Should we interpret the Bible literally?

(skeptik;4332)
Mr. Falwell disagrees. If only many people who call themselves christians acted like that, having nothing but love in their hearts towards their fellow man, to those who sin and to those who don't share their beliefs.
Skeptik, you seem rather judgemental. You think most of the people around you haven't had bad experiences with so-called Christians?I've had equally bad experiences with skeptics as well. What does that prove?When we stand before God we can blame everyone else, we will be judged on what we, individually do, not everyone else does.If it makes you feel any better, most of humanity has it rough and suffers, most the time silently. Then you have some idiot that comes along and says, they have it " too good". You never know the suffering others have bc most keep it to themselves.

(skeptik;4370)
Care to provide any links to any source that says that lobster is hazardous to your health? (If you're not allergic of course)
The Bible is the link.
What's this supposed to mean? Its in the bible! Timeless word of g*d, no?You hardly see any christian with long hair and a beard, although the bible is very explicit about these sorts of things.
As Kriss said there are different dispensations of time. If the Bible is confusing to you and you think God is unfair, then you need a good Bible teacher.
Have any of you read the bible, cover to cover? Surely, you must've noticed some laws like:
Leviticus 20:10
If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
Yeah? That seems unfair to you?Deuteronomy 13:13-16 [13] that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known,[14] then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you,[15] you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword.[16] You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square, and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God; it shall be a heap for ever, it shall not be built again. Exodus 31:14You shall keep the sabbath, because it is holy for you; every one who profanes it shall be put to death; whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. And many, many other "sins" whose penalty is death.Okay, did you even read my answer? The nations around were burning their kids and others in the fire. Burning them to death. They were practicing cannibalism, devil worship,etc. etc.However God doesn't have to justify his actions to anyone. Apostle Paul says that about the clay talking back to the potter.If you think God is unfair then you need to really study the word.However, if you're trying to justify homosexual behavior as okay because you think God is unfair; it won't work. It's still a sin just like murder, stealing and rape, etc.

(kriss;4416)
Your above quotes have already been answered by Ros777.She has already rightly stated these were laws ordinances for the Jews before Christ died for our sins.
Ok. Once more I ask: why have them in the christian bible if these laws are not to be followed? And why scream "abomination" at homosexuals and then disregard the other abominations described in the same book I'm just looking for consistency here.(kriss;4416)
However you must also be willing to listen if you are going to question you seem to be having difficulty knowing how to rightly divide the word or how to separate concepts. I'm not saying you can not remain skeptical but you have to have some understanding of where to separate certain things or you will never come to any understanding which I assume you are trying to do.
I am trying to understand why the so-called "word of g*d" can be dissected like this. Someone at the beginning of this thread said: Things like "Thou shalt not" and "... is an abomination" are pretty straightforward. As is "stone her to death with stones". Why pick the ones you want to follow and not the others?

(SwampFox;3118)
ROS has it right.There are some parts, obviously, that should be interpreted literally such as "Thou shalt not..." or "... is an abomination." However, many times obviously and sometimes not, there are parts that should be taken figuratively such as a talking "snake" or the beasts of Revelation. Typically when things are meant figuratively there is some sort of key for the lock if you will. It may be a statement that comes right out at you or it may very well be something much more subtle, but its there if you listen to God and let him show you.
Well said, "For example, the book of Daniel, a "beast" is a symbol of a nation or kingdom (see Daniel 7:17, 24). The seven heads and ten horns apparently identify this beast with the dragon of Revelation 12, the leopard beast of Revelation 13, and the fourth beast of Daniel 7. Also, a woman is a symbol of a church, a pure woman being a pure church and an evil woman an evil church. The "harlot" is a symbol of a church which has professed to be Christian, but has been untrue to Christ. (See Jer. 6:2,; 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 12:1, 17). Many also get the idea that "literal" is opposed to "spiritual." Abraham had two sons, one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. One was of the flesh, the other was by promise, of the spirit. Gal. 4:22, 23. This is where there can be confusion with respect to the "literal" and the "spiritual" seed of Abraham. People talk as though the word "spiritual" were opposed to "literal." But this is not the case. Spiritual is opposed only to fleshly or carnal. "If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3:29). Only those who are spiritual are the true seed of Abraham, but this does not make them any less "real." Christ had a spiritual body after His resurrection, yet he was a real, literal being, and could be handled the same as other bodies.Blessings in Christ,John S.

I think that you have to take most of the bible figuratively. I cannot take the bible literally because of my science background, especially microbiology and biology.

There are too many errors in Genesis. I cannot believe in creationism, there is too much biological and microbiological proof of evolution and natural selection.

"Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum: What is not biblical is not theological."That should be the foundation for all scriptural interpretation, unfortunately,...the view on what is biblical seems to be the 10,000$ question. As for the literal translation, there seems to be some obscurity on “what should” be viewed literally, as to what contains subjective inference to a parallel spiritual, or, prophetic meaning.Of course, One must recognize that what a passage means is fixed by the author and is not subject to alteration by readers, although, there are writings of which the author had no fixed detailed meaning, for the interpretation was left subjective for the purpose of discovery.The learned reader recognizes the markers that God has authored in the bible, along with the pattern of the Authors markers, and meanings “through-out” the history of the bible.It is one thing to say...”it is possible this could mean...??” Because, God has illustrated a similar pattern at a different time, or, location.But, it is quite different to say...this means this.....because, there is a measure of science, or, archeology to consider. The one thing that seems to be quite clear, is God seems to always confound the wise, and the learned.Our knowledge of Science, Archeology, Chemistry, Biology, should in no way be used to interpret the bible, there have been many false theories, and cults that have developed from that pattern of translation. It is prudent to simply suggest possibilities, not teach them as interpretations of scripture.

I do believe that there are two types of Laws. The moral code given in the 10Commandments and the relationship or covenant Laws given to the Jews.It is because of humanities violation of the Moral laws that Christ had to go to the Cross for, not the shelfish eaters or beard trimmers etc.The covenant of circumcision was not extended to the Gentiles either. Paul preached that "Spiritual circumcision" was far more important than physical circumcision. One can see where this would have lead. Men would have been unzipping thier pants to show they have been saved.As Gentiles were being saved, this very question was being discussed. Tha Apostles answered:Greetings. v Ac 15:24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. w Ac 15:25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— Ac 15:26 men who have risked their lives x for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ac 15:27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas y to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. Ac 15:28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit z and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: Ac 15:29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. a You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

NOThe bible and it's basic direction in terms of showing us the way to salvation is good. So are the other bibles.Literal translation however cannot be made.Various ambiguaties and contradictions appear within it's pages.This may have been intentional on the part of the makers of this document in order to promote discussion and arguement, who can know. Regardless, this document is only a fraction of the gospels chosen from and is only meant as an outline for the search for God. Common sence must always be in play as you pick and choose and basically write wour own personal bible with the ingrediance within .RegardsDL

Kriss,I am sorry, but I cannot find, in Peter 2, where it talks about three world ages. Could you give me a little more detail? Their is a lot of scientific proof of evolution and natural selection. I am in medicine and have taken many years of biology, anatomy, physiology, and microbiology during college. Some quick examples include human vestigial organs (coccyx and appendix), flu virus mutation, genetic changes in certain species (generally small changes that result in phenotype changes), and bacterial antibiotic resistance. I, personally, don't know much about archeology.Another reason I take the bible metaphorically is that I find it can cause devisiveness if taken too literally.

When I read Peter 2, it seems to me it is talking about the flood and then a world after judgement and not a pre-adam world."What we refer to when you start talking about evolution is the specific theory of evolution as an origin and an unintelligent one at that."I'm not quite sure what this is refering to, but I think it is refering to life beginning as one-celled organisms and then evolving into more and more complex organisms. I'm not sure why this would be considered unintelligent. It has been shown that be simulating an early earth (fatty acids, heat, methane, carbon dioxide etc.) that simple cells can quite easily occur, naturally. I am not implying, however, that god did not guide the process.

Always happy to learn.Do you view these statements to be contradictory.Though shallt not kill andThough shallt not sufer a witch to live. both of these aer in your bible.

That was a good of us to see you reach so far for the wrong answer.It made me laughaybe I will ejoy reading a small sum of you after all.RegardsDL

(Greatest I Am;6031)
Always happy to learn.Do you view these statements to be contradictory.Though shallt not kill andThough shallt not sufer a witch to live. both of these aer in your bible.
No, they are not contradictory. The word translated "Kill" is better translated 'murder' so it's "Thou shalt do no murder". A murderer is 'one who lies in wait' to murder someone. It's criminal homicide.