Quick question about literal bible interpretation...

[Redbeard]

Please, no debating, I HONESTLY do not know, I am not trying to spark debate, I am simply wondering if there is anything in the bible that states that it should be taken literally. Direct quotes would be INCREDIBLY helpful. Thanks in advance!

And please, no need for debate, just looking for quotes!

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Redbeard

Please, no debating, I HONESTLY do not know, I am not trying to spark debate, I am simply wondering if there is anything in the bible that states that it should be taken literally. Direct quotes would be INCREDIBLY helpful. Thanks in advance!

And please, no need for debate, just looking for quotes!

Well, I guess you see now why there are so many denominations. Not only are we left with a translation of the original 3000 years after the fact (OT), but we are now, 600 years after the translation trying to make sense of the scriptures.

Context has everything to do with it. Nephi said:

"Yea, and my soul delighteth in the words of Isaiah, for I came out from Jerusalem, and mine eyes hath beheld the things of the Jews, and I know that the Jews do understand the things of the prophets, and there is none other people that understand the things which were spoken unto the Jews like unto them, save it be that they are taught after the manner of the things of the Jews." 2 Ne 25. In order to determine if a certain scripture is literal or not you must understand the context in which it occurred. That means history, geography, politics, natural history, social norms and the like.

"The people that walked in darkness have seen a great blight: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." Isa 9:2

Here the prophet is talking about something that could have dual meaning or it could be literal. The valley of of the shadow of death was the region north of Israel, the Galilee. There was a city named Megiddo and the region was constantly under attack from the Egyptian, the Ethiopian, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Philistines. It seats in teh crossroads of east and west thus its strategic value. They lived under constant threat and literally under the shadow of death. They were also in spiritual darkness and the Savior brought light to them. Now, which one will you pick. I suggest both since they are are not exclusive of each other.

That pretty much holds true for the rest of the scriptures. But, that is why we have prophets seers and revelators. They discern and share the word of God with us and provide counsel and guidance on a number of subjects.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Redbeard

Please, no debating, I HONESTLY do not know, I am not trying to spark debate, I am simply wondering if there is anything in the bible that states that it should be taken literally. Direct quotes would be INCREDIBLY helpful. Thanks in advance!

And please, no need for debate, just looking for quotes!

Any Biblical scripture written in an ancient Hebrew poetic form should be understood to have deep symbolic meaning and often the form indicates multiple understanding. The Book of Isaiah is the most complex of all ancient Biblical text and thus the most difficult to understand in our time.

All of the Old Testament scriptures were maintained as variant scriptures during the time of Christ – we know this because of the Dead Sea Scriptures found by the Dead Sea. Only by understanding why there were versions of the scriptures can we understand the depth of the message. For example: the prophet Moses leading the children of Israel from Egypt to the promised land has symbolic meaning to believers leaving the things of the world and taking a journey to an eternal promised land (heaven).

Jesus in his teachings taught with parables for the very reason that his teaching were to reach beyond literal meaning. Thus we have the word of G-d being represented symbolically as a seed.

I for one think if someone read the scriptures for literal meaning – they do not have nor do they want a relationship with the G-d spoken of in the scriptures.

The Traveler

[beefche]

Originally Posted by Redbeard

Please, no debating, I HONESTLY do not know, I am not trying to spark debate, I am simply wondering if there is anything in the bible that states that it should be taken literally. Direct quotes would be INCREDIBLY helpful. Thanks in advance!

And please, no need for debate, just looking for quotes!

One thing to keep in mind, when the bible was written, it wasn't compiled as we have it now. It was simply epistles and recordings placed together (sometimes). Furthermore, the Bible as we have it today, is not compiled into chronological order.

[Heavenguard]

The people of the day used a lot of imagery, poetry and other storytelling devices, as much was passed by word of mouth. It would have been understood by the people of the time that much was not meant to be taken literally without the author of any book/letter saying it specifically.

In order to read the Bible, you must take on the mindset or understanding of the audience of the time, and then learn how it applies now. The principles of the Bible are timeless, but the way in which the principles were conveyed are lost through time, translation, cross-cultural references, if read without that understanding.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by Redbeard

Please, no debating, I HONESTLY do not know, I am not trying to spark debate, I am simply wondering if there is anything in the bible that states that it should be taken literally. Direct quotes would be INCREDIBLY helpful. Thanks in advance!

And please, no need for debate, just looking for quotes!

You'd need at least one quote from each author and nobody knows how many of them there were.

[abqfriend]

I am not LDS, but I have found that one's faith community-such as the LDS Church can be helpful in a person's understanding of Sacred Scripture/The Bible. I am a Roman Catholic, so my Church helps me understand Sacred Scripture. The leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can be helpful in instructing a member in understanding the Sacred Scriptures of your faith tradition.
Most faith traditions have publications by that faith tradition to instruct the members of the faith community.
So-when you have what you consider a difficult Biblical passage or a passage from The Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants-seek the guidance of the leadership of your faith community. There are many excellent resources that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints makes available to its members in helping the members live their faith to the fullest!

Originally Posted by Heavenguard

The people of the day used a lot of imagery, poetry and other storytelling devices, as much was passed by word of mouth. It would have been understood by the people of the time that much was not meant to be taken literally without the author of any book/letter saying it specifically.

In order to read the Bible, you must take on the mindset or understanding of the audience of the time, and then learn how it applies now. The principles of the Bible are timeless, but the way in which the principles were conveyed are lost through time, translation, cross-cultural references, if read without that understanding.

[Listener]

Having come through fellowship with those who seek a literal reading of the Bible, I can support everyone's comments.

Language and communication are such slippery things. What would appear to one person as the simplest and clearest of sentences is likely to be read completely differently by someone else. And that's just when we're on LDS.net!

I have a sneeking suspicion that this is why we need the Holy Spirit to lend a hand when reading Scripture, as well as earnest study, and a willingness to seek out wise teaching.

[Moksha]

I have heard that even ancient Rabbis viewed the Bible on different levels and not all parts of the Bible were meant to be taken seriously, let alone literally.

For instance, if one was to view the Genesis story as being literal, you would confine yourself to a magical view of the world that would by necessity need you to disavow a greater understanding of the creation provided by science.

My own view is that God wants us to view and understand his methodology through an understanding of science. Primitivistic stories suffice for primitive man, and yet we have moved far beyond that. I suspect God would applaud our efforts at trying to gain a mature understanding.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Listener

Having come through fellowship with those who seek a literal reading of the Bible, I can support everyone's comments.

Language and communication are such slippery things. What would appear to one person as the simplest and clearest of sentences is likely to be read completely differently by someone else. And that's just when we're on LDS.net!

I have a sneeking suspicion that this is why we need the Holy Spirit to lend a hand when reading Scripture, as well as earnest study, and a willingness to seek out wise teaching.

I second that view as well. We have the testimonies of the prophets and the apostles in regards tot he revealed word of God. We are then encouraged to find out for ourselves thru the Spirit and gain our own testimony of what God is revealing..

Before the Rabis, the prophets had no question in their minds about what the scriptures said. It is when the prophets are silent after the return from the Babylonian exile that even in Israel they begin to seek the help of angels, and recite incantations as in the midrashim.

I tend to disagree with Moksha above in one point. It was never the intent of God for his people to approach Him in "scientific" or academic way. That was never the case before de advent of the Rabinical schools of Judaism. It was precisely this approach that gave raise to the pharisaic and legalistic view of God. It elevated the Torah and the study of it to the point of worshiping the law instead fo the Law Giver. The Rabinic hedge added hundreds of commandments to the law of Moses.

Except Isaiah, who was a pretty well educated man and related to royalty by marriage, all other prophets were simple folk, including his father. I am not negating that we should not pursue inquiry of the physical world as a way to understand creation and the history of world and God. But it (academic or scientific models) should not be the the primary frame of reference thru which we hope to understand the word of God. I hope you understand my view point.