What is biblical literalism?

[Major]

Biblical literalism refers to the interpretation of Scripture as literal, with the exception of sections of text that are clearly intended to be allegorical, poetic, or figurative.

2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV)
" All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Now then.....on every single "Christian Forum" available we have all seen the precepts and opinions of those who DO NOT take the Scriptures as they are written.
When that is done we come away with teachings of men that say we must go to church on the Sabbath.
We see those that say the 2nd Coming of Jesus came and went in 70 AD and there is no coming resurrection.
We see those who say that Jesus was just a man and could not have been God in the flesh.
We see those who teaching that you must belong a certain religious church to go actually saved.
We see those who say that you MUST be baptized in order to be saved.
We see those who say that God will give you more money than you can expect IF you just have faith.

Where does all of this come from?????

2 Peter 2:1..........
"There will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves."

It is my humble opinion that these false teaching come from the "manipulation" of the Scriptures so as to fit a personal agenda.
God’s Word is always consistent, for He will never contradict himself. The only way to ensure that we are receiving godly teaching is thus to check it against the Word of God. Is it in line with what the Bible says? Does it contradict the basic precepts of our faith?

I believe that Biblical literalism is supported by Scripture. The Bible speaks of itself as the actual Word of God written by men through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who is in fact God. In fact, Scripture is often called the Word of God and I myself often use that phrase. It is my understanding that the Bible is infallible and does not contradict itself. Therefore, I as a biblical literalist believe that the Bible is God's way of communicating truth to us.

Just sitting here thinking and this came to my mind. It seems to me that a lot of energy is wasted in debating over WHAT GOD SAID instead of just accepting what GOD SAID!

 

[Decoder]

If you read through John with this question in mind, you find that most of Jesus' opposition was quite literal, even about OT passages. "Destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will raise it." Nicodemus: how do I go back into my mother's womb? Or the crowd in Jn 12:34: 'we've heard the Messiah will reign forever, out of the Law; so why do you talk about dying?' There are several in Jn 4 talking to the woman at the well: meat, mountain, water, work.

We find out that the analogy or new sense that Jesus uses is the one he is trying to make normal or standard. The literal is usually set aside. In Hebrews we are told of the level of discernment needed to handle the word, in Peter that the untaught and the unstable distort things.

We should go with the normal meaning as much as possible, but those who are experienced in the word deserve credit for the time they have spent. I encounter people all the time who think that just because one thing became clear to them, there is no need for them to consult experienced researchers. I was teaching in early Acts once and trying to stress that the quotations of the OT there are some of the freshest we have from Jesus, from the 40 days. That they were extremely vital material. The students did not think this mattered very much.

Sometimes this comes from the I John passage about us 'not needing any teachers'; but he didn't mean that. A literal person might think he meant that, but the answer is always in the nuances. He meant the seasoned/veteran believer. John meant those believers did not need any outside/false teachers who were pushing themselves in. With that as the meaning, younger believers definitely need the experienced interpreter. I John even has its 'triage' scheme in 2: children, young men, fathers.

 

[Decoder]

If you read through John with this question in mind, you find that most of Jesus' opposition was quite literal, even about OT passages. "Destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will raise it." Nicodemus: how do I go back into my mother's womb? Or the crowd in Jn 12:34: 'we've heard the Messiah will reign forever, out of the Law; so why do you talk about dying?' There are several in Jn 4 talking to the woman at the well: meat, mountain, water, work.

We find out that the analogy or new sense that Jesus uses is the one he is trying to make normal or standard. The literal is usually set aside. In Hebrews we are told of the level of discernment needed to handle the word, in Peter that the untaught and the unstable distort things.

We should go with the normal meaning as much as possible, but those who are experienced in the word deserve credit for the time they have spent. I encounter people all the time who think that just because one thing became clear to them, there is no need for them to consult experienced researchers. I was teaching in early Acts once and trying to stress that the quotations of the OT there are some of the freshest we have from Jesus, from the 40 days. That they were extremely vital material. The students did not think this mattered very much.

Sometimes this comes from the I John passage about us 'not needing any teachers'; but he didn't mean that. A literal person might think he meant that, but the answer is always in the nuances. He meant the seasoned/veteran believer. John meant those believers did not need any outside/false teachers who were pushing themselves in. With that as the meaning, younger believers definitely need the experienced interpreter. I John even has its 'triage' scheme in 2: children, young men, fathers.

Improvement: when I referred to Nic, I meant Jesus referring to being born all over.

 

[Major]

If you read through John with this question in mind, you find that most of Jesus' opposition was quite literal, even about OT passages. "Destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will raise it." Nicodemus: how do I go back into my mother's womb? Or the crowd in Jn 12:34: 'we've heard the Messiah will reign forever, out of the Law; so why do you talk about dying?' There are several in Jn 4 talking to the woman at the well: meat, mountain, water, work.

We find out that the analogy or new sense that Jesus uses is the one he is trying to make normal or standard. The literal is usually set aside. In Hebrews we are told of the level of discernment needed to handle the word, in Peter that the untaught and the unstable distort things.

We should go with the normal meaning as much as possible, but those who are experienced in the word deserve credit for the time they have spent. I encounter people all the time who think that just because one thing became clear to them, there is no need for them to consult experienced researchers. I was teaching in early Acts once and trying to stress that the quotations of the OT there are some of the freshest we have from Jesus, from the 40 days. That they were extremely vital material. The students did not think this mattered very much.

Sometimes this comes from the I John passage about us 'not needing any teachers'; but he didn't mean that. A literal person might think he meant that, but the answer is always in the nuances. He meant the seasoned/veteran believer. John meant those believers did not need any outside/false teachers who were pushing themselves in. With that as the meaning, younger believers definitely need the experienced interpreter. I John even has its 'triage' scheme in 2: children, young men, fathers.

Excellant points all well said.

The point I am trying to make is that Biblical literalism is an extension of the literalism that we all use in everyday communication.

Example: If someone enters a room and says, “The building is on fire,” we don’t start searching for figurative meanings; we start evacuating. No one stops to ponder whether the reference to “fire” is metaphorical or if the “building” is an oblique reference to 21st-century socio-economic theories.

In the very same manner, when we open the Bible and read, “The Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left” in Ex. 14:22, we shouldn’t look for figurative meanings for sea, dry ground, or wall of water; we should believe the miracle.

 

[Decoder]

And so in the Rev, where this started, we need to be especially cautious. Apocalyptic literature was trying to explain what actually behind the scenes. 'Stars falling to earth' might actually mean the leaders of Judaism brought to nothing, because we know that the earth cannot actually survive such an event, and several are mentioned. We know that in it, Jerusalem is called Egypt and Sodom because it was about to be decimated, and Babylon described as a city involved with all the leaders of the earth, but also where the Lord was crucified, and is thrown down. (There are about 10 reasons for an early mid 60s date). Meanwhile the city above hovers there, not 'landing' until the NHNE. The wedding however has taken place, a lively noisy celebration, and in Eph 5 the church as a whole is seen as married.

 

[Via dolarossa]

Well now, , this topic hit a nerve lol.

I’ve tried a lot of the succulent flavours of Christianity from mystical, gnosticical, soft boiled, hard boiled and outer space rainbow flavoured. Now, since I have been here I have had my eyes opened more using a literal approach. No wonder I was perishing( matthew8:25) ( 2 Corinthians 4:3) I couldn’t read it because I was stuffed full of what I thought it meant.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4

New International Version

​

3 And even if our gospel is veiled,it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this agehas blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


Good topic, thanks

 

[bobinfaith]

Well now, , this topic hit a nerve lol.
I’ve tried a lot of the succulent flavours of Christianity from mystical, gnosticical, soft boiled, hard boiled and outer space rainbow flavoured. Now, since I have been here I have had my eyes opened more using a literal approach. No wonder I was perishing( matthew8:25) ( 2 Corinthians 4:3) I couldn’t read it because I was stuffed full of what I thought it meant.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4​

​

New International Version​

​

​

3 And even if our gospel is veiled,it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this agehas blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


Good topic, thanks

Well said, Via.
God bless you and good to see you back in the fellowship! We've missed you.

 

[Decoder]

Well now, , this topic hit a nerve lol.

I’ve tried a lot of the succulent flavours of Christianity from mystical, gnosticical, soft boiled, hard boiled and outer space rainbow flavoured. Now, since I have been here I have had my eyes opened more using a literal approach. No wonder I was perishing( matthew8:25) ( 2 Corinthians 4:3) I couldn’t read it because I was stuffed full of what I thought it meant.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4​

​

New International Version​

​

​

3 And even if our gospel is veiled,it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this agehas blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


Good topic, thanks

btw, notice that this instance is particularly about reading the OT by those in Judaism. See 3:14-16. The writer of Hebrews is the only who seized the line from Exodus: "see to it that you copy the model shown to you on the mountain." 8:5-6. In other words, there should have been an awareness that the whole Levitical sacrifice and worship system was just a model/shadow of heaven that would be 'fulfilled' at some future point. So in Judaism, especially after the return from Babylon, they got pretty tight, literal, etc., about the temple (Herod's huge one), the ones with lineage in favor, the others against it. The Samaritans worshipped at theirs and no one seemed to know how 'heaven is my throne / earth is my footstoool' could be true if God's temple was on a hill in Jerusalem. See Jn 2 again: 'It took us 47 years to build this temple' (and a lot of grief from all the taxes...).

 

[YeshuaFan]

Biblical literalism refers to the interpretation of Scripture as literal, with the exception of sections of text that are clearly intended to be allegorical, poetic, or figurative.

2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV)
" All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

Now then.....on every single "Christian Forum" available we have all seen the precepts and opinions of those who DO NOT take the Scriptures as they are written.
When that is done we come away with teachings of men that say we must go to church on the Sabbath.
We see those that say the 2nd Coming of Jesus came and went in 70 AD and there is no coming resurrection.
We see those who say that Jesus was just a man and could not have been God in the flesh.
We see those who teaching that you must belong a certain religious church to go actually saved.
We see those who say that you MUST be baptized in order to be saved.
We see those who say that God will give you more money than you can expect IF you just have faith.

Where does all of this come from?????

2 Peter 2:1..........
"There will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves."

It is my humble opinion that these false teaching come from the "manipulation" of the Scriptures so as to fit a personal agenda.
God’s Word is always consistent, for He will never contradict himself. The only way to ensure that we are receiving godly teaching is thus to check it against the Word of God. Is it in line with what the Bible says? Does it contradict the basic precepts of our faith?

I believe that Biblical literalism is supported by Scripture. The Bible speaks of itself as the actual Word of God written by men through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who is in fact God. In fact, Scripture is often called the Word of God and I myself often use that phrase. It is my understanding that the Bible is infallible and does not contradict itself. Therefore, I as a biblical literalist believe that the Bible is God's way of communicating truth to us.

Just sitting here thinking and this came to my mind. It seems to me that a lot of energy is wasted in debating over WHAT GOD SAID instead of just accepting what GOD SAID!

Prophecy itself should be understood in a literal fashion, unless there are a specific genre in play by the writer!
Gospel of John interesting, as many times jesus did mean a spiritual truth being taught, but they mistook it in a literal fashion, such as when Catholics see the Eucharist in the Lords Supper!

 

[Decoder]

Prophecy itself should be understood in a literal fashion, unless there are a specific genre in play by the writer!
Gospel of John interesting, as many times jesus did mean a spiritual truth being taught, but they mistook it in a literal fashion, such as when Catholics see the Eucharist in the Lords Supper!

So much of the Rev is apocalyptic that literal is not a good idea until the images and roots in Judaism are all ruled out. The earth cannot survive one 'star' falling, and there are several on top of several other catastrophes. But they are written literal, often with exact fractions of impact.

Also if you are trying to stay in the normal meaning in other places (Mt 24 and parallels, Thess, 2 Peter 3), then you really must know 1st century events. No one would make those direct, critical, serious warnings but actually mean X000 years away. Most Christians don't. They think that the Bible is a type of prognostication in detail about the future. It is not.

 

[Major]

Well now, , this topic hit a nerve lol.

I’ve tried a lot of the succulent flavours of Christianity from mystical, gnosticical, soft boiled, hard boiled and outer space rainbow flavoured. Now, since I have been here I have had my eyes opened more using a literal approach. No wonder I was perishing( matthew8:25) ( 2 Corinthians 4:3) I couldn’t read it because I was stuffed full of what I thought it meant.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4​

​

New International Version​

​

​

3 And even if our gospel is veiled,it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this agehas blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.


Good topic, thanks

Good news Via..............NO, that is GREAT news!

You see........when the "Literal" understanding is abandoned, it then opens the door to whatever we (Man) wants to substitute as a meaning.

 

[Major]

So much of the Rev is apocalyptic that literal is not a good idea until the images and roots in Judaism are all ruled out. The earth cannot survive one 'star' falling, and there are several on top of several other catastrophes. But they are written literal, often with exact fractions of impact.

Also if you are trying to stay in the normal meaning in other places (Mt 24 and parallels, Thess, 2 Peter 3), then you really must know 1st century events. No one would make those direct, critical, serious warnings but actually mean X000 years away. Most Christians don't. They think that the Bible is a type of prognostication in detail about the future. It is not.

I disagree with all due respect. You are a very educated person in Biblical matters and I respect your posts greatly.

I would only say that IMHO the key to Bible interpretation, especially for the book of Revelation, is to have a consistent hermeneutic. A normal hermeneutic or normal interpretation of Scripture means that unless the verse or passage clearly indicates the author was using figurative language, it should be understood in its normal sense. I do not think or advocate that we are to look for other meanings if the natural meaning of the sentence makes sense. Also, we are not to spiritualize Scripture by assigning meanings to words or phrases when it is clear the author, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, meant it to be understood as it is written.

The key to understanding the book of Revelation is to interpret it as literally as possible—it says what it means and means what it says.

7 churches = 7 churches.
24 elders = 24 elders.
1000 years = 1000 years.

Actually, dosent history say that the earth has survived many falling stars over the millions of years we have has an earth.

 

[YeshuaFan]

So much of the Rev is apocalyptic that literal is not a good idea until the images and roots in Judaism are all ruled out. The earth cannot survive one 'star' falling, and there are several on top of several other catastrophes. But they are written literal, often with exact fractions of impact.

Also if you are trying to stay in the normal meaning in other places (Mt 24 and parallels, Thess, 2 Peter 3), then you really must know 1st century events. No one would make those direct, critical, serious warnings but actually mean X000 years away. Most Christians don't. They think that the Bible is a type of prognostication in detail about the future. It is not.

There is still future prophetic events to come though!

 

[YeshuaFan]

I disagree with all due respect. You are a very educated person in Biblical matters and I respect your posts greatly.

I would only say that IMHO the key to Bible interpretation, especially for the book of Revelation, is to have a consistent hermeneutic. A normal hermeneutic or normal interpretation of Scripture means that unless the verse or passage clearly indicates the author was using figurative language, it should be understood in its normal sense. I do not think or advocate that we are to look for other meanings if the natural meaning of the sentence makes sense. Also, we are not to spiritualize Scripture by assigning meanings to words or phrases when it is clear the author, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, meant it to be understood as it is written.

The key to understanding the book of Revelation is to interpret it as literally as possible—it says what it means and means what it says.

7 churches = 7 churches.
24 elders = 24 elders.
1000 years = 1000 years.

Actually, dosent history say that the earth has survived many falling stars over the millions of years we have has an earth.

To get to more exotic views. such as preterism, have to pretty much make prophecy meaning all symbolic!

 

[Decoder]

There is still future prophetic events to come though!

Yes, but not in the detailed prognostication sense. It is clear that the day of judgement in Thess happens suddenly, without warning, unexpected.

I disagree with all due respect. You are a very educated person in Biblical matters and I respect your posts greatly.

I would only say that IMHO the key to Bible interpretation, especially for the book of Revelation, is to have a consistent hermeneutic. A normal hermeneutic or normal interpretation of Scripture means that unless the verse or passage clearly indicates the author was using figurative language, it should be understood in its normal sense. I do not think or advocate that we are to look for other meanings if the natural meaning of the sentence makes sense. Also, we are not to spiritualize Scripture by assigning meanings to words or phrases when it is clear the author, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, meant it to be understood as it is written.

The key to understanding the book of Revelation is to interpret it as literally as possible—it says what it means and means what it says.

7 churches = 7 churches.
24 elders = 24 elders.
1000 years = 1000 years.

Actually, dosent history say that the earth has survived many falling stars over the millions of years we have has an earth.

How much apocalyptic have you read--to compare with similar ones from the times. One thing to start compiling is a list how Judaism would refer to things: rulers as stars, etc.

In Ps 105, the writer was pleased to know that the promises of God would span 1000 generations, and was as certain as Joshua that everything promised to Abraham about land was completed, as Joshua had said. But there were not 1000 generations. It was just that it was a very long time.

To get to more exotic views. such as preterism, have to pretty much make prophecy meaning all symbolic!

The same writer maybe used the expression 'the cattle on 1000 hills' but there were not exactly 1000.

If Jesus is speaking earnestly, directly, etc to some people about things marked by their times, and about pregnant women having to travel, are you OK thinking that is really for someone X000 years in the future? In Mt 24, you have language already used in ch 10, about situations they already went through...

There are several ways that the normal reading of the Bible does not let us speak in terms of millions of years for the earth, though it might for the remote universe (the heavens).

I think you are thinking of meteor fragments, but the normal meaning of stars falling is stars falling, and there is not one known anywhere in the face of which the earth would survive vaporization. As you may know, if a fragment does not burn up, it will damage the earth. Small samples are found in the SW US. Or the Yucatan.

"Hailstones that weigh 100 lbs." has been found as a description elsewhere as Roman-catapulted weapons. In one prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in 66, Luke borrowed language from Jeremiah. It was not that the equipment from back then would be used, but that the meaning was the same; Israel had failed and would be pulverized.

In Lk 23:38 he limited the time of the destruction of the city by biology: the babies now nursing alongside the road Christ trudged through then, would see the city burn as adults.

The delay doctrine of Mt 24 etc is that 'right after' (v29) would mean the final judgement after 70AD--unless there was a delay. The delay is hinted 3 ways:
'only the Father knows' (Mt 24);
'the Master might return at one of 4 times' (Mk 13);
'the patience of God means salvation' (2 Peter 3, which seems to be speaking exactly about this delay). Paul mentioned a few times that the whole world had been reached in his time. All his letters consider this the goal of the whole church for its time in that generation, Col 1:6. But God had other plans, and here we are today.

This is not about the 'mystery.'

Since the delay is now an established thing, full preterism is unthinkable.

 

[Major]

Yes, but not in the detailed prognostication sense. It is clear that the day of judgement in Thess happens suddenly, without warning, unexpected.


How much apocalyptic have you read--to compare with similar ones from the times. One thing to start compiling is a list how Judaism would refer to things: rulers as stars, etc.

In Ps 105, the writer was pleased to know that the promises of God would span 1000 generations, and was as certain as Joshua that everything promised to Abraham about land was completed, as Joshua had said. But there were not 1000 generations. It was just that it was a very long time.


The same writer maybe used the expression 'the cattle on 1000 hills' but there were not exactly 1000.

If Jesus is speaking earnestly, directly, etc to some people about things marked by their times, and about pregnant women having to travel, are you OK thinking that is really for someone X000 years in the future? In Mt 24, you have language already used in ch 10, about situations they already went through...

There are several ways that the normal reading of the Bible does not let us speak in terms of millions of years for the earth, though it might for the remote universe (the heavens).

I think you are thinking of meteor fragments, but the normal meaning of stars falling is stars falling, and there is not one known anywhere in the face of which the earth would survive vaporization. As you may know, if a fragment does not burn up, it will damage the earth. Small samples are found in the SW US. Or the Yucatan.

"Hailstones that weigh 100 lbs." has been found as a description elsewhere as Roman-catapulted weapons. In one prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem in 66, Luke borrowed language from Jeremiah. It was not that the equipment from back then would be used, but that the meaning was the same; Israel had failed and would be pulverized.

In Lk 23:38 he limited the time of the destruction of the city by biology: the babies now nursing alongside the road Christ trudged through then, would see the city burn as adults.

The delay doctrine of Mt 24 etc is that 'right after' (v29) would mean the final judgement after 70AD--unless there was a delay. The delay is hinted 3 ways:
'only the Father knows' (Mt 24);
'the Master might return at one of 4 times' (Mk 13);
'the patience of God means salvation' (2 Peter 3, which seems to be speaking exactly about this delay). Paul mentioned a few times that the whole world had been reached in his time. All his letters consider this the goal of the whole church for its time in that generation, Col 1:6. But God had other plans, and here we are today.

This is not about the 'mystery.'

Since the delay is now an established thing, full preterism is unthinkable.

I am one who believes the event spoken of in 2 Thess. Is the removal of the church so as to keep it from going through Daniel's 70th week.

You asked me...........
"How much apocalyptic have you read ?"

Enough !

The 1000 year generations you are talking about is a reference to Deut. 7:9 and the Promise of God.....
"to Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and
keep his commandments, to a thousand generations."

To me that simply means that God's love is unlimited to those who love Him and the number should not be held as a specific number.

Exodus 20:6...........
"but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Same thing with cattle on a 1000 hills. The comment being conveyed is that the Lord owns all the cattle on all the hills, not just on a thousand hills.


You referenced Matt. 24:9 where INHO is Jesus referring to the last 3.5 years which He calls the "great tribulation" in Matt. 24:21.
In this scenario the "THEN" would parallel the events of Mt 24:15-21. That is to say that the things described in Mt 24:9-14 would be things that will occur during the 3.5 years of the Great Tribulation. Then YES.........the Delay is still going on but seems closer every day to me.

You said............
"Since the delay is now an established thing, full preterism is unthinkable."

I agree and would only add that the same thought would apply to "Partial Preterism" as well.

I say that because according to partial preterism, there is no rapture, and passages describing the tribulation and the Antichrist are actually referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the Roman emperor Titus. Partial preterists do believe in the return of Christ to earth and a future resurrection and judgment, but they do not teach a millennial kingdom or that Israel as a nation has a place in God’s future plan. According to partial preterists, the Bible’s references to “the last days” are speaking of the last days of the Old Jewish Covenant, not the last days of the earth itself.

 

[Major]

To get to more exotic views. such as preterism, have to pretty much make prophecy meaning all symbolic!

Or make them up as you go along to fit whatever it is you want to believe.

 

[bobinfaith]

How much apocalyptic have you read--to compare with similar ones from the times. One thing to start compiling is a list how Judaism would refer to things: rulers as stars, etc.

Hello Decoder;

Please stay on point in this topic which is Biblical Literalism, not Apocalyptic Literature.

I encourage you to start another thread on the subject of apocalyptic and cataclysmic literature where you are more than welcome to teach.

Biblical literalism refers to the interpretation of Scripture as literal, with the exception of sections of text that are clearly intended to be allegorical, poetic, or figurative.
I believe that Biblical literalism is supported by Scripture. The Bible speaks of itself as the actual Word of God written by men through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who is in fact God. In fact, Scripture is often called the Word of God and I myself often use that phrase. It is my understanding that the Bible is infallible and does not contradict itself. Therefore, I as a biblical literalist believe that the Bible is God's way of communicating truth to us.
Just sitting here thinking and this came to my mind. It seems to me that a lot of energy is wasted in debating over WHAT GOD SAID instead of just accepting what GOD SAID!

I would only say that IMHO the key to Bible interpretation, especially for the book of Revelation, is to have a consistent hermeneutic. A normal hermeneutic or normal interpretation of Scripture means that unless the verse or passage clearly indicates the author was using figurative language, it should be understood in its normal sense.

Hello Major;

Back on topic. Many readers rely on the literacy of the Bible but there are readers who lean on the inspiration of the Bible. I always understood the literal and inspiration go together so I'm trying to reconcile this. What are your thoughts?

God bless you and thank you for sharing and teaching.

 

[Major]

Hello Decoder;

Please stay on point in this topic which is Biblical Literalism, not Apocalyptic Literature.

I encourage you to start another thread on the subject of apocalyptic and cataclysmic literature where you are more than welcome to teach.




Hello Major;

Back on topic. Many readers rely on the literacy of the Bible but there are readers who lean on the inspiration of the Bible. I always understood the literal and inspiration go together so I'm trying to reconcile this. What are your thoughts?

God bless you and thank you for sharing and teaching.

Thank you Bob for the post!

The Bible makes a claim that other books never do. It claims to be from God. This is the concept called “inspiration” or God speaks to me through His Word!

"Literacy " means “educated; or having a knowledge or competence.”
So in this case, it means being educated in Scripture. That entails being familiar with God’s Word, as well as being able to read and understand it.

To me, they go hand in hand and both apply and actually when you have one you will have the other!

In my opinion, God designed the Bible to show us the way to navigate through this world and
Scripture provides protection and supports us when we are attacked by the enemy.
It is also meant to equip us to teach and encourage others in their walk, by sharing our testimony and talking about the Lord.

 

[Decoder]

Hello Decoder;

Please stay on point in this topic which is Biblical Literalism, not Apocalyptic Literature.

I encourage you to start another thread on the subject of apocalyptic and cataclysmic literature where you are more than welcome to teach.




Hello Major;

Back on topic. Many readers rely on the literacy of the Bible but there are readers who lean on the inspiration of the Bible. I always understood the literal and inspiration go together so I'm trying to reconcile this. What are your thoughts?

God bless you and thank you for sharing and teaching.

I think you're right that they do. A person still needs to regard the experienced handlers. Heb 4, about the fine lines.

One ex. always comes to mind: 'He leads me beside still waters.' I always thought this was God's way of finding us calm places. But in the Judean hinterland, it turns out to be quite different. A shepherd would never want water that was still; it's toxic. He would 'lead us past toxic waters.'

Now the people who found this were on the ground on site for years working in the literature and archeology. They found out things by talking to the Bedouins etc. So it is authentic, but it is very different from what most people think it says.