BibleTier 2Strongly DisagreeStarted by Amy Rhees - July 12, 2025 - 17 comments
An argument for allegory
Discussing:
“The Bible should be interpreted literally unless context says otherwise.”
Thread starter's perspective:
I'll post a comment with my reasoning since I think it's too long for this; interested to hear from people who disagree with me, what's your logic on it?
Sign in to join the discussion
Create account or sign in17 comments
AR
869
I try to follow St. Augustine's Rule of Love in De Doctrina Christiana:
"Whatever there is in the word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of life has reference to the love of God and one's neighbor; soundness of doctrine to the knowledge of God and one's neighbor."
https://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/Augustine%20doctrine.pdf
On Christian Doctrine
GB
1.4k
Bible is part of holy tradition. If we talk about interpretation we are bound to stumble upon the dilemma , who's interpretation?? And if we take into account the historical , cultural and grammatical context , its the church's interpretation aligns the most. There are thousands of christians with thousands of different interpretations. Holy Tradition is the living faith of the Church, passed down from the apostles. It includes the teachings of the Church Fathers, the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, the liturgical life, and the consensus of the saints. The Bible is seen as the central and most important part of this Tradition. Bible was given to the Church, and therefore, it must be interpreted by the Church. The Church is the guardian and interpreter of the Scriptures, ensuring that the interpretation remains consistent with the faith passed down from the apostles. The ultimate goal is to see how the Scriptures point to Christ and lead the believer to a deeper communion with God. The Bible is read liturgically and mystically, with an emphasis on its spiritual meaning and its ability to transform the reader.
JP
683
the Bible is God’s Word and should be taken literally unless the context clearly shows it’s symbolic. This helps us follow God’s instructions the way He intended, without adding our own ideas or traditions. For example, passages about baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and worship are understood literally because the New Testament presents them as commands. At the same time, we recognize that Jesus’ parables or statements like “I am the door” are meant to be understood figuratively. By looking at the context and taking Scripture seriously, we try to live according to the example and teaching of the early church, following God’s Word in both faith and practice.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 ([16] 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.)
AR
1.0k
I do not believe that the Bible was meant to be interpreted literally. I'm not a professional scholar or lifelong devotee to any particular belief system, I'm just someone with an interest in this area of study and thought I'd share my thoughts. I grew up believing everything I was told, which was really just all the simplified stories that kids can understand, stuff like Daniel in the Lions' Den, the Great Flood, Jonah and the Whale, etc., and only read of the Bible what I was told to read. But, I'd begun to notice how structured these stories were, even in the actual scripture they seemed centred around the lesson they were teaching. Further, I'd started noticing contradictions; why does God tell Moses "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but then allow the Israelites to flatten the city of Jericho? Or why does he bless David to kill the giant Goliath? Or what about that time in Exodus where he has the firstborn son of each household killed as one of his plagues upon Egypt? 1/6
