Why read the Bible literally?

Well said, but the Bible doesn't have to be interpreted literally to be accurate and inerrant. Trying to tie this back into the thread's topic, is it some element of your faith that causes you to insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible? Or is it related to something other than faith?--Percy

If an influential fundamentalist theologian persuaded the fundamentalist community that Jonah was allegory, would it make any difference to the spirtual faith of fundamentalists? Why would they care if Jonah was actually just a story illustrating a moral lesson? It seems to me that they shouldn't care much. It doesn't seem like it should be a big deal.On the other hand, Genesis 1-2 is different. An influential fundamentalist theologian who became convinced that Genesis 1-2 was allegory would probably make no progress. It is extremely important to fundamentalists that the creation events were real. Why?And on the third hand, Genesis 3 is of another quality altogether, since it includes the origin of original sin. Fundamentalists could never accept that the serpent and the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil were allegorical rather than real. The reasons for a literal interpretation of Genesis 3 are very clear and obvious.So while Genesis 3 seems to have clear reasons for a literal interpretation, the reasons for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 seem less clear, and for Jonah not clear at all. Perhaps once you've accepted talking serpents, refusing to accept as literal the stories of Noah and Jonah and Methusalah would be difficult to explain due to the extreme inconsistency inherent in such a position.In other words, a literal interpretation of some parts of the Bible, like Genesis 3, is essential to fundamentalists because they form the foundation of the Christ-based belief system. But the fairytale nature of passages like Genesis 3 is obvious, and so the bar for accepting Biblical passages as literal gets set very, very low. By this standard the rest of the Bible easily qualifies as also requiring a literal interpretation.As an aside, as a non-Christian looking in from the outside, the doctrine of original sin seems to me to demand a literal interpretation of Genesis 3 by Christians. The Catholic position that the events of the Garden of Eden are allegorical or moral seems scant justification for original sin. If no one ever actually disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit, if it's really just a story, then original sin is actually a curse upon mankind placed there from the beginning by God. The fundamentalist position makes more sense to me.--Percy

If I catch your meaning, you're saying that an intelligent and in-context interpretation of Genesis is literal. But most people trying to get an intelligent and in-context take on Genesis would read about talking serpents and floods and wives turning into pillars of salt and conclude myth or fairy tale, just as most people hearing about a man who travels the entire world in his sleigh in a single night delivering gifts to all the children would conclude myth or fairy tale.Given that you believe a literal interpretation is the intelligent choice, the question of this thread then becomes, can you take us through the chain of intelligent and rational argument that arrives at the conclusion that Genesis should be interpreted literally?--Percy

Now I'm confused. This seems contradictory. I thought you were saying intelligence was involved in deciding which passages should be interpreted literally. You say that it isn't easy to lay out the chain of reasoning, but you go on to describe a process that does not involve any chain of reasoning at all, saying, "You must be born again with a quickened spirit and then you just know."If by intelligence we mean the application of rational analysis, then let's turn it to the OT. You say the Bible must be taken as a whole. You say that others before us thought it was literally true, like Jesus and Peter, and like Jonathan Edwards. But you've still got a talking serpent, a global flood, a wife turned to salt, and a man living in a fish for three days.At one point you say, "We believe them simply because God is God." That makes sense to me. Claiming to believe them from rational analysis must be just the way it feels from you, because when asked to explain it you always reply with expressions of faith.There's nothing wrong with believing something out of faith.--Percy

You're right, it's very common. It's the fallacy of argument from authority.Taking Jesus as our authority, a rational analysis of the talking serpent might take into account these issues:

1. What is the evidence from the NT that Jesus accepted the talking serpent as literally true?
   ​
2. Assuming Jesus did accept the reality of the serpent, what rational basis did he have? In other words, what evidence did he consider, and could he be considered a reliable authority on this matter?
   ​
3. What evidence for talking serpents exists today?
   ​
4. Would a metaphorical serpent serve Christian theological requirements as well as a real one?

Going through an examination process like this is what I think of as the application of intelligence.--Percy

No, they were just an example of the kinds of issues one could study in undertaking a rational examination. I'm a minor participant in this thread. Faith aroused my curiousity when she said that a literal interpretation was the outcome of intelligent consideration, so I inquired.But I hope a continuation thread begins, because I don't think the thread's question has been answered.--Percy