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 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

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.

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 not read the Bible literally? I'm interested in the truth and I use all the information that I can to find what I believe to be truth. I believe it becomes a problem when children are raised in the faith to accept that the Bible is to be read literally. As adults many come to the conclusion that the Bible can't be read literally and as a result they throw out the truth of the Christian faith along with what I believe to be a distortion of the faith.My faith is the central focus of my life. I believe that Christianity is the ultimate truth in our world. I believe that literalism is discrediting the faith. We have been given the Bible so that we can know this truth and to weaken the message by reading it as if it were a newspaper or science book detracts from the truth. When we allow truth to be distorted people are driven away from the faith.I don't know enough science to suggest that I trust it one way or the other. I do know that there are many scientists who are born again Christians. I do believe that in some cases there is an anti-faith bias in science but I also believe that the vast majority of scientists are looking for the truth in the natural world regardless of where it leads them. (Which doesn't mean that they aren't going to come to some false conclusions.)I would point out though that you didn't answer the question! I quoted my own post to give you another opportunity to answer the question. You make the case yourself because we always have to make decisions about what is to be taken literally, or not, as you did in another post in regards to the talking trees in Judges. Why is it obvious?God has given us wisdom and I believe he intends for us to use that wisdom when we read the Bible. We should be using that wisdom to look for the truth that is found in the Bible.

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

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

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

How many times in church do you hear reference to "The Good Samaritan", or "The Prodigal Son"? Nobody believes that these stories are literally true but they are referred to in order to make some other point. Why wouldn't Jesus do the same thing? He would refer to a metaphor in Jewish scripture to make a point in the same way that he would refer to some factual event. This is exactly why I am concerned about the idea that Holy Scripture should be read literally. There are so many problems that we encounter in our Christian walk with that approach to the scriptures.
1. If every word is exactly written by God as literal fact, the Bible becomes our object of worship instead of the risen Lord. How many times do you see televangelists waving around the Bible making it the focus of worship instead of the Cross?
2. You have just said that if you were to be unconvinced that the Bible was literally true your whole faith goes out the window. In the end if you decide that you can't believe that Jonah lived inside a fish for three days then the real truth of our risen Lord and his love for you is unbelievable to you as well.
3. Our children raised in churches who preach literalism are very likely to reject their faith as they reach maturity for the same reason.
4. The idea that one is required to accept what I believe to be Biblical metaphor as fact is a huge stumbling block to unbelievers.
5. How much time is wasted defending literalism, arguing about the flood or Jonah etc instead of getting on with what Christ wanted us to do which is to preach the risen Lord and to feed, clothe, house and love the least of God's children.If the Bible is read the way I believe that God intended it is a powerful weapon in bringing peace love and harmony to this life and eternal joy in the next. Misuse of the Bible will only in the end bring about confusion and unbelief.

Hi FaithI very much admire your determination to make the case for your faith. I think that some just like the debate, but I really sense that you are sincere in your desire to promote what you believe to be ultimate truth.It is much easier to make an argument trying to disprove something, (in most cases), than it is to attempt to prove something correct. In fairness then I’ll outline in broad brush strokes how I think the Bible should be read and in all honesty I welcome having it pointed out to me where I am in error as I’m still struggling along trying to work life out like everybody else.I believe that the OT is a collection of ancient myths, history, worship, revelation, parables and poetry. Incidentally when I say myth I don’t necessarily mean that it is false. A myth may be based on truth or it may be based on fiction. I believe that the OT myths such as the story of Noah etc are based on actual events but that the have been written in such a way that they are to be read in the same way that Americans read about Davy Crockett or Paul Bunyan.As for the creation story I think the message is simply that the God of the Bible is the creator of everything and not just the Earth. (Mind you I find it interesting how closely Gen 1 is consistent with basic evolution.) I don’t happen to believe that the world is only 6000 years old but I also don’t believe that it matters in regard to our Christian walk.I believe that the Gospels accurately depict the story of Christ and his teachings. I believe that the Gospels are correct in depicting the social Gospel that Christ taught and I also believe that they are correct in saying that Christ is the Messiah and that Christ is God incarnate. I believe in the crucifixion and the resurrection and the ascension of Christ.In some ways I believe that we have to be careful in reading the Epistles. Many were written to specific churches and deal with specific issues in those churches. I believe that there are two key epistles. The first is Romans. Paul was writing to a well educated audience. He isn’t dealing with local issues but was writing for the population as a whole. I believe that our situation in the west is a real parallel for the audience that Paul was writing to then. In my view, if we want to understand Christian theology then we should read Romans.The other Epistle that I believe is key is James. Simply put Romans will get your theology straight and James will tell you what to do with it. Read in conjunction with the Gospels the book of James tells how we are to put our faith into action, or in other words how we go about loving our neighbours as, (or more than), ourselves.As for Revelation I’m afraid it mainly goes over my head. It seems to mainly be concerned with end times theology. To be honest I don’t concern myself with end times theology because I don’t see a point to it. I have enough trouble trying to be the person that Christ wants me to be today.

I wouldn't maintain that the OT is just an inaccurate series of books. It is the story of God revealing himself to the Jewish people. I believe that there is history there and I agree that there is foretelling of Christ in the OT.Frankly I don't go as far as jar does. As I'm not a YEC I don't have any idea just how far back the story of the Exodus goes. Who knows how complete the genealogies are? I'm sure that it is based on some actual event in some time period but I don't know how accurate the telling is.Once again though, you are indicating that unless the whole Bible is factually true none of it is true. In the final analysis does the literal accuracy of the story of the Exodus affect what Jesus did on the cross, does it affect the way we live our lives, will it have an impact on the next life? I suggest to you that by insisting that the Bible is literally true in its entirety does not stand up to reason nor do I believe that there is any basis in Christianity for us to do that. I do believe however, that it is driving people away from the church for reasons I've already outlined.The Christian faith is a faith and we will never have empirical evidence for the faith in the scientific manner. At the same time however I believe that we are to use the wisdom that God gave us to discern what is truth. It is a faith, not a blind faith.This message has been edited by GDR, 06-16-2005 10:08 PM

Hi FaithIn my estimation it isn't that you don't think about these things. I believe that you think a lot about them. What happens to all of us is that we come to a conclusion about truth and then spend a great deal of time rigorously defending our position. Hopefully we are not just here to debate but to learn from each other.The thing is I don't believe that you have to defend your position, because it is an issue that you take on faith. You have faith that the Bible is literally true and human research is wrong. I for example believe that Christ is and was God incarnate, I believe in the resurrection and that God is active in the world through the Holy Spirit. Human research alone will not provide any evidence of that so I have to take it on faith.I think in a way you are trying to do the same thing for your faith as Richard Dawkins does for Atheism. Dawkins for example showed fairly convincingly that the human eye could have evolved. He then makes the leap from showing that it could have happened without any metaphysical interaction to the conclusion that it did happen that way.I just want to ask again. What happens to your faith if someone is able to convince you that the flood couldn't have happened in the exact way spelled out in the OT, or if you decided that Jonah couldn't have lived in a fish for 3 days. Do you reject your entire faith at that point or are you able to adjust your thinking? Read umliak's thread where he asks that his previous posts be deleted. It appears as I read it that when he found he could no longer accept the Bible as literally true he discarded his faith entirely. This I fear, as I have said before, is one of the great dangers of literalism.I know I am repeating myself but I have never really received an answer. Isn't the truth of the cross sufficient? Isn't a metaphor that portrays truth just as real as if it were literally true? Why is it so important that the Bible be literally true?

I personally still have a lot to learn. Are you saying that because I don't agree with your interpretation of the Bible that I have no faith? That is a little presumptuous, and frankly you're wrong. Frankly I don't have the knowledge to critique evolutionary theory. I would only say this about it. If evolution is true, then things evolved under the design and direction of God. I agree with all of that. I certainly learn about God through the Bible. I do accept the testimony of Christ. I do accept the word of his most credible believers. People like St Augustine and more recently CS Lewis. I current Christian scholar that I give a lot of credence to is Alister McGrath. There is a vast amount of knowledge that is outside the natural and therefore beyond science. I believe in God and I believe that evolution could well be true. Diplomatic language isn't your forte is it? As a Christian I would personally never judge someone else's faith as I have always believed that to be God's business and not mine. I am not about to give my testimony on this forum, but whether you choose to accept it or not I believe and not because I want to. If I stopped believing those things I don't see how I could call myself a Christian. If you were however to go away from your literalist position could you still hang on to your faith in Christ? Yes I believe in the virgin birth. Science does not say that it can't happen. Science says that it can't happen in the natural world that science inhabits. Obviously the virgin birth and the miracles of Christ are supernatural and outside the world of science. Lets face it. If God can create this universe, as well as this planet and all the life on it, a virgin birth doesn't sound too difficult. I believe that the Bible has been inspired by God, but that is quite different than saying that every word is literally true.

The first Christian book that I read as an adult was Lewis's "Mere Christianity". It started me on the road to the Bible and prayer and God.Here is something that Lewis wrote. Here is a review of CS Lewis's views by Duncan Sprague Another quote Here is the link to the whole report.http://www.leaderu.com/marshill/mhr02/lewis1.html#text35This message has been edited by GDR, 06-17-2005 11:06 PM