Is the Bible to be read literally or figuratively?

[tonychanyt]

J 3:

1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Jesus emphasized that born-again was truly a spiritual reality, not a physical reality.

4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

Nicodemus misunderstood it as a physical (literal) event.

5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Jesus elaborated. Flesh is physical; Spirit and spirit are real entities in the spiritual reality.

Was Jesus being literal when he told Nicodemus "born again"?

No, Jesus wasn't talking about literal or physical flesh.
Yes, Jesus was talking about a literal or real spiritual event.
The word literal in the above usages is ambiguous.

Psalms are often figurative and not literal. Ps 23:

1 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters.

We are not physical or literal sheep. The psalmist used metaphors and symbols. David painted a vivid picture of God's loving relationship with his people. He provides and cares for us.

Is the Bible to be read literally or figuratively?

Some parts are literal, and some are figurative, symbolic, etc. The Bible is a collection of diverse literary genres, including historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, parables, and apocalyptic literature. Each genre has its own rules of interpretation. Psalms are poetic and eschatological writing is highly symbolic.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Some parts are literal, and some are figurative, symbolic, etc. The Bible is a collection of diverse literary genres, including historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, parables, and apocalyptic literature. Each genre has its own rules of interpretation. Psalms are poetic and eschatological writing is highly symbolic.

I agree. But many here will read Genesis creation accounts as literal historical.
So where and how do we draw the line between literal and figurative interpretations?

 

[tonychanyt]

So where and how do we draw the line between literal and figurative interpretations?

I don't have a general answer for that. But if you give me a specific verse, I'll try to answer it

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I don't have a general answer for that. But if you give me a specific verse, I'll try to answer it

Well, as you know, many people will take Genesis 1: 1-31 as a literal historical 6 day creation.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

I don't have a general answer for that. But if you give me a specific verse, I'll try to answer it

The plain meaning of a text is always the preferred interpretation. There is never a reason to spiritualize, to allegorize, to try to explain a text away if the plain meaning is clear. Only if the context of a passage gives compelling reason to assume that the language is somehow symbolic or somehow spiritual should you ever look for any other than the obvious meaning. Where the plain sense of Scripture makes good sense, to seek any other sense is nonsense.

 

[tonychanyt]

Well, as you know, many people will take Genesis 1: 1-31 as a literal historical 6 day creation.

By 'literal day', do you mean 24 hours?

 

[timf]

So where and how do we draw the line between literal and figurative interpretations?

Most metaphor is obvious

Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

When confronted with a statement that seems unusual, it is good to ask why something could not be taken literally. For example a six literal day creation. One might ask why couldn't an all powerful God create the world in six seconds.

What Nicodemus was supposed to have understood was the prophetic reference to the changes Israel could expect for the kingdom.

Eze 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

 

[tonychanyt]

Where the plain sense of Scripture makes good sense, to seek any other sense is nonsense.

Revelation 13:1 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads.

How do you understand the above?

 

[timf]

If we take Rev 13:1 literally, we would first ask ourselves if there is any "beast" we know of today that fits the description given. Even if there were, we would then have to answer why it would be wearing diadems. Since we know most of the creatures (especially the larger ones) on earth already, one might next consider that this would have to be an animal that is produced by God as an act of creation or through some sort of genetic technology. The next question would be why?

One fairly quickly begins to consider this description as illustrative rather than actual. What we call the tribulation we almost always see as a future event. While it is prophetic, it was written to Jewish believers in Western Turkey to advise them of what they could expect if Jesus returned to set his kingdom up in the near future. The establishment of the kingdom was contingent on the nation of Israel accepting Jesus as Messiah. This could have happened up until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

This warning to Jewish believers would have applied to those before 70AD just as well as it will apply to Jewish believers when the tribulation does come. Perhaps because it could be applicable to various times, it may have been written with illustrative terms rather than specific ones.

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Revelation 13:1 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems on its horns and blasphemous names on its heads.

How do you understand the above?

To understand the text, we must look at the context, grammar used, and literacy. We must also compare with other scripture, as Scripture is interpreted with Scripture.

Book of Revelation is good to compare with Daniel (and Zechariah - the revelation of OT). Both Daniel and John saw political systems and leaders that they described using the term "Beast". John sees this beast coming up "out of the sea." John called it a beast because It comes up out of the sea of "nations". This beast has to do with the powers of this earth opposed to Christendom

Now compare with Daniel. In Daniel Chapter 7, the prophet records a dream that he had in which he saw the rise and fall of four gentile world empires.. Each was characterized as a beast coming from the sea of nations.

The 'heads' show dominion. 'Horns' show power, like you have the little horn in the book of Daniel chapter 7

'ten' compare that with 'ten kings who will arise from that kingdom' from Daniel 7:24. So we know then that this has something to do with world government and rulers of that.

I believe this "ten" here is the ten common market nations which were formed from the old Roman empire.
The old Roman empire has been reestablished in the ten common market nations. The sad thing is, that it appears, the power that this group has is from the evil one. It is not difficult to understand where their power comes from.

"Upon his heads the name of blasphemy". This beast has the ten horns of power.

This is the personification of what Satan does with this world power.

The personification of evil when it takes over governments and people who are heads of these governments.