Should the Bible be interpreted literally?

Topic:
Religious Debates

27 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
19% of users

  • Yes, I believe everyone should follow the Bible more closely and literally, because there would be less problems in this world.

    The Bible should be followed, interpreted and incorporated into everyone's daily lives. If people started to follow scripture more closely, I feel that there would be less world problems, and more people being friends with one another. We have so many problems in the world, and some can be solved with religion.

    Yes BoundlessHomer49

  • No, because the Bible is intended to be reinterpreted in current contexts, in order to provide guidance.

    The Bible, and more specifically the teachings of Christ, are intended to guide people in all places and times. Thus, the vague points and generalities found in the Bible need to be adapted to the place and time of the reader. The actual practice of "Love thy neighbor" is a bit different now than it was just 20 years ago. And it will continue to change.

    Yes JaylinH

  • Yes, if you are a believer why would you think it was too hard for God to do the things mentioned in the Bible.

    As far as the miraculous stories told in the Bible, why should they not be taken literally? The Bible does not say that they are fables, but it is written as actual accounts of what has happened over the eons between God and man. Just because these things could never occur in nature, (for example, Noah being swallowed by a whale,) does not mean that these things do not happen supernaturally. The Bible contains a record of Gods love and oftentimes, miraculous dealings with mankind.

    Yes NettN355

  • I have heard arguments on both sides of this issue, and have to say yes.

    Although I have heard many good arguments to the contrary, I must say that the Bible should be interpreted literally. If you take a look at some of the Bibles that use modern language, it is easier to come to this conclusion. The Bible is a book, written by man, but about the word of God. Christianity is based on faith, and along with faith in God, must come faith in the word of God.

    Yes 5h035Bow

  • The Bible should definitely be interpreted literally because it is a book of mostly literal directions from God to mankind.

    Figurative interpretations of the Bible provide an welcomed opportunity for liberal people to excuse their lifestyles and belief systems that conflict with traditional values and doctrines. It also waters down the gospel message that the Bible was authored to provide. The point of the Bible is to make God's intentions for mankind clear. If everything has to be interpreted because it is figurative then the Bible's clear message becomes much more cloudy.

    Yes TasticBran
Voice Your Opinion
No
81% of users

  • The Bible should not be interpreted literally, because it goes against scientific reasoning.

    According to the Bible, the Earth is only one thousand years old. According to radiometric dating and fossils, this is simply untrue. The Bible is meant to be a source of how to live, not a history of the world, necessarily. This way, people can be religious and still listen to scientific reasoning.

    No NineLester37

  • The Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally because its stories are unrealistic.

    The Bible and Christianity in general teach good values that many elitist nonreligious individuals could stand to learn from. The problem is that Christians that demand that every word in the Bible is to be taken literally are essentially saying that science is false. It is impossible to part a sea and no one can come back from the dead. These are just facts. The Bible shouldn't be taken literally, or logically thinking individuals can't take it seriously.

    No TwoVic

  • No, I disagree that the Bible should be interpreted literally, because it has conflicting sayings which contradict each other.

    No, I disagree that the Bible should be interpreted literally, because it has conflicting sayings which contradict each other. So, if one was to take the Bible literally, what statement should be believed? The Bible states "an eye for an eye", but it also states "turn the other cheek". These statements contradict each other. One means to seek revenge, the other means to let things go. If the Bible were to be interpreted literally, we'd have to either pick one, or the other. I don't see how you can both seek an eye for an eye, and turn the other cheek. I think the Bible is meant to teach lessons, and for people to interpret it in their own way.

    No I33Iess

  • The Bible should not be interpreted literally as it was written by men, and not directly by God.

    The Christian Bible is a collection of texts written by early Christians and compiled by the early church. It was meant to act as a point of reference for Christians. Unlike the 10 commandments for example, it was not however directly dictated by God and therefore cannot be considered infallible or taken literally.

    No EminentBennett93

  • It should not be interpreted literally, because so many changes have been made to it over the centuries.

    The Bible cannot be taken literally, because of the many changes. Hundreds of years ago, religious people decided which Gospels should be used, while others were left out. Wording has been changed. A good example is the King James version of the Bible that was reinterpreted for the benefit of an English King.

    No wait4me2fall

  • No, because the Bible is fiction, not truth.

    The Bible should not be interpreted literally. It was written by man, and even if it comes from the supposed "word of God", that word was still transcribed by the brain of man. We will never know what changed in the translation. It is unwise to base any fact on what is basically fictional stories written by man.

    No TedieDelight

  • No, because the Bible is a work of literature that can be read as any other form of literature, and interpreted however the reader sees fit.

    People who are religious will always find justification for their actions in the teachings of their religion. No religious person wants to feel that he or she is violating their own beliefs. How the Bible is read is not important. Understanding that it is a work of literature means it can be enjoyed without having to subscribe to anything written within.

    No lacharas

  • No

    I cannot take the bible literally when clearly it reeks of misogyny and an ancient belief system that no longer applies to our modern world. To take the bible literally would be a very frightening thing since the old testament is full of such barbaric practices. The Bible is open to a lot of differnt interpretation because it is a book of mythology and parables. How can you truly believe that a person can survive in the stomach of a whale?

    No Anonymous

  • The Bible is ancient mythology and can't be taken literally.

    The Bible is a collection of ancient mythology. The people who wrote it had little scientific understanding, and came up with magical explanations for things. Some of the stories have some basis in fact, but by the time they were recorded hundreds of years later, they had grown into legends. The Bible contains some wisdom and useful advice, but it should definitely not be taken literally.

    No N Schroeder 60

  • No, I really don't think that it can be.

    It would be beneficial to all if it could be taken literally because a lot of confusion could be cleared up. But, the wording of the Bible itself suggests that it wasn't meant to be taken that way. That the Bible is not so straightforward. Yes, this leaves some part of the Bible open to interpretation, but I think that the basics are clear. Be good, do good and you will receive HIS blessings.

    No MohaI0v35

  • Not only don't I think that the Bible should be interpreted literally, but I don't think that it is possible.

    Everyone who experiences a car crash recalls it differently, everyone who watches a movie gets something different out of it, and the Bible is no different. Everyone interprets the text in a way that relates to their life and understanding of life, and no one is around to decode the language of the age in which the text was written. Even if we could interpret the book as it is supposed to be interpreted, some of the things written in it will not apply to the world of today, and thus the practices would clash with various laws.

    No XglossyWynd

  • I do not agree that the bible should be interpreted literally, I think that the bible is more of a guide for inspiration than a literal interpolation.

    The bible was written so many years ago that it would be hard to really take every situation literally. The bible should really serve as an example to peoples lives. We do not live in the same kind of times that the bible were writing in and it can be hard to really incorporate the examples lain out in the bible to today's times, since the times are so drastically different.

    No C0ImEIite

  • The Bible should not be interpreted literally because it was not written that way.

    The Bible contains many parables and stories that we don't know if they ever happened or not. Being eaten by a fish for 3 days and thrown back up on the shore probably never happened. It can not be verified by science and supernatural occurrences are often explained by smoke and mirrors. I believe the Bible is an allegory and not to be taken literally.

    No R3ubHockey

  • The Bible is not always meant to be interpreted literally and the actual meaning of any passage can be determined by studying other scriptures on the same subject.

    Jesus used many parables and comparisons to reach people's hearts. Not all of them were to be taken literally. The fiery Gehenna, for example is used to symbolize eternal destruction. The number 6 is used in reference to imperfection and the number 7 to symbolize that which is complete. Intense study of the scriptures by those seeking the truth has produced an understanding that the earth will stand to time indefinite and that humans will populate it forever, and even live forever in perfect health and beauty. There is no fiery hell of torture and there is not a soul that survives the death of the body. These and many other Bible truths show how sometimes scriptures are meant to be taken symbolically.

    No N3vinFace

  • I believe the purpose of the Bible is to provide a set of guidelines for those of Christian faith, such as commandments for worship and living wholesomely, but that's it.

    The Bible has many good tenets, such as dictating morals (such as the preservation of life, remaining honest, and being open). However, while its stories can be read for inspiration and to solidify the faith of its followers, it should not be interpreted literally. This is because by doing so, you shut your mind off from other options. If events like the 40 days of flooding or the world only being 6000 years old actually occurred, there should be evidence of this rather that solely relying on the writings of any one book. Without opening your mind, you're unable to respond as well to different situations in life.

    No P3rEver

  • The Bible should not be interpreted literally because it was written in a different time.

    The Bible should not be interpreted literally because it is by design a guide for life, not a reference for daily living. The Bible was written in a time when concepts of dealing with social and moral issues were vastly different from the mannerisms of today. The literal interpretation of the Bible can result in the breaking of current civil laws as religious zealots believe they are following the commands of a higher authority, wrongly.

    No ThegaXen

  • The bible should not be interpreted literally because it's a matter of faith, not fact.

    The bible should not be interpreted literally because it's a matter of faith, not fact. It was not written in English, much less modern English. It's gone through a lot of revisions, translations, and interpretations before King James ordered the one most used today. Subtleties get lost in translation, and that's not taking into account people who made deliberate revisions to further their own agendas.

    No H0bi3Invader

  • I strongly disagree that the Bible should be interpreted literally.

    The Bible is a collection of stories written by human beings. This disparate group of individuals who wrote down these stories based on the events and beliefs in their times certainly had personal agendas. As such, any of the stories they presented can not possibly be considered to be having pure motives. Also, there is extensive scientific proof that the world was not created in seven days, and is certainly significantly older than the 15,000 or so years claimed by the Bible. With scientific evidence galore it is certainly irrational to continue to read the Bible literally.

    No barbz129

  • I do not believe the bible should be taken literally.

    Because by extent if women are the closest to gods, we must not take them literally, for they shall smite us on a wrong answer. If man were to take things to literally, they would not be able to get beyond text in thought. Therefore if a man is reduced to being smited, and one minded, the eternal string of women smiting will continue, so one must avoid taking the bible to literally, for our man sake.

    No Bear

  • The Bible should not be interpreted literally.

    The Bible was written by human beings. They wrote from things they witnessed and from stories they had heard. There is no solid basis for believing that the Bible is literal. Science has already disproved some of the items in the Bible. The writers of the Bible may not have necessarily meant that the world was made in seven days or that Adam and Eve populated the world. These could be interpreted as stories to explain how God made the world.

    No VasilBuddy

  • The Bible shouldn't be interpreted literally because most often the events described were written eons later than when they happened.

    It isn't reasonable to accept events in the Bible as written because most often the writing was done years or even hundreds of years after the events. Even when two people witness the same events simultaneously, they often have very different views on what actually happened. There is no way I can describe what happened during WW1 because I wasn't born yet and didn't witness any of the events. When I read about it, I should always take the writings with a grain of salt.

    No Nik0Interior

  • I oppose literal biblical interpretations, science and religion do not go hand in hand, the Bible can only help in only preserving morale amongst an ever-changing society.

    There are too many contradictions between science and religion and in today's developing society, it is obvious how everything has become so scientifically forward. Had there been literal biblical interpretation since day one, maybe there wouldn't be so much of a problem over accepting everything written in it but there are many people who believe in seeing hardcore facts and research in order to help them accept the truth that trying to believe in the 'unseen' versus accepting things that are tangible is harder for them. Science won over religion in one of the most controversial debates at the Royal Society meetings in London over Charles Darwin's idea of evolution back in the 1800s. But now if we chose to have strict interpretation of the Bible, we would all have to become 'backward'.

    No MyHier
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Should the Bible be interpreted literally?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource