The Bible: "Have it Your Way?" -- Literalist vs. Contextualist reading of the Bible

The Bible: "Have it Your Way?" -- Literalist vs. Contextualist reading of the Bible

The more I delve into the bible and continue my Christian walk,  the more I realize how others seem to change the bible to fit their needs instead of changing their needs to fit the bible. To me, it is reminiscent of the old Burger King jingle, "Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce. All we ask is that you let us, Have it your way." But unlike the royal burgers made just the way we like them, the bible is not offered with truth optional.

Is the bible open for each person's interpretation with no right or wrong belief? Or are the words in Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32,  and Proverbs 30:6 to be taken literally? If the bible really is open to interpretation, wouldn't that throw the idea of morality completely out the window? It would since everyone would have a completely different moral code.

*Literalism is the interpretation of words in their most basic sense. A biblical literalist believes the bible is literally God's word. They believe the Holy Spirit filled the author with exactly the words God wanted them to write and we are expected to keep the laws of His Word. Contextualists often believe to be a literalist you must overlook the metaphoric imagery which is woven through the bible. This misconception is used to attempt to make literalists seem illogical.

**A contextualist believes we must consider everything from circumstances, the authors intent and style of writing, cultural expression, and who the manuscript was written for. They state the bible is full of metaphors and cannot logically be taken literally. They are correct, to a point.


Any logical literalist knows scriptures are to be taken in context to what is going on at the time. Some cannot be taken word for word, but must be taken as imagery. But with a literalist, these scriptures, even metaphoric scriptures, have only one meaning. Take the sower and the seed parable for example. They are intended as a comparison. The seed is a representation of the Word of God. The weeds are a representation of our hearts. The weeds are things Satan plants in our hearts.

But should we go to the extreme opposite and take the entire bible as subjective? Or are we to use logic while we study the Word?

Conclusion
The two aren't necessarily exclusive. Even a literalist needs to use context in order to decipher what is being said. A contextualist knows a majority of the bible must be taken literally. Otherwise the bible would have no real truth and would change in meaning every time you read it. If a person goes purely by the belief the bible is only context or metaphor, this removes all biblical truth. Morality would be different for each person. Our country was founded on freedom

It isn't really the literalist  vs. the contextualist. It should be a perfect blend of the both to absorb the truth of God's Word.

---
Simple remark by me (VC):

Perhaps the best way to read the Bible is unique combination of literalist to a degree, contextualistic reading a bit, and also intuitive/inspirationalistic reading..that would mean that before a believer reads certain passage of the Holy Bible, first of all he/she shall ask direction to interpret the passage from the Holy Spirit. Because the Bible is alife and written by inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
Therefore allow yourself to be guided by the Holy Spirit Himself to find its correct meaning.

That is the meaning of giving ourselves under guidance of the Holy Spirit (Letter to Galatians, chapter 5). 

Otherwise we will never be able to produce spiritual fruit.

Version 1.0: 6 July 2022, pk. 14:56
VC


Source:

The more I delve into the bible and continue my Christian walk,  the more I realize how others seem to change the bible to fit their needs instead of changing their needs to fit the bible. To me, it is reminiscent of the old Burger King jingle, "Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce. All we ask is that you let us, Have it your way." But unlike the royal burgers made just the way we like them, the bible is not offered with truth optional.

Is the bible open for each person's interpretation with no right or wrong belief? Or are the words in Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32,  and Proverbs 30:6 to be taken literally? If the bible really is open to interpretation, wouldn't that throw the idea of morality completely out the window? It would since everyone would have a completely different moral code.

*Literalism is the interpretation of words in their most basic sense. A biblical literalist believes the bible is literally God's word. They believe the Holy Spirit filled the author with exactly the words God wanted them to write and we are expected to keep the laws of His Word. Contextualists often believe to be a literalist you must overlook the metaphoric imagery which is woven through the bible. This misconception is used to attempt to make literalists seem illogical.

**A contextualist believes we must consider everything from circumstances, the authors intent and style of writing, cultural expression, and who the manuscript was written for. They state the bible is full of metaphors and cannot logically be taken literally. They are correct, to a point.


Any logical literalist knows scriptures are to be taken in context to what is going on at the time. Some cannot be taken word for word, but must be taken as imagery. But with a literalist, these scriptures, even metaphoric scriptures, have only one meaning. Take the sower and the seed parable for example. They are intended as a comparison. The seed is a representation of the Word of God. The weeds are a representation of our hearts. The weeds are things Satan plants in our hearts.

But should we go to the extreme opposite and take the entire bible as subjective? Or are we to use logic while we study the Word?

Conclusion
The two aren't necessarily exclusive. Even a literalist needs to use context in order to decipher what is being said. A contextualist knows a majority of the bible must be taken literally. Otherwise the bible would have no real truth and would change in meaning every time you read it. If a person goes purely by the belief the bible is only context or metaphor, this removes all biblical truth. Morality would be different for each person. Our country was founded on freedom

It isn't really the literalist  vs. the contextualist. It should be a perfect blend of the both to absorb the truth of God's Word.

---
Simple remark by me (VC):

Perhaps the best way to read the Bible is unique combination of literalist to a degree, contextualistic reading a bit, and also intuitive/inspirationalistic reading..that would mean that before a believer reads certain passage of the Holy Bible, first of all he/she shall ask direction to interpret the passage from the Holy Spirit. Because the Bible is alife and written by inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
Therefore allow yourself to be guided by the Holy Spirit Himself to find its correct meaning.

That is the meaning of giving ourselves under guidance of the Holy Spirit (Letter to Galatians, chapter 5). 

Otherwise we will never be able to produce spiritual fruit.

Version 1.0: 6 July 2022, pk. 14:56
VC


Source:

Komentar

Posting Komentar