Why read the Bible literally?

I'll try to say it again although I've already answered this.If something represents something then it represents a REAL something. What can you point to in the real world, in real history, that the Flood "story" represents, what REAL cleansing and re-birth is it intended to symbolize or foreshadow since in your view it wasn't a real flood but merely a symbolic tale? Symbolic tales represent something real. What you have here is a symbolic tale that is symbolic of nothing whatever.And Linear Aq is correct, I reject the first part of your sentence, and since as a symbol the Flood is a bust, it makes more sense to regard it as real for that reason too.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-15-2005 02:48 PM

Yes they aren't examples of symbolism, and to tell the story of the inundation of the entire world and the death of bazillions, as the reason for rainbows would be a bit of overkill wouldn't you think? Jesus' parables were homely things, in proportion to everyday life. At the very least such a "symbol" must symbolize something worldwide, something gargantuan, and if it symbolizes the consequences of ignoring or sinning against God, that must be one major Consequence yet to come if it didn't happen then. I mean we can apply the story of the trees to the situation of the choosing of Abimelech, and we can apply Jesus' parables to any number of situations in our lives, but what on earth do we apply the death of millions by drowning to? A future catastrophe on that scale perhaps as the final consequence of ignoring or sinning against God? I can't think of anything else remotely in proportion to such a "symbol."

Maybe my choice of words was bad. I agree with what LinearAg said about possible reasons for the flood story: You believing that the flood happened still begs the question as to how are we supposed to know when the bible is refering to an actual event, a parable, or a just-so story? Just because you believe the flood happened gives no-one else any basis to believe it leterally.

Because the days of Noah are a time identified in scripture as real and he says nothing to imply any other view of that time. He doesn't describe the time, he merely uses what people know of it to describe a future time -- they were going on as if nothing threatened them before the Flood came and that's also how it will be before Jesus returns and the Jig Is Up, everybody acting as if all is just fine.The Prodigal Son refers to nothing identifiable anywhere, and the title tells you its a parable -- real history has real details. It is hard to put into words what makes these things different but that's just a failure of our use of language, as the actual differences are certainly there. No it isn't. It is one specific event being used to predict another specific event. ??? The point is to show a comparison between a past event and a yet coming event, as a warning to people. But the literal reading is crucial to it -- how people will be blind to the danger to come upon them in this coming event just as they were as the Flood approached. Both parts of the story refer to literal historical events. How so?: Not sure what you have in mind. That is true. My attempts to describe the differences are just attempts. I find it difficult to put into words, despite having a very sharp sense of the differences. Well, I had in mind the Good Samaritan which could apply to any number of situations involving the kindness of a person to someone of an outgroup. The Prodigal Son likewise is about all those who have gone away from God and how He welcomes back those who repent and return. The specific reference to the name of Noah for one, but only a title in the Prodigal Son. His taking for granted the knowledge of the story of Noah in his hearers as he merely extrapolates from the known situation of the flood rather than explaining it to his listeners. The Prodigal son however is told about unnamed people in a general sitaution and the whole thing is explained. These things aren't easy to describe no matter how obvious they appear.Jesus clearly makes up the second story, it's brand new, and again I'd say, like the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan, the fact that the Rich Man is not named is a big clue to its fictional quality.His not contradicting the Jonah event but simply referring to it as told is what shows that it is real to my mind. In the OT it is simply one of twelve books of prophecy, nothing distinguishing it from the others in its presentation.Not naming the characters is an important principle I think, to identify a parable or a fiction of any kind, to be added to the other principles I'm collecting.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-15-2005 03:24 PM

There is a great deal of discussion concerning the truth of the flood. That really has been kinda done to death in other threads.I would really like to know why it is important to believe that the Bible be read literally.Everyone agrees that the story of the "Good Samaritan" is to be read as a parable. Jesus does not say that it is a parable. What if someone were to come along and say that it actually happened? Would it enhance the wonderful spiritual truth of the story? In many ways I think it would detract from what Christ was saying, as it would just be a story about a good guy. Seeing as how we are reading it as a parable we are able to view it as an important lesson as opposed to just being a nice story.I contend that by taking the Bible literally we are robbing ourselves of the real truth and beauty of the wonders of God's creation and of the wonders of his relationship with his created people. I think that literalism turns Christianity into an intellectual exercise. I suggest that by doing this we are impeding the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives and in the lives of others in our society.I would still like someone to tell me why they believe it important that the Bible be read literally, and what evidence is there that indicates that it should be?This message has been edited by GDR, 06-15-2005 02:32 PM

Hello again, Faith.

quote:

---

However, there's nothing in the passage that describes a "solid" dome, whatever you may know about what people believed at one time -- and do you get the idea from some source outside scripture that such a thing was believed or only from scripture?

---

Yes; do a google search -- use the words "cosmology Babylonian Mesopotamia firmament" or some combination thereof -- maybe you can even come up with a better set of search words than I.And there is plenty in the passages themselves to suggest a solid dome -- the fact that there are openings in it for rain to fall through, for one.For another, there's the word "dome" or "firmament" in Genesis chapter 1. This is from the Hebrew word raqiya'. It is difficult trying to pin down the meaning -- it seems that everyone is trying to make it conform to their eisegesis -- I even found one web site trying to claim that it describes the process of solar system formation from the nebula!At any rate, I keep running into this etymology: So, the word used for "dome" does seem to suggest something solid that was made through a certain familiar method.

The story of Noah could also be the story of a tribe of ancient Jews where Noah and his family were the sole survivors. There have been several cataclysmic events in the world's history. This story could be symbolic of any one of those in the same way that the creation story is symbolic of how this world began. I maintain that the stories are truisms but not literally so.But I ask again, how does it make a difference to your faith whather the story is literally true or not.This message has been edited by GDR, 06-15-2005 03:52 PM

I've given all the evidence I can think of. If it doesn't work for you sobeit. The more I understand the Bible the more I understand, period. It's no intellectual exercise by a long shot, though it certainly may be for some who don't read it in faith. I don't know. I think I've said my piece here so I'll just watch to see what others say.

Your argument Faith consisted of making the argument that specific stories such as the story of Noah has a literal meaning. I would like to know what evidence is there the scripture in its entirety is to be read literally.My personal view is that Christians have traditionally learned about the Christian faith from the Bible, by observing God's creation with the wisdom that we are given, and by revelation. I contend that we should have a balance of all of these to gain as true a picture of God as is possible.By taking the Bible literally we lose that balance and put all of our eggs in the one basket so to speak.However I agree it will be intersting to see what others might have to say.

Here is a link to a very interesting debate on PBS on the subject of evolution, Biblical literalism etc.Evolution: Religion: Science and Faith

Not so, I pointed out many evidences, from the statement that "ALL scripture is God-breathed" which you dismissed, to Jesus' quoting from the Old Testament to the Israelites literal belief in their own history as shown in psalms 105 and 106. There seem to be endless ways to discredit any of the traditional bases for trust in the Bible however, leaving one with the impression that one merely knows it, believes it, can't prove it apparently.{Edit: I would also like to add psalm 19:7-11, in which the law of God is extolled, even though I know someone will dispute that "the law" stands for all scripture, thus once again demonstrating the invincible will that seeks to deprive oneself of all the avenues of entrance into its riches.}I focused on the parts of the Bible that are usually the hardest for people to believe, as parts Jesus affirmed by quoting them, but the whole thing is "God-breathed." There are depths in the Bible nobody will ever grasp who treats it as a mere optional adjunct. It is the Bible that illuminates nature, nature does not illuminate the Bible, but again I am reduced to merely asserting this. How could there be evidence for something like this? The Bible asserts it is the case and those who believe it learn it to be the case "experimentally" as they used to say, and that IS evidence, but not the kind wanted apparently.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-16-2005 03:11 AM

Skimmed through the whole thing, and was very disappointed in all of it, especially in Mark Noll. Evolution DOES contradict Genesis, it's just self-deception that maintains it is possible to read it in a way that can accommodate the idea. Evolution is far from proven, it's just that it's difficult to think through the labyrinth of entrenched scientific work surrounding it and point out the flaws, especially in the atmosphere of hostility that attends it.But it's a lost cause to argue it. Even those who understand the science can't get anywhere with it. Best for literal Biblical creationists to withdraw from the debate altogether and even from the schools altogether -- not from engagement with the culture otherwise though, I hasten to add, just this one overheated arena.

Hi, What does this have to do with dating Jericho to 7000 BCE? Creationists have a habit of ignoring evidence though, C14 dating is extremely accurate up to about 50 000 years, even the deviation of + - 40 years isnt really that disastrous. Anyway, C14 is only one of many different dating techniques that can be employed. The funny thing is, all of the known dating techiniques come up with roughly the same results, it is pretty weid that they should all be flawed in such a way as to arrive at the same conclusions.You could let me know how the suggested problems with C14 have anything to do with Kenyon's date for earliest Jericho. Or, to be more accurate - a Christian Egyptologist. It isn't actually 'improved' at all, it is 'improved' if you are a fundamentalist Christian, however, it is completely rejected if you are an objective historian/Egytologist. Only Rohl and fundy Christians think that Rohl's hypothesis is credible. no mainstream archaeologist or Egyptologist gives Rohl a second glance. Are you saying that Rohl proposes that Egyptian history only goes back to 2400 BCE? If you are the could you give me a reference to where he said this?As has ben pointed out, the Hittite and Assyrian chronologies negate the 'New Chronology'. I woudl agree that the Bible chronologies have been the most studied chronologies, but, all this study has just proven bible chronology to be a mess. But, the Bible wasn't written to be a history book, it was written to explain one nations relationship with their God. Indeed, they can be seen because they have been shoe-horned to fit! But the Egyptian chronologies arent the only things that make a 6000 year old Earth an impossibility. Evey science known to man negates a 6000 year old earth.If you wish to discuss how implausible Rohl's chronology is, then I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread.Brian.

Yes, it does. Jesus, himself, seemed to give reference to Genesis ("God created them Man and Woman..." and "As it was in the days of Noah..."), and Jonah ("...except the sign of Jonah"), without any hint that he thought the stories were not true. If it can be shown that Jesus really thought that these stories were fact, then to believe that Jesus was God in flesh and infallible, you must believe the stories also. This belief in the absolute fact of scripture becomes the hinge upon which your entire faith turns. Each detail must be true or your faith falls apart.If it can be shown that Jesus really thought that these stories were fact.That's appears to be the key to this whole discussion (unless you consider your question answered by paragraph 1 above).
Was Jesus saying that the stories were true, by using some portions of them to make his points?
What evidence do we have that Jesus was confirming the truth of these stories by using them as a reference?
Was Jesus' use of the stories confirming their truth any more than my saying 'Microsoft is my White Whale' was confirming the truth of "Moby Dick"?
What evidence do we have that Jesus confirmed the truth of these stories at all?edit to fix reference.This message has been edited by LinearAq, 06-16-2005 06:55 AM

I really do not see the connection here. How can a song about Israel’s prehistory prove that all of the Israelites took the Tanakh literally? Even if they believed that there was an Exodus and Conquest, it is still a huge leap to declare that all Israelites took everything about these two events literally. Just because someone decided to write a song about theses events (and I know it was supposed to be David) in no way demonstrates that the entire nation took everything about these events literally. Because that is what any historian investigating any historical event has to do. You cannot keep using a book to prove itself, it is not the way that historical investigation is done. Now the Bible claims there was a unified military conquest of Canaan, do we just accept that or do we look for external confirmation of it? If external evidence shows that the conquest as narrated in the Bible text could not have happened, then what do we take as the most reliable record, primary sources that are in the archaeological data, or stories in a book written as much as 700 years after the event? Yes it is, and I have argued that here myself many a time. It is an historical record, however, most of what is recorded is false history. Many oppressive regimes have written historical records that portray them in a better light that what real history would have. There is nothing to stop the Israelites inventing a history that makes them out to be special or gives them a claim to a land, or makes an excuse for their God when things go wrong. Humans invent history all the time, all histories are invented by the human mind because all artefacts are mute, they do not come with a context, they are only given a context and meaning by the human brain, thus a history can be completely false. Jesus only really repeated what could already be found in the Tanakh, he didn’t say that we were to take things literally.If you want to take a story that Jesus referred to literally then lets look at the Jonah story, and take that literally and see how we get on.Now, Jesus said that just as Jonah was in the belly of a huge fish for three days and three nights, the son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Now, if you want to take this literally then Jesus didn’t die on the cross, Jesus was alive and well in the heart of the earth, just like Jonah was alive and well in the belly of the fish!Also, just because Jesus referred to something in the OT doesn’t mean that the referred to event actually happened. He could be referring to an event simply because it was familiar to his audience.Again though, archaeology and science has completely undermined the historicity of the Jonah event. We know from science that a man cannot live inside the belly of a fish for three days, there’s a whole variety of conditions queuing up to kill him.As far as history goes, there are some real problems with the Jonah tale, it certainly doesn’t read like an historical account, in fact it is absolutely nothing like an historical record, it is full of horrendous historical errors and misinformation. For example, who on earth was the ‘king of Nineveh’? Historical accounts normally include the name of the kings, there are problems with a ‘King’ of Nineveh as well because there are no contemporaneous references that support that the term ‘King’ was in use in Assyria at the time Jonah was supposed to have lived.The Book of Jonah lacks every basic component of an historical record and it contains every element of myth and legend. For example, Nineveh is stripped of all historical detail, no geographical details are given and we have stories about a man being swallowed whole by a great fish and surviving, we have God intervening, we have plants that grow in one day, we have a worm that carried out a mission, and most ridiculous of all we have animals that repent! This isn’t history.This commentary from James Limburg (Jonah, SCM Press LTD, London 1993 pages 22-23), explains nicely that the Book of Jonah is not written as a historical record. The book of Jonah begins with the Hebrew conjunction and verb wayehi, often translated elsewhere as "and it happened" or "now it happened." Eight other biblical books begin with this same wayehi. In each instance that word introduces a narrative book (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Esther, Nehemiah) or a narrative section of a book (Ezekiel). The King James Version translated seven of these eight occurrences as "and/now it came to pass" (all except 1 Samuel). The wayehi the beginning of the Jonah book thus suggests to a reader or hearer that a narrative or storyis to follow.

​

The book of Jonah begins:

​

Now the word of the lord came (wayehi) to Jonah son of Amittai, saying: "Get up, go to Nineveh." . . . But Jonah got up. . . . (Jonah 1:1-3)

​

The closest parallels to this beginning are found in the Elijah narratives in 1 Kings.

​

The Elijah cycle is introduced:

​

Now the word of the lord came (wayehi to him, saying: "Go . . . ." So he went .... (1 Kings 17:2-5, my translation)

​

The same pattern is repeated a few verses later:

​

Now the word of the lord came wayehi) to him, saying: "Get up, go to Zarephath . . . ." So he got up and he went .... (1 Kings 17:8-10, my translation)

​

The same formula with a command is also found in 1 Kings 21:17 and 28; see also the similar formulation in 18:1.

​

This wayehi formula in 1 Kings occurs in a section of the Old Testament that contains a high concentration of miracle stories connected with prophets, especially miracle stories involving nature: ravens bring food (1 Kings 17:1-8); bread and oil multiply (1 Kings 17:9-16); fire and rain appear (1 Kings 18); wind, an earthquake, and fire come (1 Kings 19:11-12); a lion kills a man (1 Kings 20:35-36); fire comes down (2 Kings 1:10, 12); the Jordan is parted, a whirlwind carries Elijah to heaven, water is purified, bears kill boys (2 Kings 2); oil is multiplied (2 Kings 4:1-7); stew is purified (2 Kings 4:38-41); bread is multiplied (2 Kings 4:42-44); and an axe head floats (2 Kings 6:1-7).

​

The Jonah narrative, with its miraculous events involving the storm, the fish, the plant, the worm, and the wind, fits well with these materials. The Book of Jonah reads better as legend, the fish, the plant and the worm are all mythological elements. It is written in the same style as other mythological narratives, by ignoring the theological intent of the book you are missing out on a great deal.Do you think historically plausible that a plant that can shadow a man grows in one day and then get killed by a worm?Is it historically plausible that animals can repent and not only that, they also put on sackcloth?The size of Nineveh in the Jonah narrative is incorrect as well.
Archaeological excavations have proven that the city was nowhere near the size that the Bible claims it was.The Bible says that it would have been a three day walk across the city, this is undoubtedly wrong. Excavations beginning in the mid 1800’s reveal a walled city, somewhat trapezoidal in shape, with a perimeter of about seven and one half miles. (Lloyd S. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia Thames and Hudson, New York 1984 pp187-201) The longest distance across the city was about two and three quarter miles. Limburgh page 78.)There is no way that a three-day walk across a city can only cover two and three quarter miles, the size of Nineveh is greatly exaggerated for a reason, that reason is the author is not interested in recording accurate history he is only concerned with trying to stimulate his reader’s imagination into thinking about a ‘great city’ and obviously the greater the better in order to show God’s power.
Jonah 4:11 further mythologizes the narrative: But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?"The 120 000 people who cannot tell their right hand from their left is a reference to children. Now, if we have 120 000 children staying in Nineveh, what would the total population be, 500 000 or so? It is utterly impossible for Nineveh to accommodate this large population, can you think of any city in the near east at that time that could accommodate this huge population?This exaggeration undermines the book as a historical record as well. Wolff provides even more negative evidence to the historicity of the book when he writes:The narrator lends the city specific form by giving it dimensions which were unheard of in the world of the time (the book was of course written up to 500 years after the events it is claiming to present — my addition [Brian]), ‘the extent of three days march.’This means that the city had a diameter of about 40 to 50 miles. Sennacherib’s Nineveh was 3 miles wide at its greatest extent (from north to south). Attempts to verify these dimensions historically miss the point of what the writer is trying to say. The reader is not supposed to do arithmetic. He is supposed to be lost in astonishment so that he can take in the events that follow in an appropriate way. (Page 148)Another point about historical narratives is that historical accounts normally include things such as genealogies and the place of birth etc of the characters, certainly of the main character. The Book of Jonah however, does not include these basic historical requirements.
I am not convinced that Jews even consider the Jonah adventure as being true, Josephus, for example, only speaks of Jonah as being a narrative that can be found in scripture, he doesn’t say if it was true or not.It is also related that Jonah was swallowed down by a whale, and that when he had been there for three days, and as many nights, he was vomited out upon the Euxine Sea, and this alive, and without hurt upon his body; and there, on his prayer to God, he obtained pardon for his sins, and went to the city of Nineveh, where he stood so as to be heard, and preached, that in a very short time they would lose dominion of Asia; and when he had published this, he returned. Now I have given this account about him, as I found it written [in our books].
Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews in Complete Works , translated by W. Whiston Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids 1960, pages 207-208.) I am simply asking for evidence that Jews took the Tanakh literally during the time you say they did. You have only given your opinion, you THINK that they did, but there is nothing you have posted that suggests that all Israel took the tanakh literally.There’s an easy way to check, why is it that very few Jews wear the Teffilin?If all Jews took the Tanakh literally then they should all be going around (or all should have went around) wearing the small boxes on their heads and hands. But they didn’t and they don’t. Truth is, some Jews take it literally and some Jews take it figuratively. True Jews rejected Jesus because he simply wasn’t the Messiah, he didn’t fulfil a single messianic prophecy. People can believe that their history is accurate, but they don’t have to take it literally. Just because a few things are beyond reason doesn’t mean that anyone should reject the whole account.
This is the problem with the literalists, they think that if Noah’s Flood didn’t happen then Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and that the Bible is worthless. It is an insane stance to take, because, as you admit, there are parts of the Bible that HAVE to be taken figuratively. This is actually a great example that demonstrates the absurdity and inconsistency of the literalist position.They say that Jesus is literally portrayed in the servant songs but when the song says that the servant will live long and see his children born, they immediately jump into the figurative camp. In Isaiah, The Servant will literally live a long natural life and will literally have biological children, but the literalists say that Isaiah is talking about Jesus' eternal life and the children referred to are only symbolic and refer to all mankind. They want it both ways. Can you give me one reference where the Messiah is said to be God Himself?My understanding was that the Messiah would not be a supernatural being at all, and that his birth would be purely natural. He referred to them in his teachings; he could just be giving examples from stories that were familiar to this audience. But, even if Jesus did take the Old Testament literally, it doesn’t mean that anyone else did. Whether it is true or not is highly debatable. The fact that a lot of the Old Testament cannot be proven true or false isn’t inspiring. It was one of the first ever apologetic writings. I don’t think any of the Church Fathers took the text literally, but I could be wrong. And the creation stories are clearly symbolic as well, the Flood is symbolic, Jonah in the fish is symbolic, crossing the Reed Sea is symbolic It was an example to show that ALL of the Bible cannot be taken literally.Brian.Edited to sort final quoteThis message has been edited by Brian, 06-16-2005 11:49 AM