is few levels above trivia knowledge. So, an exam that asks things like "How many apostles were there?" or "How many years were Israelites in Egypt?" would not qualify.
Instead an exam would contain questions like: "Reference and correctly paraphrase or quote Bible passage(s) about conviction. Explain the passage(s) meaning in both OT and NT, if applicable." The exam would be timed and you would be cut off from accessing Internet except the exam application.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and why wouldn't I?

The Bible tells me I'm a sinner, and I pretty much have to agree with that wholeheartedly. The Bible also tells me that God Himself came to earth to redeem me from that sin. Which is pretty awesome.

What I always find hard to understand is that even for those who say the Bible is metaphor and allegorical, etc., they never seem to say what the allegory means. Even figurative writing has a point. So even when the Bible uses figurative language, it still means something. If you walked in with an umbrella and were soaking wet, and you said it was raining cats and dogs outside, am I to take you literally? Yes, you meant it was raining really hard. Taking you literally doesn't mean that cats and dogs were actually falling from the sky.

But that aside, there's not a whole lot of allegorical language in the Bible. Most of it is presented as straight-up narrative. The Genesis account isn't written figuratively; it's written as narrative. And even the creation account lasts for only three chapters. After that, it's presented as history. Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

If you read the entire Bible, that arc is clear and undeniable. The New Testament accounts are not written figuratively. The Gospels and Acts are presented as history, and there is much in them that is an interpretation of the Old Testament. In Matthew and Luke, you can see various references to different people who understood that Christ was the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. They knew exactly when and where Christ was to appear, because they knew their Old Testament Scripture. The epistles of the New Testament could be taken figuratively only by the most committed denier of what Scripture is saying. Indeed, when something is meant to be taken allegorically, the writers will say, basically, "Take this allegorically," but even then they are referring to historical events. And those cases are few.

Only Revelation in the New Testament can be said to be written in figurative language, but even then it means something, which is that Chris will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The Bible clearly takes itself seriously. If you don't like the message, that's your prerogative, but it has a message, and it means itself to be understood.

This is such a weird answer. It sounds like you take the Bible seriously, but not literally -- yes, to take "raining cats and dogs" literally would mean it was raining cats and dogs -- but want to claim otherwise and chastise those who answered no to this poll -- who you have no way of knowing if they too take it seriously as you describe. No one said it was a book with no message or purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and why wouldn't I?

The Bible tells me I'm a sinner, and I pretty much have to agree with that wholeheartedly. The Bible also tells me that God Himself came to earth to redeem me from that sin. Which is pretty awesome.

What I always find hard to understand is that even for those who say the Bible is metaphor and allegorical, etc., they never seem to say what the allegory means. Even figurative writing has a point. So even when the Bible uses figurative language, it still means something. If you walked in with an umbrella and were soaking wet, and you said it was raining cats and dogs outside, am I to take you literally? Yes, you meant it was raining really hard. Taking you literally doesn't mean that cats and dogs were actually falling from the sky.

But that aside, there's not a whole lot of allegorical language in the Bible. Most of it is presented as straight-up narrative. The Genesis account isn't written figuratively; it's written as narrative. And even the creation account lasts for only three chapters. After that, it's presented as history. Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

If you read the entire Bible, that arc is clear and undeniable. The New Testament accounts are not written figuratively. The Gospels and Acts are presented as history, and there is much in them that is an interpretation of the Old Testament. In Matthew and Luke, you can see various references to different people who understood that Christ was the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. They knew exactly when and where Christ was to appear, because they knew their Old Testament Scripture. The epistles of the New Testament could be taken figuratively only by the most committed denier of what Scripture is saying. Indeed, when something is meant to be taken allegorically, the writers will say, basically, "Take this allegorically," but even then they are referring to historical events. And those cases are few.

Only Revelation in the New Testament can be said to be written in figurative language, but even then it means something, which is that Chris will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The Bible clearly takes itself seriously. If you don't like the message, that's your prerogative, but it has a message, and it means itself to be understood.

This is such a weird answer. It sounds like you take the Bible seriously, but not literally -- yes, to take "raining cats and dogs" literally would mean it was raining cats and dogs -- but want to claim otherwise and chastise those who answered no to this poll -- who you have no way of knowing if they too take it seriously as you describe. No one said it was a book with no message or purpose.

Agree. Pp doesn’t seem to understand the difference between taking something seriously and taking it literally.

[Anonymous]

Of course not. It's a collection of powerful stories with great resonance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Of course not. It's a collection of powerful stories with great resonance.

That's a little condescending towards those who do take it literally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and why wouldn't I?

The Bible tells me I'm a sinner, and I pretty much have to agree with that wholeheartedly. The Bible also tells me that God Himself came to earth to redeem me from that sin. Which is pretty awesome.

What I always find hard to understand is that even for those who say the Bible is metaphor and allegorical, etc., they never seem to say what the allegory means. Even figurative writing has a point. So even when the Bible uses figurative language, it still means something. If you walked in with an umbrella and were soaking wet, and you said it was raining cats and dogs outside, am I to take you literally? Yes, you meant it was raining really hard. Taking you literally doesn't mean that cats and dogs were actually falling from the sky.

But that aside, there's not a whole lot of allegorical language in the Bible. Most of it is presented as straight-up narrative. The Genesis account isn't written figuratively; it's written as narrative. And even the creation account lasts for only three chapters. After that, it's presented as history. Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

If you read the entire Bible, that arc is clear and undeniable. The New Testament accounts are not written figuratively. The Gospels and Acts are presented as history, and there is much in them that is an interpretation of the Old Testament. In Matthew and Luke, you can see various references to different people who understood that Christ was the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. They knew exactly when and where Christ was to appear, because they knew their Old Testament Scripture. The epistles of the New Testament could be taken figuratively only by the most committed denier of what Scripture is saying. Indeed, when something is meant to be taken allegorically, the writers will say, basically, "Take this allegorically," but even then they are referring to historical events. And those cases are few.

Only Revelation in the New Testament can be said to be written in figurative language, but even then it means something, which is that Chris will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The Bible clearly takes itself seriously. If you don't like the message, that's your prerogative, but it has a message, and it means itself to be understood.

This is such a weird answer. It sounds like you take the Bible seriously, but not literally -- yes, to take "raining cats and dogs" literally would mean it was raining cats and dogs -- but want to claim otherwise and chastise those who answered no to this poll -- who you have no way of knowing if they too take it seriously as you describe. No one said it was a book with no message or purpose.

Agree. Pp doesn’t seem to understand the difference between taking something seriously and taking it literally.

No, I'm aware of the difference. What I mean is that when the Bible says that God "measured the waters in the hollow of his hand" (Isaiah 40:12), it does not mean that God has an actual hand, but it literally does mean that God created the seas. This notion of whether you take the Bible "literally" is a red herring to say that if you take the Bible literally, you have to understand all the poetic language non-poetically, which then makes you look stupid. But you can read the poetic parts poetically and still think there is a literal truth to them. I suspect that people know this but say it anyway. The Bible uses some poetic language to underscore the beauty and wonder of creation. I can read it as poetry and as truth at the same time without resorting to reading it as poetry and allegory, which blunts the veracity of what is being expressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, and why wouldn't I?

The Bible tells me I'm a sinner, and I pretty much have to agree with that wholeheartedly. The Bible also tells me that God Himself came to earth to redeem me from that sin. Which is pretty awesome.

What I always find hard to understand is that even for those who say the Bible is metaphor and allegorical, etc., they never seem to say what the allegory means. Even figurative writing has a point. So even when the Bible uses figurative language, it still means something. If you walked in with an umbrella and were soaking wet, and you said it was raining cats and dogs outside, am I to take you literally? Yes, you meant it was raining really hard. Taking you literally doesn't mean that cats and dogs were actually falling from the sky.

But that aside, there's not a whole lot of allegorical language in the Bible. Most of it is presented as straight-up narrative. The Genesis account isn't written figuratively; it's written as narrative. And even the creation account lasts for only three chapters. After that, it's presented as history. Almost the entire Old Testament is presented as history. Some of it is written in poetic language, but the story is clear: Man has rejected God, and the consequences of that rejection is very nasty. And God has provided Himself in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to reconcile to Himself those who would confess their sin and believe in Him.

If you read the entire Bible, that arc is clear and undeniable. The New Testament accounts are not written figuratively. The Gospels and Acts are presented as history, and there is much in them that is an interpretation of the Old Testament. In Matthew and Luke, you can see various references to different people who understood that Christ was the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament. They knew exactly when and where Christ was to appear, because they knew their Old Testament Scripture. The epistles of the New Testament could be taken figuratively only by the most committed denier of what Scripture is saying. Indeed, when something is meant to be taken allegorically, the writers will say, basically, "Take this allegorically," but even then they are referring to historical events. And those cases are few.

Only Revelation in the New Testament can be said to be written in figurative language, but even then it means something, which is that Chris will come again to judge the living and the dead.

The Bible clearly takes itself seriously. If you don't like the message, that's your prerogative, but it has a message, and it means itself to be understood.

This is such a weird answer. It sounds like you take the Bible seriously, but not literally -- yes, to take "raining cats and dogs" literally would mean it was raining cats and dogs -- but want to claim otherwise and chastise those who answered no to this poll -- who you have no way of knowing if they too take it seriously as you describe. No one said it was a book with no message or purpose.

Agree. Pp doesn’t seem to understand the difference between taking something seriously and taking it literally.

No, I'm aware of the difference. What I mean is that when the Bible says that God "measured the waters in the hollow of his hand" (Isaiah 40:12), it does not mean that God has an actual hand, but it literally does mean that God created the seas. This notion of whether you take the Bible "literally" is a red herring to say that if you take the Bible literally, you have to understand all the poetic language non-poetically, which then makes you look stupid. But you can read the poetic parts poetically and still think there is a literal truth to them. I suspect that people know this but say it anyway. The Bible uses some poetic language to underscore the beauty and wonder of creation. I can read it as poetry and as truth at the same time without resorting to reading it as poetry and allegory, which blunts the veracity of what is being expressed.

+1 Whenever I hear that the Bible is just an allegory, a metaphor, a powerful story, a fairytale etc. I just know that that person has not studied the Bible seriously, consistently, and comprehensively.