Does Zig Forums take the old testament literally or do you interpret the meaning of stories?

inb4 blind reading has a calming effect on my anxious aspie mind. have i made a mistake

Literal, but by that, I mean that the author intended to tell literal truth. It doesn't prevent alternate accounts of the same events to either focus on different details or even show events in a different order or scale. Let us not forget that the scriptures are not purely divine, they are also human, like Christ. The Bible isn't a Quran.
Also, some of the events portrayed in the scriptures are either artistic representations of actual events, with a theological agenda (such as Job and Jonah - these people existed, and the stories about them have true historical basis, but they are presented to us in an artistic manner, with the book of Job showing his story and suffering as a poem, and the book of Jonah showing his prophetic ministry as a comical satire), and some of the texts must be read with more in mind than what the text immediately presents (such as the Song of Songs), and some of the texts are outright said to be visions or dreams (like much of Ezekiel and Revelation).
Finally, things that are of a heavenly and spiritual nature may be described in ways that don't perfectly represent reality, because the true reality is beyond what we can put into words in our fallen and sinful nature. Such is true of the world as it is described before the Fall, and the world as it is described after the Last Judgment, as well as the realm of the dead and the realm of angels.

And with all this being said, the exact historicity is honestly secondary. Not unimportant, but secondary. The primary interpretation is the following: what does the text tell us about Jesus Christ? How is the text fulfilled and completed in the 4 gospels? All the scriptures other than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John pretty much serve both as context and commentary (and the New Testament overall lifts the "veil" that the Jews and unbelievers have when they read the Old Testament alone). And furthermore, Christianity does not end at the scriptures - how do the scriptures, altogether, tell us about and enlighten our experience of Jesus Christ here and now? This is why it is important to look at the writings of the Church Fathers, to see how our predecessors tied the divine revelations to their own experience within the Church.

Reading the Bible without the OT is like making a PB&J sandwich without the PB.
It also puts alot of things in context in the NT. Personally, I would say read the NT first than go to the OT. While reading the OT you can look for Jesus.
For example:
When God tested Abraham's faith by telling him he had to sacrifice his only son to God, God gives Abraham an out by giving him a ram to sacrifice instead. That ram is a foreshadowing of Jesus. The ram even had a crown of thorns. The entire point of the OT and the laws of Moses was to prepare Israel to not only accept Jesus as their messiah but to also share God's love with the gentiles once the Messiah has come and fullfilled the prophecies.
Another reason why we need the OT is to prove that Jesus is the fortold Messiah that God prophesized throughout all of the bible. From Abraham to Isaiah to Jeremiah to Ezekiel etc, all of them has been given prophecy that has foretold Jesus' coming

Attached: jesus_credit-Freedom-Studio--Shutterstock.jpg (400x300, 26.57K)

I've read that almost the entire book of Revelations is an extended metaphor. The source claimed that the great beasts described are actually symbolic of the succession of barbaric dynasties that had persecuted followers of God up to that point (Romans, Assyrians, etc). Are those Apocalyptic vistas meant to be literal warnings of an actual demonic invasion? What did Jesus mean by that?

I mean, the book of Revelation is literally one big vision that St John had on a Sunday. Of course none of it is "literal". But it does tell a very real truth, although conveyed through imagery.
Have you read the book of Daniel? Revelation is essentially a New Testament sequel to Daniel.

Doctrine is in the Scriptures though.

Also Jesus personally told us in Matthew 12:40, that Jonas was indeed in the whale's belly. And if God created all things, surely this too is possible then. And there's no reason not to believe it then. You certainly can't say or even imply these claims contradict reality, only that your understanding of reality has failed. Which it certainly has if you think something like this isn't possible even to the point of rejecting scripture, which you are dangerously close to doing by claiming something doesn't "represent reality."

Really just the second half of Daniel. The first six chapters deal with events that happened, while the last six deal with multiple prophecies about things to come. When those prophecies happen they will be literal, although a fallible mind may not be up to the task of understanding in advance how that will work in terms of its limited understanding, at least not fully. But this is due to limitations of the mind and what it thinks is reality, not that it somehow isn't literal or reality.

When God creates the Light, it's likely He means the Angels. This is why God "separates" the Light (Good angels) and the Darkness (Bad angels that turn into demons, and Satan), this is the War in Heaven.

Not all doctrine, however. But what is necessary for our salvation is all in the Bible, yes. But Christianity is not a fossilized religion that ends at the book of Revelation.

Okay? I did not say that the story of Jonah wasn't literal, so what is your point? The manner in which it is presented, however, is in a particular style.

… The very point of apocalyptic literature is that it conveys meaning through symbols that must be deciphered.
Also, Daniel covers the same subjects as Revelation as early as chapter 2.

I think it is completely wrong to consider it in "literal" vs "non-literal" as that is imposing our own bias over ancient literature, and missess the point of it.

The Song of Solomon/Canticle of Canticles has always been considered allegorical by the pre-Christian Jewish tradition and the Catholic Church, so this book alone refutes your argument.

Disputable.

Hosea 12:10: " I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets."

God tells us that the visions themselves are via similitude AKA metaphors, so there has to be a degree of understanding and tradition. As the Eunuch in the New Testament admits, you need a teacher, - an apostolic teacher - to know the true meaning.

I didn't have visions in mind when I wrote that exactly. Just like I didn't have psalms in mind. There are different literary forms in the Bible where symbolism is more prevalent. There's a clear distinction between that and what was written as narrative and a historical account. i.e. The Patriarchs were real. The Exodus was real. King David was real. But King David himself sometimes wrote poems where the idea of literal doesn't exactly apply.

And it's these things that skeptics are interested in attacking. Not visions and poetry. They want to attack any historical claim at all.

Whichever the authors intended, we are to accept as is.

But I lean towards a literal reading

Probably literal with a bit of “legendary tones” in it.

I am aware that OT makes predictions of the messiah. Knowing he has come is comfort to me enough
I used to like reading. I can barely read without sleeping : /

Interpretive, but I prefer to stay as close as possible to literal.