What do you think ?

Literally: the word of the Bible is fact

It`s possible

Yes Literally: the word of the Bible is fact.
When we read any piece of literature, but especially the Bible, we must determine what the author intended to communicate.
This is the only way to determine what God really is trying to communicate to us.

When the text of the bible is clear, it should be understood literally, as a general rule of good exegesis.

However, Hebrew scripture is interpreted in four levels, Parshat, Remez, D’rash & Sod.

1. The p'shat is the plain, simple meaning of the text.
2. Remez is where another (implied) meaning is alluded to in the text, usually revealling a deeper meaning.
3. D'rash is a teaching or exposition or application of the P'shat and/or Remez.
4. Sod is when there is an understanding that is the hidden, secret or mystic meaning of a text.

Many struggle with Biblical interpretation, but two rules apply...

1. Jesus said that the Jews searched the scriptures because they believed them to be the source of life, but the real message was about Him, and they did not recognize him. So find Jesus in the text and you have the right interpretation.

2. Paul wrote that no one can call Jesus LORD except by the Spirit, and no one speaking by the Spirit will call Him accursed. Therefore we should understand that scripture exalts Jesus in every way, and never denigrates His name.

Blessings,

I would say Literally.

Well,

I believe when it comes to certain parts of the text, there may be some room for considering time of event, how easy it would be to have any remaining forms of the document, and reliability for textual retranslational accuracy. As time goes on for any people, their language tends to grow and change, making it harder and harder to translate older documents.

The very first events of time would be so hard to find evidence for the documents or history, depending on how it was kept. Many early people handed down their clan history to their children, sometimes adding their own understanding along with some information passed down. Sometimes that can make an account differ from someone else's account.

Each Family of Jewish people had to keep certain family lines in tact, along with accounts for historical involvement of members of their line. Up until the time of being carried away to Babylon, they had pretty much kept their records in tact, but on their return to their lands, some families had lost their family information and could not prove their lineage. If another related family had some of their account in tact, then they would be rescued. Families who could not prove their lineage mostly ended up in Samaria, one of Israel's free areas for such purposes.

But these family accounts went along with the Torah in most historical accounts and often had to be used to aid in translation of older books by the scribes of the times.

It is often forgotten that these families were responsible for their own family line account. But if you read where they returned to Israel in Nehemiah and Ezra you will find where the leaders were expecting these families to show their accounts as proof.

My thought is that the oldest books may be harder to say how literal they are, given the room for translational mistakes that can naturally occur, but I believe that most of it can be taken seriously. The garden of Eden story is based on inspiration to Moses from God, so that depends on a person's faith in believing, rather than literal acceptance. But most believers will accept it on the same basis as the rest of the Bible, as today, it is wholly and older account which with the passing of time and decomposing of materials in which the text was copied to, becomes harder and harder to offer evidences.

Our society today seems dead set on destroying and pulling the Bible apart because of the "lack of evidence" without owning up to the facts I have just mentioned as to the inability to always preserve materials which once held the text's account. Any disagreements I usually have with anyone concerning such things are usually an attack on the veracity of Biblical accounts.

None will consider the natural order of decomposition of any material which affects many documents that are old and often do not understand how difficult it can be to properly translate old documents which can have many mistakes in them already due to ageing and changing of languages over time.

But I am confident that most of the text has been kept as it should have been, despite what can befall old accounts and other problems like that.

I can't vote either way as I feel the account of Adam and Eve fall somewhere in between literal and metaphorical.

Great posts Jding and Dan

Of course it must be metaphorically. The opposite would be kinda kinky, not to say incestoid...

Nostrade