Why read the Bible literally?

Curious. I have studied the Bible quite a bit in the last few years and am not very clear on the differences that you are so sure of.What telltale signs should I look for to differentiate between metaphor, parable and fact? Maybe you could give me some examples from, say, Jesus' parables. Which ones are fact, which metaphor/parable and what clues does the Bible give to tell the difference?

Jesus spoke like that a great deal. So why would his saying "As it was in the days of Noah..."(Matt 24:37), to describe the time of his Second Coming, mean that the story used as the symbolism is any more true than the Prodigal Son? What is it about Jesus' use of that story that makes it different from the Rich Man and Lazarus?1. His reference is generalized.
2. The point of the story is something other than the literal reading of the story.
3. It points out a general principle rather than the story content.
4. It is to be applied in a similar specific case.
5. It contains generalizable details.What indications does Jesus give that He believes the flood story is any more factual than the Prodigal Son?In Matt 16:4, Jesus states:

quote:

---

A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.

---

What is it about this situation that shows us if Jesus was stating that Jonah really was swallowed by a fish? Just because it is a story that everyone knew, and Jesus referred to it, doesn't prove its authenticity. What telltale signs differentiate this story from the Rich Man and Lazarus?

Faith doesn't accept this as fact. I don't see how you can use it to support your conclusion about the symbolic nature of the flood story.

Consequences of ignoring or sinning against God? The reason we have rainbows? Fitting of a legend from the past into their religious context?I guess those are not really examples of symbolism but they are possible reasons for the story.

Yes, it does. Jesus, himself, seemed to give reference to Genesis ("God created them Man and Woman..." and "As it was in the days of Noah..."), and Jonah ("...except the sign of Jonah"), without any hint that he thought the stories were not true. If it can be shown that Jesus really thought that these stories were fact, then to believe that Jesus was God in flesh and infallible, you must believe the stories also. This belief in the absolute fact of scripture becomes the hinge upon which your entire faith turns. Each detail must be true or your faith falls apart.If it can be shown that Jesus really thought that these stories were fact.That's appears to be the key to this whole discussion (unless you consider your question answered by paragraph 1 above).
Was Jesus saying that the stories were true, by using some portions of them to make his points?
What evidence do we have that Jesus was confirming the truth of these stories by using them as a reference?
Was Jesus' use of the stories confirming their truth any more than my saying 'Microsoft is my White Whale' was confirming the truth of "Moby Dick"?
What evidence do we have that Jesus confirmed the truth of these stories at all?edit to fix reference.This message has been edited by LinearAq, 06-16-2005 06:55 AM

In what way are they identified as "real" above and beyond the tale of The Rich Man and Lazarus? Noah's wife doesn't even have a name. In that story there are 4 people named, ok...Lazarus and Abraham are named in another parable. Is the difference about 2 more named characters?(rhetorical) Jesus used Noah's name to provide everyone a with the story without having to tell it. Like I might use the name "Luke Skywalker" to give my statement a context that the audience might understand. The story He used is just more well known. You mean that OT Jews that obeyed the Law didn't go to Abraham's bosum? Jonah is the only name in the book of Jonah, yet you do not use that as criteria to declare it to be made up. Two participants have names in the rich man story and it is much shorter, yet you claim it is made up. Obviously the number of named people is not, in itself, criteria for story validity. What else is needed? He doesn't contradict the rich man story either. I could refer to Darth Vader in a moral teaching, and not contradict the events of the Star Wars stories, without compromising the validity of the moral lesson. However, that lack of contradiction on my part does not make Star Wars a true event.I see that you are trying to define your story validity determination criteria. I am quite interested in your methods for discernment.edited for format, time compression and clarity...
and spellingThis message has been edited by LinearAq, 06-16-2005 12:48 PMThis message has been edited by LinearAq, 06-16-2005 12:50 PM

and leave us in the dark.Think about the assumptions you make when reading particular stories both in the Bible and outside of it.What about outside influences? Other people's opinions on the stories?Are there any spiritual influences on you when reading? Can you describe them?

I am making the assumption that your pastor is a literalist and the tenants of your church's/denomination's constitution state that they believe in the literal reading of the Bible. In so far as our religious beliefs are concerned, we tend to buy books and tapes that support those beliefs. (Hey! It's my money!!!)
Out of all those sermons and tapes and books that you have ingested, what percentage do not hold the literalist view of the scriptures?
If that percentage is very low or zero, perhaps it has a large (maybe even the Main) influence on how you interpret the things you read in the Bible. This is true, to an extent. However, even these teachers at least pay lip service to you exploring the scriptures on your own. Usually, they say this after they have given you their point of view and made their case with their interpretation of the Bible verses.
Have you explored the non-literalist point of view? Not athiests but other Christians who don't believe that the Creation story is to be read literally.
You would probably say that it is wrong for the Saudi Arabian government to ban evangelizing by Christian organizations because the people cannot make a choice to be saved if they are ignorant of Christ. However, many Christians willfully maintain their ignorance by only reading, listening to, or learning about things that support their denomination's point of view.

I don't know what jar, arch or Brian ingest. Since I go to an Assembly of God church, Sunday School and Adult teaching class, I would say I receive a good deal of literalist teaching...maybe 30-40% of what religious information I get is literalist. Is that how much non-literalist study you do? I doubt it judging by your follow-on statements. Aparently not "all". A sweeping statement and incorrect.You have "discernment"? What is this discernment? Is it something you can cultivate? Perhaps God didn't give me discernment since I'm not able to tell which stories from the Bible are true and which are symbolism/metaphor/parable.My line of questioning was to get you to think about how these opinions of others affect your discernment of scripture.Are there any stories in the Bible that you think were not true (ie the Prodigal Son) that these sermons/tapes/books said were true? How about stories that you would say are true that those other sources stated were metaphor/symbolism?If Kenneth Copeland, D. James Kennedy, Tony Evans, Pat Robertson and James Dobson all said that the Holy Spirit showed them that the Jonah story was really a long parable about desire of God to forgive all and the hardheartedness of some believers, would that change your stance on Jonah? If not, what would you tell them to show them that they are wrong?

I apologize if I missed it, but I don't remember any point where you tried to teach me anything about discernment. Perhaps if someone could explain it, I would try to gain it. It sure would be nice to be able to look at the Bible and know what God is saying instead of having to choose between conflicting outside influences. The statement was "...get you to think about...". Perhaps you interpreted that as my implying that you don't think. That was not my intent. Just substitute "consider" for "think about" in that statement of mine. Does that make it less rude? Really? You may know why you believe it but you have not communicated that here except to say that it seemed true. When asked what it is about your beliefs that make them seem more true, the best you have come up with is that it is "obvious" to you but you can't articulate it in a way I understand. I can accept that. Some of our deepest convictions are difficult to explain.It is useless if you think you need to change my mind. Especially since all I am asking is that you explain how you draw the conclusions that you provide for us on this forum. Perhaps I use my doubt as a counterpoint to your surety, on occasion, to emphasize the range of opinions that seem equally valid. That is not to knock your beliefs. Projecting your personality onto others?
What about the lurkers? Maybe their minds are not made up.
If your beliefs are true shouldn't that truth show through regardless of the opinions expressed on this board?BTW: I am an adult too and I don't mind when someone questions my religious beliefs. They better be able to back up their opinion though.

Not really a curse. To love God the way He wants us to love Him, we need to have free will. Anything else would be like you forcing or manipulating your partner to love you. The consequence of having a free will is that we may freely choose to be selfish, and selfishness is the cause of all sin.
The events of the Garden may well be a moral tale or allegory for the choice made by each of us in our ignorance....that of selfishness rather than obedience.
The idea of original sin can serve as a simple explaination of why we are born as self-serving individuals and have to learn to "do unto others as we would have them do unto us".It does not require a literal reading of the Bible to see that we still need the saving Grace of Jesus.

No doubt...yet you cannot tell us how you decide which is parable and which is not. Jonah is nonspecific about names except Jonah and the town to which he (eventually) went. That was one of your criteria.
Jonah has a meaning other than the literal reading of the story. Lets see....How about: You are held accountable for obedience to what God tells you to do. That is one that sermons are built around. So another of your mentioned criteria is met.Back to the original question. How do you tell which story that Jesus mentions is true and which is not?

Could you, perhaps, provide the names of some reference material that might provide this criteria?BTW: It was studying the Bible, in order to better understand what God wanted for my life, that took me away from literalism. The deeper I got into my studies the more questions it raised until I could not reconcile the conflicts and maintain the literal interpretation.

Faith,It appears that you have been suspended for an indefinite (not permanent!!) period of time. Despite our butting heads on occasion (or more), I hope to see you here again.Even though the bible study forum does not require you to follow the rules of evidence per se, it is still a debate forum. One would think that you should at least provide support for your position, rather than just state what you believe and tell everyone "that's that". What do you do when you are in conflict with someone from your church about an issue of your faith? Do you ask them to provide any support for their position or is it just a free-for-all-any-belief-goes type of church?You say the this part of the forum should play by "BELIEVER'S RULES" and that "my messages follow MY rules". Are we to assume that those two sets of rules are one and the same? Would other believers agree that your rules are the same as the encompassing "BELIEVER'S RULES"?
Can you state those rules?I agree with your statement about not wanting to be a joke on the POTM.

In order to understand I must believe already?First, a God that cannot stand up to a little interrogation doesn't seem fit enough to remain in his position.Second, I spent much time in prayer before and after studying. Despite that, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit did not seem to think it worthwhile to help me resolve my confusion. One thing I really couldn't understand was two different denominations that claim to be literalists having completely opposing views on particular spiritual practices. After more than two years of studying, reading commentaries and asking for enlightenment, I figured that God wanted me to draw my own conclusions. I walked away from literalism.Hope that helps explain my position a little. Again, sorry you got suspended. However, it does seem like you allow the comments of others to get to you a little too much.

---

Your enemy rarely considers himself evil. Your knowledge of this can help you construct a peaceful solution to your conflict and, barring that, to kill him without emotion.---Lazarus Long