Biblical Literalism

[g***@comcast.net]

The Bible has parts which are literal, parts which are figurative,
poetic, prophetic, etc.
No, not all of the Bible should be taken literally.

Gary McNees

[DKleinecke]

Post by g***@comcast.net
The Bible has parts which are literal, parts which are figurative,
poetic, prophetic, etc.
No, not all of the Bible should be taken literally.
Gary McNees

There are many ways to read a text. Origen felt that the Bible always
had three different meanings in every passage. And textual criticism
has had seventeen hundred years since Origen to get more complicated.
In these later days even "literally" has no literal meaning. I believe
there are no passages in the Bible that can be definitively given a
"literal" meaning. I used scare quotes because we would have to agree
on what "literal" means before we can use it. I am guess that no one
can provide a passage with exactly one obvious "literal" meaning. Try
it.

Given that we can have dozen of meanings for a passage (see, for
example, a commentary on the Song of Songs for some examples) trying
to classify them is interesting. But not very edifying. Perhaps, with
the aid of computers we could now finally create the universal
commentary that displays all the meaning ever assigned to all of the
passages in the Bible.

I suppose it would have to be some kind of wiki-commentary to handle
the new interpretations that are constantly being made.

[G]

Post by g***@comcast.net
The Bible has parts which are literal, parts which are figurative,
poetic, prophetic, etc.
No, not all of the Bible should be taken literally.
Gary McNees

Of course. Even those who believe in biblical inerrancy and biblical
literalism accept as much (for the most part). Literalism doesn't mean
every word and phrase must be taken absolutely literally. What it means
is that things are taken literally unless the figurative nature is
clear. For example:

"For the Lord God is a sun and shield..." Psalm 84:11

Even the biblical literalist sees this as a figurative description.
Nobody believes God is a literal burning mass of hydrogen.

However, in a passage like the "two witnesses" in Revelation 11, the
literalist takes this passage to mean that there will be two literal
people that fulfill this prophecy because there is nothing that
indicates it should be taken figuratively.

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by G

Post by g***@comcast.net
The Bible has parts which are literal, parts which are figurative,
poetic, prophetic, etc.
No, not all of the Bible should be taken literally.
Gary McNees

Of course. Even those who believe in biblical inerrancy and biblical
literalism accept as much (for the most part). Literalism doesn't mean
every word and phrase must be taken absolutely literally. What it means
is that things are taken literally unless the figurative nature is
"For the Lord God is a sun and shield..." Psalm 84:11
Even the biblical literalist sees this as a figurative description.
Nobody believes God is a literal burning mass of hydrogen.
However, in a passage like the "two witnesses" in Revelation 11, the
literalist takes this passage to mean that there will be two literal
people that fulfill this prophecy because there is nothing that
indicates it should be taken figuratively.

But why? When it come to the book of Rev. the literalist recognizes
and employes the fact that it's symbols and references lie in the
Hebrew scriptures, especially the prophetic books. For instance,
Rev 12 refers back to Gen 37:9-11 and Jere 31:15. The 12 stars
are obviously the 12 sons. Israel is represented as giving birth
to the Messiah. v. 4 refers back to Mt 2:16-18 which refers back to
Jere 31:15. v. 6 is most interesting when understood under the
Hebraic terms of a "city of refuge" and illustrated in Isa 33:16,
Mt 24:16 and Mic 2:12-13 where "I will put them together like
sheep in the folds" [NASB] is actually in the Hebrew to be
read as "sheep of Bozrah-Jordan." (Dan 11:41).

--C7AA33415FD.1242617564/Main.local--

[G]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by G
However, in a passage like the "two witnesses" in Revelation 11, the
literalist takes this passage to mean that there will be two literal
people that fulfill this prophecy because there is nothing that
indicates it should be taken figuratively.

But why? When it come to the book of Rev. the literalist recognizes
and employes the fact that it's symbols and references lie in the
Hebrew scriptures, especially the prophetic books. For instance,
Rev 12 refers back to Gen 37:9-11 and Jere 31:15. The 12 stars
are obviously the 12 sons. Israel is represented as giving birth
to the Messiah. v. 4 refers back to Mt 2:16-18 which refers back to
Jere 31:15. v. 6 is most interesting when understood under the
Hebraic terms of a "city of refuge" and illustrated in Isa 33:16,
Mt 24:16 and Mic 2:12-13 where "I will put them together like
sheep in the folds" [NASB] is actually in the Hebrew to be
read as "sheep of Bozrah-Jordan." (Dan 11:41).

The problem is not in the literal interpretation of the Bible. The
problem is in the non-literalist's interpretation (or in most cases,
someone who rejects the Bible completely and tries to justify his
position with a mischaracterisation) of what literalism is. Literalism
accepts the reality of figures of speech, symbolic language, etc.

[Eric417]

Post by l***@hotmail.com

Post by G

Post by g***@comcast.net
The Bible has parts which are literal, parts which are figurative,
poetic, prophetic, etc.
No, not all of the Bible should be taken literally.
Gary McNees

Of course. Even those who believe in biblical inerrancy and biblical
literalism accept as much (for the most part). Literalism doesn't mean
every word and phrase must be taken absolutely literally. What it means
is that things are taken literally unless the figurative nature is
"For the Lord God is a sun and shield..." Psalm 84:11
Even the biblical literalist sees this as a figurative description.
Nobody believes God is a literal burning mass of hydrogen.
However, in a passage like the "two witnesses" in Revelation 11, the
literalist takes this passage to mean that there will be two literal
people that fulfill this prophecy because there is nothing that
indicates it should be taken figuratively.

But why?

There are indeed people who make this grevious error when reading the
bible. They wish to ignore the clear symbolic meaning of the text where
it would properly apply and interpret it literally.

This is much like those who would make the equally grevious error of
ignore the literal meaning of the text where it too would properly
apply.

Fortunately, the text makes it clear about which parts are symbolic and
which parts are literal.