Why read the Bible literally?

I’m new to this forum so this may well have been done before, if so just ignore.I am very committed to my Christian faith. I have total faith in the Divinity of Christ and the truth of the resurrection. What I don’t have total faith in, is the idea that the Bible is to be taken literally. The written tradition of the Jewish people was to write metaphorically. Why would the Bible be an exception? Jesus commonly used metaphor as a means of communicating a truism as was consistent with that same Jewish tradition.There is a discussion on another thread discussing whether Methuslah actually lived 969 years or not. Maybe DNA has evolved since then, maybe it is based on lunar cycles, or maybe it is metaphorical but I can’t see that it makes a great deal of difference to my faith.Matthew 7:21. (NIV) Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my father who is in heaven.Now read Matthew 25:31-46. (The sheep and the goats). I suggest that God is far more interested in our hearts than he is in our theology.It seems to me that as Christians we are sometimes guilty of becoming worshippers of the Bible. We hunt for nuances in obscure verses of the Bible hunting for hidden meanings where there aren’t any. It’s easy to be sitting around in someone’s nice warm living room debating the finer points of scripture. The harder things, like actively loving the least of God’s children is a lot less comfortable.As a Don Francisco song said, It doesn’t matter if you know the Bible if it’s all just in your head, the thing I need to ask you is have you done the things I said.The questions I would like answered is this.Why is it so important to your faith that the Bible is literally true, and what evidence do you have that we are supposed to read the Bible literally.Isn’t it Jesus who is the word of God? John 1:1-5

I thought about moving this to F&B but on reflection, it may be better as a Bible Study topic. Afterall, I believe you are asking about methodology of bible study.Where do you think this would be best located?

---

I suppose either The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrency or Bible Study.
The topic fits the first suggestion best but then it isn't really science. Whatever you think.Thanks
GDR

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

The reason I read the Bible literally is two fold. Firstly, although worthy of debate, it's really quite clear when parable or poetry is meant compared to narrative. There's been a recent analysis of word use in Psalms vs Genesis vs Exodus vs Kings. Genesis matches the other narratives not poetry or parable.Seondly I find Scripture makes incredible sense when we take it literally. The Christian God and the Bible is all about God coming in flesh - not just in Jesus but in OUR flesh too. The Son was in heaven with the Father and humbled himself to take on flesh. And he took it back with Him too.The God of the Bible is the God that created the Earth for this purpose - to bring flesh into heaven and mix it with godliness. This is the miracle of the gospel.And this principle of natural AND spiritual is borne out in creation:We see the world 'born out of water', then fallen, then 'baptised' (Peter tells us that the Noah event was the baptism of the world), then sanctified ('separated') to individual identities as separate continents (cf action of Holy Spirit) and finally refined in fire (to come).Our processing by God is linked to that of the Earth.Note that Peter even links the Noah event to the 2nd coming:"6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." 2 Pet 3:6-8It makes more sense that the Noah event was literal as the 2nd coming will be.I fully agree God is more interested in hearts BTW. But I find a literal reading makes perfect sense.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-14-2005 09:24 PM

You point out things that make sense to you. How about the different creation stories. Metaphorically they make sense but I find them contradictory if taken literally. I still frankly don't see any evidence that the Bible is to be read literally.I would further be interested when it was that people started taking the Bible literally. As far as I know this is a relatively recent development.In the end though, rightly or wrongly I believe that there is too much emphasis on this to the detriment of Christians getting on with the work of the church, which is showing God's love to the world.I'm out for a few hours so I won't respond further until later.

You ask about the different creation stories. As you probably know we take the first one that has a built-in time line (day 1, day 2 etc) as time-based and the econd one is a fill-in of details for various ppoints, not necessarily in order.When did people start taking Scripture literally? I would be very surprised to find ancient evidence (eg of the children of Israel) not tking the stories literally. The early church did. Jesus and the apostles (as quoted in scripture) did. I really think it was during he 18th century that doubts began to arise but I'll allow for a minority report.I beleive the truth of the matter is that the universe is far more amazing and mysterious than modern science believes.For example, modern creaitonists now beleive that deep space is billions of years old but unfolded in a Big-Bnag like event only htousands of years old via a subtely differnt Big--Bang model that comes out of General Relativity. Let's put that in perspective: there is a simple cosmology that AUTOMATICALLY has the universe being created recently with distant space undergoing billions of years of time whilst the centre experineces very little! Why would any Christian want to not believe that cosmology! It's as straight-forward as the Big-Bang one. The Big-Bang model was chosen to NOT have LARGE_SCALE time dialation.The expanding universe and drifting continets are all part of God's plan - not random aspects of the universe. This is God's universe - not Hawking's or Sagan's or Einstein's and the way the universe, the Flood and plate-tectonics and the 2nd coming (will) occur(ed) are precisely as described in Scripture. The musings of godless science only get it half right.This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-14-2005 09:49 PM

Then you must not have read the Talmud. Even a cursory glance at the Talmud will show that there are differing interpretations of nearly every part of the Tanaka and Torah.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let's just say that we disagree about whether the Bible is 100% literally true or not.The OP asked the question why is it important to your faith and what evidence is there that the Bible should be taken as literally true.For example why is it important to you that believe that the creation story in Genesis is a scientific document? If you were to some day be convinced that science was actually right and the world is much more than 6000 years old would you then come to the conclusion that what you had believed about the divinity of Christ and the resurrection would be wrong too. Why does it matter whether it was a real snake who convinced a real Adam and Eve, to eat a real forbidden fruit from a real tree or if it is all a metaphor so that we can understand the concept of right and wrong, sin and righteousness?What evidence do we have that the Bible is to be taken completely literally? Timothy 2 is often used as evidence that the Bible should be taken literally but it doesn't say that at all. It says, "all scripture is God Breathed". That tells us that Scripture is trustworthy and truthful it does not tell us that it is to be read literally like a scientific textbook. An obvious example is the story of the Good Samaritan. I'm sure that no one will suggest that Jesus intended that to be taken literally. No where in the telling of that story does Jesus say that it is a parable. Jesus just starts in by saying "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho ----". The truth that lies behind the story is far greater than the story itself.So I ask again; what evidence is there that we are to accept the Bible as literal fact, and why is it important to your faith?

Why is it important to read the Bible literally? And I would ask why is it important to read it non-literally? Because of science? You trust it that much do you? Why would any Christian trust blinkered science which outright ignores the possibility of a global flood despite Christ and Peter referring to it?The Good Samaritan? Precisely. It didn't need to be mentioned that it's a parable - it's obvious. So I ask, why is it obvious that Genesis 1 is a parable?This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-15-2005 02:29 AM

Very true - I have not read the Talmud. What does it say regarding creation?

The Talmud is what the Jews tend to live by INSTEAD of the scripture. Although it is considered to be a commentary ON the scripture (the Law) it substantially adds to the scripture, and is in fact what Jesus denounced as the "traditions of men" that the Pharisees had substituted in place of the pure word of God.Scripture tends to confirm itself. When Josiah rediscovered the scripture he rquired the people to obey it as written. Psalm 106 recounts the doings of God in bringing the people out of Egypt and treats all the miracles as realities, 500 years after the events. Jesus quoted from 24 books of the Old Testament, including the Genesis story of creation when he affirmed the God-given nature of marriage and the Flood of Noah. THEY all took it as literal in other words.

Tranquility Base has answered all this as I would have. Where the Bible is metaphor or parable it is clearly so. Genesis for instance is not presented in any sense as anything other than history. It's possible a person doesn't need to know all the Bible or believe it all to be saved, but it does have something to do with where your loyalties are. If you trust God over the "wisdom of the world" then you believe His word even when it conflicts with science or anything else that comes from the world. Yes, deeds are part of salvation but you can't put deeds ahead of salvation {edit: which is by faith first and foremost. Works don't save but salvation is expressed by works.Theology is crucial because it is how we know what God is really like. Otherwise we're in the dark and susceptible to worshiping a false image of God, which is idolatry. I guess one can err in any direction, but the opposite of getting too myopic about scripture is the more common error: neglecting scripture, doctrine and theology to one degree or another. Again, that's one direction of possible error, but the other direction is arguably more common. How are you going to understand "the things [He] said" if you don't know scripture quite well, as He is the God who inspired it all, from Genesis to Revelation? You quoted the Timothy passage about God-breathed but only to deny the way it is normally understood, but I guess I can just say that God-breathed MEANS that it is to be trusted as written and that for instance you can't just assume parts are metaphor when there is no clue in the text that they are anything but direct description of events. I'd also again mention Jesus' quoting of the scriptures as evidence that we are to read the Bible literally, as He quoted Genesis concerning marriage and concerning the Flood as if they were historical, and also the prophet Jonah which is another one often disputed. I'd also mention Psalm 106 as evidence that over 500 years after the exodus it was all celebrated as literally historical.Importance to my faith? The more I know the Bible the better I know God. It's God's own word about Himself, what could be more valuable to a believer? It is a "sure word" that can be trusted. There is no other source of certain knowledge about the nature of God. All the other religions disagree with Biblical religion, which shows that knowing God without His own revelation really just doesn't happen. If you prefer other sources of knowledge about God, whether interpretations of nature or other religions, it's important to recognize that they contradict the Bible. Yes, and how are you going to know Him if you don't know the written word He inspired, much of which is about Himself, and which He Himself quotes in His teachings?This message has been edited by Faith, 06-15-2005 03:43 AM

Do you have any evidence that the Children of Israel took the stories literally? Did they actually believe in talking trees? I used to believe this as well, but it is inaccurate.Allegorical means of interpreting the Old Testament had previously been suggested by Philo Judaeus, but the main exponent of this approach was the Church Father Origen (186-255 CE).When faced with an apparent difficulty in the text, Origen proposed that:Whenever we meet with such useless, nay impossible, incidents and precepts as these, we must discard a literal interpretation and consider of what moral interpretation they are capable of, with what higher and mysterious meaning they are fraught, what deeper truths they were intended symbolically and in allegory to shadow forth. The divine wisdom has of set purpose contrived these little traps and stumbling blocks in order to cry halt to our slavish historical understanding of the text, by inserting in its midst sundry things that are impossible and unsuitable. The Holy Spirit so waylays us in order that we may be driven by passages which, taken in the prima facie sense cannot be true or useful, to search for the ulterior truth, and seek in the Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by God a meaning worthy of him (Conybeare Frederick, C. and Bible (1910) History of New Testament Criticism, Watts & Co., London. 14-15). I don’t think there is enough information to come to this conclusion. Remember as well that Jesus did not resemble the Jewish concept of the messiah, so I think there was reinterpretation going on even in Jesus’ time. The real doubts arose a little earlier, I would say that it was Martin Luther’s insistence on a literal reading of the texts that ultimately led to the Bible being openly criticised and shown to be greatly in error on many points.Luther wrote that:The Holy Spirit is the plainest writer and speaker in heaven and earth, and therefore His words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest, sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural sense. (Quote in Kummel, W. G. (1973) The New Testament: the history of the investigation of its problems, S.C.M. Press, London. 20)Historians, on both sides, concentrated on the intensive study and use of documents to argue their stances. In some cases, this study of documents by the reformers and Catholics was even more intense than that of many ‘humanist’ historians. As a result of this use of historiography as a support for a particular viewpoint, ecclesiastical history in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries displayed a greater sophistication, a more thorough analysis of sources, and a more historiographic complexity than secular history. The Bible suggests a 6000 year old Earth, history itself demonstrates this to be nonsense. For example, Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) was inhabited 9000 years ago. The Flood was supposed to be 4400 years ago, the Egyptian civilisation has an uninterrupted history gong back about 7000 years. Why were they not all killed in the Flood.Sorry, but a literal reading of the Bible does the Bible a disservice. It is still 50% ahead of the Bible though.Brian.

How about psalms 105 and 106 which recount the history of the Israelites and treat all the miracles done over 500 years previously as fact?Also, the entire New Testament READS as if it supports a literal reading of the Old. Nothing Jesus said suggests anything but a literal reading, or any of the apostles. It is unfortunate that some simply can't believe it. Origen is not the best representative of the church fathers. You are right however, that there was a tendency to allegorize parts of the scriptures out of basic unbelief. It would be very odd if they did, as the Bible doesn't mention a talking tree. It mentions a burning bush from which the voice of God spoke. Different thing there.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-15-2005 05:16 AM