Who decides – literal vs. non-literal in the Bible

[Zzyzx]

.
Who decides – literal vs. non-literal in the Bible

From a current thread:

Of course perhaps you are turning to the utterly absurd - and attempting to present the words as if they were meant to be literal.

Okay, I agree.

Let’s not take the words of the Bible literally – including those that describe supernatural entities and events.

I doubt that many Christians would agree – but would insist that SOME words of the Bible should be taken literally and some NOT taken literally. And, THEY get to decide which is which.

Does membership in the Christian Club grant people great powers of discernment? Literary and linguistic ability? Wisdom? Of course not. So why pretend to have special understanding of which words of the Bible are literal and which are not?



Questions for debate:

1) Identify the parts of the Bible that are literally true and those that are not literally true.

2) Is there any method of making the ‘literal / non-literal’ determination regarding Bible words that anyone can apply that is not a matter of opinion?

[JehovahsWitness]

HOW TO DECIDE IF A BIBLICAL PASSAGE SHOULD BE TAKEN LITERALLY OR FIGURATIVELY


Anyone with critical thinking skills can decide for themselves if what they are reading should be taken literally or figuratively.

"Let the reader use discernment" - JESUS CHRIST

2) Is there any method of making the ‘literal / non-literal’ determination regarding Bible words that anyone can apply that is not a matter of opinion?

CONTEXT

- does the writer speaker introduce the words as a parable, illustration?
- are there any non explicit indications the section is a story, parable ...?
- does the audience (if there is one) perceive the passage as being literal or figurative?
- is information presented within a historical context (date, location, cultural references, )
- are the characters presented as historical (location, dates, parentage)

CONTENT

- does the passage make sense if taken literally ie does it harmonize with proven science, historical fact?
- does it harmonize with the rest of scripture if take literally/figuratively ?
- does the passage contain the structural patterns of poetry?
- is an expression a known euphemism, proverb or saying?

The above list isn't exhaustive but it gives some examples of methodology that could be applied.





JW


RELATED POSTS

Literal / Non-literal [Definitions]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 419#868419

Should the bible be classified as "historical fiction"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 473#800473

Are Jehovah's Witnesses bible literalist?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 428#868428

Why would God leave his word open to interpretation and debate?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 547#756547

Go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation

[Tcg]

.
Who decides – literal vs. non-literal in the Bible

Any one with critical thinking skills.

Even those with critical thinking skills need a standard to make this determination. Hopefully a standard more robust than - this would make God look bad if taken literally, so it shouldn't be.


Tcg

[tam]

Peace to you,

.
Who decides – literal vs. non-literal in the Bible

From a current thread:

Of course perhaps you are turning to the utterly absurd - and attempting to present the words as if they were meant to be literal.

Okay, I agree.

Let’s not take the words of the Bible literally – including those that describe supernatural entities and events.

I doubt that many Christians would agree – but would insist that SOME words of the Bible should be taken literally and some NOT taken literally. And, THEY get to decide which is which.

Does membership in the Christian Club grant people great powers of discernment? Literary and linguistic ability? Wisdom? Of course not. So why pretend to have special understanding of which words of the Bible are literal and which are not?



Questions for debate:

1) Identify the parts of the Bible that are literally true and those that are not literally true.

2) Is there any method of making the ‘literal / non-literal’ determination regarding Bible words that anyone can apply that is not a matter of opinion?

I'm pretty sure the thing being referred to from my quote (in context) - that wolves are wearing sheep's clothing - should be easy enough to determine with a little common sense. I'm pretty sure no one actually thinks that Christ was referring to literal wolves wearing sheep's clothing. If for some reason someone was uncertain, Christ specifically refers to false prophets as wolves in sheep's clothing:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.




So that would be one way in which someone may know if some things are literal or not; the text could actually state that it is a metaphor. I don't think you have to be Christian to make that determination.


That method won't work for everything in the Bible, because not everything is so clearly identified; but I thought it would be fair to provide the context of my quote.





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[SallyF]

I think we need a good, solid, Bible class example to work with right here …

Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.�

9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. (We ALL know where that is from.)

So …

How do we determine what is literal and what is not in this tale …?

I'm going to start the ball rolling with a picture of coins mentioning Herod the Great:



From Bible History Online, no less https://www.bible-history.com/herod_the ... DCoins.htm

I have a high level of confidence in a literal Herod the Great, based on independently verifiable evidence.

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm pretty sure the thing being referred to from my quote (in context) - that wolves are wearing sheep's clothing - should be easy enough to determine with a little common sense.

Applying a little common sense, when people claim to hear the voice of Christ in their head they seem like false prophets or a little nutty (at best).

How can common sense be applied to determine if what they say is true?

[Zzyzx]

.

The above list isn't exhaustive but it gives some examples of methodology that could be applied.

Kindly apply your methodology to show readers how critical thinking skills can be used to determine if the claim that Jesus walked on water was literally true or not. (Show your work)

[Mithrae]

Questions for debate:

1) Identify the parts of the Bible that are literally true and those that are not literally true.

That's two different questions: Which parts are intended literally, and are they true? The story about the defeat of Sennacherib is obviously intended literally, but odds are it isn't true. Conversely of course, something like Daniel's vision of the ram and the goat reflects true historical realities, but obviously is not literal.

We do sometimes see religious folk coming up with strange interpretations, whether literal or non-literal, and often for the purposes of escaping contradictions or errors in their Book. But what we also see - perhaps even more frequently - are critics apparently operating under the strange assumption that allegory, metaphor and hyperbole simply do not exist, that everything should be taken literally as written and that it's somehow unfair or disingenuous when others point out the obvious fallacy of shallow criticisms made on that basis.

Critics in general must claim as much (or as little) "special understanding of which words of the Bible are literal" as Christians in general.

[sorrento]

[Replying to post 4 by tam]

As you said, wolves wearing sheep's clothing should be easy enough to determine with a little common sense, but what about Balaam's talking donkey, or was that just the biblical god showing off his skill as a ventriloquist? What do you apply when reading that particular yarn?

[1213]

...

1) Identify the parts of the Bible that are literally true and those that are not literally true.

2) Is there any method of making the ‘literal / non-literal’ determination regarding Bible words that anyone can apply that is not a matter of opinion?

Bible usually explains what it means with its words. And it tells for example when it the matter is parable. That is how I think it can be known what is meant in the Bible and I don’t think it would be good to give own meanings to what the Bible tells.