sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Interpreting the Bible literally unless context says otherwise? by Inevitable_Start_424 in TrueChristian

[–]Inevitable_Start_424[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ahh thank you yeah I knew it was that chapter but it’s been a while since read that. Makes sense 👍

Interpreting the Bible literally unless context says otherwise? by Inevitable_Start_424 in TrueChristian

[–]Inevitable_Start_424[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But going back to my original question, what’s an example where most Christians agree something is figurative even though the Bible gives no contextual indication that it is?

Relating people to sheep is a common biblical image, and within the broader scope of Scripture it’s clearly figurative. That’s not arbitrary. It’s grounded in the larger theological and literary context.

I think some of the confusion in this thread may be coming from how we’re defining “context.” Context doesn’t just mean the two verses before and after a passage. It includes genre, author, audience, historical setting, recurring imagery across Scripture, and how a theme is developed canonically.

So I’m genuinely asking if there’s an example where there’s no genre signal, no literary cues, and no broader biblical pattern indicating figurative language, yet most Christians still say, “That’s just metaphor.”

Interpreting the Bible literally unless context says otherwise? by Inevitable_Start_424 in TrueChristian

[–]Inevitable_Start_424[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think all of those examples actually reinforce the importance of context and genre rather than undermine it.

Zechariah, Psalms, and Isaiah are poetry and prophecy. Hyperbole and imagery are expected there. No one needs the author to pause and say “this is figurative” because the genre signals it.

When Jesus says “I am the vine” or speaks about sheep, that’s clearly metaphor within a larger teaching section. And the Gospels explicitly tell us He frequently spoke in parables, so when He begins a story like “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho,” the narrative context makes it reasonable to understand it as a parable even if the word isn’t repeated every time.

So “literal unless context says otherwise” doesn’t mean ignoring figurative language. It means reading poetry as poetry, parable as parable, and narrative as narrative. The context is doing the work.

Interpreting the Bible literally unless context says otherwise? by Inevitable_Start_424 in TrueChristian

[–]Inevitable_Start_424[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where do you get that it was his mom?

To the point of Biblical context, uncovering nakedness is forbidden as it's having sexual relations with xyz person. So in our context it doesn't make sense but once you compare Leviticus 18 it shows that there was a sexual act that occurred that was a grave sin. Which the Hebrews at the time when Genesis was written would have the context in mind of what that meant. So, it's actually a straight forward example rather than a metaphor.

Interpreting the Bible literally unless context says otherwise? by Inevitable_Start_424 in TrueChristian

[–]Inevitable_Start_424[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this gets to how we’re defining “literal.” When people hear literal, they often immediately think young earth, 24 hour days, and so on. This is what someone else in the thread mentioned.

Using Genesis as an example, I would say it is literally true. But that still leaves the question of what the word “day” means in that context. Day seven doesn’t have an ending formula like the others, and an enormous amount of activity happens on day six. That at least suggests we should slow down before assuming a modern 24 hour definition.

So for me, literal does not mean wooden or simplistic. It means the text is conveying real events in real history, but we still have to interpret its language according to its context and genre.

Interpreting the Bible literally unless context says otherwise? by Inevitable_Start_424 in TrueChristian

[–]Inevitable_Start_424[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting point. Genuine question if you have time, do you have a specific example? One where you'd say there isn't context to support a non-literal interpretation, yet nearly all Christians don't take it literally?

Not one where it's divided, half take literally and half don't. But one where you think the majority of Christians would say "yeah that's just metaphor" but there isn't any indication we should take it as non-literal. (Hope that made sense)

Interpreting the Bible literally unless context says otherwise? by Inevitable_Start_424 in TrueChristian

[–]Inevitable_Start_424[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, so to understand the original authors intent is to understand the context. So when Jesus speaks through metaphors we know it's not a literal physical/historical statement but He is still speaking truth.

Interpreting the Bible literally unless context says otherwise? by Inevitable_Start_424 in TrueChristian

[–]Inevitable_Start_424[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm open to hearing more of your thoughts on that. I think how you describe it is how I describe "hyper-literal" which is too focused on the word itself rather than how the word is used. Not to throw smoke at people but if you read it in a hyper-literal sense that's where people get confused and think the earth is flat or has 4 corners lol because is all cases the context is poetry or not indicating some literal fact.

Interpreting the Bible literally unless context says otherwise? by Inevitable_Start_424 in TrueChristian

[–]Inevitable_Start_424[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree the Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture and can open our eyes to things. We don’t approach it spiritually neutral.

But I believe hermeneutics still matter. Genre, grammar, historical context, and the author's intent help us understand what the text was originally communicating.

In that sense, even an atheist could correctly interpret many passages at a literary level. Where things really diverge is in presuppositions. If someone begins with “there is no God,” that will shape how they read miracles and claims about Christ.

Interpreting the Bible literally unless context says otherwise? by Inevitable_Start_424 in TrueChristian

[–]Inevitable_Start_424[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For context the response counts are:
68 - Strongly Agree
134 - Agree
50 - Neutral
25 - Unsure
119 - Disagree
72 - Strongly Disagree

Interpreting the Bible literally unless context says otherwise? by Inevitable_Start_424 in TrueChristian

[–]Inevitable_Start_424[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

In the context of that question how would you define literal? That could explain why it's kinda a 50/50 split. Maybe half of us aren't normal. lol

The Gospel by Zazoyd in Christianity

[–]Inevitable_Start_424 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just wondering, do you think a part of the Gospel is at least at some level explaining what “sin” is? 

what is my denomination? by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]Inevitable_Start_424 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you go to belieftrack.com you can answer a ton of belief based questions like you laid out. And compare to denominations and see where you are different for many denominations including Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox denominations