Dear Conrad -- Is it wrong to not take the Bible literally, word for word as its written, rather just notes the ideas behind it and comes up with ones own interpretation? -- Thank you. -- Heather Grifka

Good question. First let’s get a good definition of “literal”. Reading the Bible literally means reading it in the way the author intended.

For example, when Christ says, “I am the vine (John 15:5)” reading it literally doesn’t mean that Christ is a physical vine with leaves and roots. It means Christ literally was using an example. Reading a passage like this would be, a literal person named Christ literally spoke, and while speaking, literally gave an example.

The writer of the book this passage appears to have wrote it in the sense of – there literally was a person named Christ, and this is what he did.

A non-literal interpretation would be – the Book of John talks about a fictitious person named Christ as to personify moral examples in which we should live.

Ultimately one cannot only believe in the non-literal sense and still be a Christian because to be saved one “must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus” (Rom. 10:9). This of course means one must not only believe that Christ existed as a literal person, but that he is apart of the Trinity, died and rose again, and confess him as Lord and Savior of your life.

Many people who believe in the non-literal sense will not go as far to apply it to Christ and his diety, but rather things like Adam and Eve.

Can one be saved by believing literally in Christ and faith in him, but believe that events like the Flood are a myth? Of course, Christ does not demand that we are 100% right in all of our theology, but rather 100% right in our faith in Christ.

But just because it’s not necessary for salvation does not means we are free to believe whatever we want. We can still be saved but be wrong on other things.

The problem that non-literal (believing parts are myths or are completely symbolic) interpretations is with passages like: II Timothy 3[16] “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”

So if God intended for parts to be read as historical, prophetical, poetical, parablolic, etc., then we need to read them that way or we will be wrong in our interpretation of it.

Can the Bible be helpful even if we read it wrong? Of course. Reading the concept of love into a passage that isn’t talking about love might make us love more, which is a good thing, but we would still be wrong about the interpretation about that particular passage.

So bottom line, try to interpret the passages for it’s actual meaning, then apply that meaning to our lives. Then we will be right about both the interpretation and its application.