Why read the Bible literally?

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

That's exactly what I've been doing, trying to come up with principles. Good question. The fact is that I have been greatly influenced by the many books I've read on theology, the Bible and the Christian life over the years, by tapes of thousands* of sermons by preachers all over the country and other parts of the world, by Bible study classes, and of course by the preaching in my own church. In fact I don't think anyone can appreciate the Bible without good preaching and teaching on it. Trying to understand it completely on one's own is not a good idea. Pastors, teachers and evangelists are God's gifts to the church to help us understand, so says the Bible itself, whether we hear them in church or on tape or read their books. Spiritual influences like what? I revere and believe the word of God, that's the spiritual influence.From all this you'd think a few principles might be easily enough extracted but so far not.
_______________
{Edit: * Wondering if "thousands" is correct. Every day local Christian radio broadcasts two sermons as well as other Christian programs, and for some years I would have it on most of the day and tape any that were especially interesting. It adds up fast. Yes I think "thousands" is fair enough over, say, fifteen years or so.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-17-2005 04:15 AM

If you remember correctly, your argument was that Jews took the Tanakh literally! That was exactly what you claimed. You didn’t say one or two Jews or one or two groups of Jews took the Tanakh literally.Also, taking something literally doesn’t mean that you only accept certain parts as being literal, it means that you take everything literally. There you go again, making unsupported assumptions. You have posted nothing to support what you are claiming! Who is the ‘they’ you are talking about? Is it a few Jews, all Jews, half of the Jews? Be a bit more specific.Now, say we grant that a Jew takes the Exodus as a literal historical event, does it follow that that same Jews takes everything associated with the Exodus as literally true? Pharisees are only a small percentage of the Jewish population Excuse my language, but this is utter garbage. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I suggest you actually go and speak to some Jews.This is simply what you would like to be true, if you don’t actually know something then you would be advised to either admit it or stop making stuff up. This is infantile.Why bother coming to a discussion board at all if you aren’t going to consider anything that contradicts the Bible?Admit it, there is nothing at all that anyone here could post that you would accept if it contradicted the Bible, is there?Maybe I am wrong. Can you tell me how anyone could prove to you that something in the Bible is incorrect?You have a closed mind, and you are not in the slightest bit interested in what anyone else has to say. I don’t know why you bother posting anything Of course you reject it, you have no clue why you reject it, but you reject it because you think Joshua wrote it!! You have no idea what the ‘revisionists’ base their arguments on, but they must be wrong because it contradicts your view. Forget that the ‘revisionists’ contain a great many Christian scholars, forget that ALL of them know a great deal more about the Bible than you do, forget that they ALL know a great deal more about Ancient Near Eastern history than you do, forget that they ALL know a great deal more about archaeology than you do, forget that most of them have dedicated their the majority of their lives to studying the subject, they are all wrong for one simple reason, because you say so. This is pathetic and insulting to the memories of the thousands of scholars who have dedicated their lives (not to mention actually dying in the field) to illuminating the biblical texts and the biblical world. This actually makes no sense whatsoever!All we find is what we find, and we haven’t found the majority of it How do you know that we haven’t found the majority of it unless you know what the total is that we are looking for?????Are you saying we haven’t found the majority of things at Kadesh-Barnea despite it being excavated to virgin soil by Cohen?Are you saying that we haven’t found the majority of things at Tell es-Sultan despite it being excavated to bedrock by Kenyon?Why do you make such absurd statements about areas of research when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about?Your endless droning on and endless infantile excuses are becoming extremely boring. It will take a very long time to find them.Brian.

I am making the assumption that your pastor is a literalist and the tenants of your church's/denomination's constitution state that they believe in the literal reading of the Bible. In so far as our religious beliefs are concerned, we tend to buy books and tapes that support those beliefs. (Hey! It's my money!!!)
Out of all those sermons and tapes and books that you have ingested, what percentage do not hold the literalist view of the scriptures?
If that percentage is very low or zero, perhaps it has a large (maybe even the Main) influence on how you interpret the things you read in the Bible. This is true, to an extent. However, even these teachers at least pay lip service to you exploring the scriptures on your own. Usually, they say this after they have given you their point of view and made their case with their interpretation of the Bible verses.
Have you explored the non-literalist point of view? Not athiests but other Christians who don't believe that the Creation story is to be read literally.
You would probably say that it is wrong for the Saudi Arabian government to ban evangelizing by Christian organizations because the people cannot make a choice to be saved if they are ignorant of Christ. However, many Christians willfully maintain their ignorance by only reading, listening to, or learning about things that support their denomination's point of view.

I don't know to what extent my pastor is a "literalist" but he is a Bible-believer. I suppose he takes Genesis "literally" but I don't recall its coming up in the few years I've been listening to him. And of course I read and listen mostly to those of my persuasion but I had to BE persuaded BY somebody TO that view at some point too, which was also through my reading and listening. Probably about the same percentage that do hold it that jar or arach or Brian or you ingest. I'm sure it counts for a great deal. Not mere lip service at all. We ARE supposed to read it on our own, daily as a matter of fact. But we are also getting good preaching so it isn't a cold reading. ???I haven't noticed any particular order of things. It's just that we are to read the Bible and we do hear preaching on it. I certainly encounter it but it doesn't attract me so I don't read much of it. It's hardly an unfamiliar view in today's world though, you know. Once you know that all the Bible is God's word you know when somebody is not using it rightly. Well not wanting to read it doesn't mean I'm not familiar with it. There's no ignorance involved, it is an intelligent understanding of where the truth lies. And I've had at least three "denominations" over the years since I became a believer, and read and listened to tapes by teachers in many others. I left one denomination because of its subtly unBiblical preaching. I could discern it but some of my friends couldn't at the time, so I left without them. Later they saw what I'd seen and also left.One chooses to read what one knows to be in the right direction. That's true for all the anti-literalists too you know. Still, you can't help encountering points of view you disagree with by otherwise good teachers. If you have discernment you simply take the good with the bad.

I see, well I guess you can make anything mean anything you want then. I didn't specify numbers, I always mean the Believing Remnant, not ALL. I would say that quoting psalms 105 and 106 is pretty specific about WHO since that is the canon of the official doctrine of the Israelites. Numbers aren't important though I'm sure the majority at the time certainly believed in its history if they were familiar with their scriptures. The Believing Remnant of Biblical times certainly take their history literally. And if you interview orthodox Jews today, you will find that they believe it all literally. I don't know what the Conservative Jews believe but I'm sure the Reform Jews don't take it literally. I would hardly claim that they read their scriptures the way Christians do. The point is that they accept them as true history though they may have some different interpretations of parts of them. For instance, they tend to downplay the sins of the people reported there. I found that interesting, so they are likely to whitewash some of the factors that point to the sins, blame the golden calf incident on the foreigners among the people for instance. Rahab wasn't really a harlot and didn't really lie for instance, or Moses didn't really defy God in striking the rock. But the overall account is accepted, as I understand it. The miracles are no problem. Well excuse me. I had no idea you meant ALL Jews. Since as they say there are at least three opinions for every two Jews that's an impossible requirement. The idea is that there IS an orthodox reading of the scriptures that is held by JEWS, how many is not the point. True Bible-believing Christians are a minority among Christians also. I get my views from talking to Jews and from participating on Jewish message boards. I suggest you learn some manners young man.And on that note I will leave your rude self and ignore you from now on.

I don't know what jar, arch or Brian ingest. Since I go to an Assembly of God church, Sunday School and Adult teaching class, I would say I receive a good deal of literalist teaching...maybe 30-40% of what religious information I get is literalist. Is that how much non-literalist study you do? I doubt it judging by your follow-on statements. Aparently not "all". A sweeping statement and incorrect.You have "discernment"? What is this discernment? Is it something you can cultivate? Perhaps God didn't give me discernment since I'm not able to tell which stories from the Bible are true and which are symbolism/metaphor/parable.My line of questioning was to get you to think about how these opinions of others affect your discernment of scripture.Are there any stories in the Bible that you think were not true (ie the Prodigal Son) that these sermons/tapes/books said were true? How about stories that you would say are true that those other sources stated were metaphor/symbolism?If Kenneth Copeland, D. James Kennedy, Tony Evans, Pat Robertson and James Dobson all said that the Holy Spirit showed them that the Jonah story was really a long parable about desire of God to forgive all and the hardheartedness of some believers, would that change your stance on Jonah? If not, what would you tell them to show them that they are wrong?

Thank God!

I apologize for a false generalization about anti-literalists. Apparently there are more varieties of these than I've been aware of. Perhaps he didn't. Perhaps you aren't willing to listen to anybody to learn about it either. I'm an adult who has long since made up my mind from much studying about many things and your attitude is rude in the extreme, just as Brian's is. I don't mind questioning for the sake of argument but the idea of trying to "get me to think" is impossibly rude. I can hardly believe the level of disrespect of others that is practiced here in the name of science and education. This is a fruitless discussion. You have your mind made up about all these things and are merely trying to catch me out in something. I know what I believe and why I believe it and have been arguing from that position but I see it is useless. Those teachers are not among my most admired, certainly not Copeland. As for trying to change anybody's mind, theirs or yours, I think after my experience here at EvC I'm giving that up. All minds here are made up just as mine is. Whoever's right will stay right, and whoever is wrong will stay wrong.

I apologize if I missed it, but I don't remember any point where you tried to teach me anything about discernment. Perhaps if someone could explain it, I would try to gain it. It sure would be nice to be able to look at the Bible and know what God is saying instead of having to choose between conflicting outside influences. The statement was "...get you to think about...". Perhaps you interpreted that as my implying that you don't think. That was not my intent. Just substitute "consider" for "think about" in that statement of mine. Does that make it less rude? Really? You may know why you believe it but you have not communicated that here except to say that it seemed true. When asked what it is about your beliefs that make them seem more true, the best you have come up with is that it is "obvious" to you but you can't articulate it in a way I understand. I can accept that. Some of our deepest convictions are difficult to explain.It is useless if you think you need to change my mind. Especially since all I am asking is that you explain how you draw the conclusions that you provide for us on this forum. Perhaps I use my doubt as a counterpoint to your surety, on occasion, to emphasize the range of opinions that seem equally valid. That is not to knock your beliefs. Projecting your personality onto others?
What about the lurkers? Maybe their minds are not made up.
If your beliefs are true shouldn't that truth show through regardless of the opinions expressed on this board?BTW: I am an adult too and I don't mind when someone questions my religious beliefs. They better be able to back up their opinion though.

Yes, thanks for the explanation.

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?

No, I'm here to debate. If it were possible to learn about some of the science without being rudely insulted that would be great, because I'm interested in some of it, but it isn't possible so I'm not interested. Christian faith is not blind faith, it is based on the testimony of God Himself, it is faith IN God, in His word. The idea about faith that is promoted here is not faith. No, I'm great with research and real science. The Bible does not contradict real science. Most biology and geology is true science, evolution isn't. Evolution is an untestable unfalsifiable theory the science is forced to fit. On faith in what, faith in whom? Faith doesn't exist in a vacuum, despite the popularity of that idea. You SHOULD take it on the word of God, on the testimony of Jesus Christ, on the word of His most credible believers through the centuries. The truth science can know is minuscule compared to the truth that is knowable. The testimony of faithful witnesses is a major way we know anything. I think you're wrong about what I'm trying to do. I started out believing in evolution and now I believe God. My faith is obviously much better grounded than yours is. You don't have any ground for your faith from the sound of it, you just believe it because why? Because you want to? To paraphrase yourself, What happens to your faith if someone is able to convince you that God couldn't become a man, or a man couldn't resurrect from death? Why believe anything at all since science constradicts it? Do you believe the virgin birth? Why not? Because science says it can't happen? Or Why do you? Don't you know that science says it can't happen? Jesus fed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, he turned water into wine, he raised people from the dead. There is nothing in principle any more impossible for science but possible for God than those things. There is also nothing more impossible for science but possible for God in God's having a sea creature swallow a man and preserve him alive through the incident. Why do you pick and choose what to believe when what you do believe is no more possible to science than any of the rest of it? All those things happened and much more because God is God. Therefore the Flood happened because God said it happened whether science has the brain to figure out how or not. No it's a sad sad case of the arrogant claims of science being used to destroy a person's very shaky faith. Again, how can there be truth in it if science says Jesus wasn't God and a man can't come back to life? What makes any part of the Biblical record true if any of it is false? Either God is God or he's not and if he's not I guess I could go back to being an atheist where I started. Makes more sense to me than picking something to believe out of thin air with no basis whatever for it. Huh? Does this at least perhaps explain your belief? That is, your belief in the death and resurrection of Christ isn't a belief in anything real either, is it? One can't believe in a METAPHOR for heaven's sake. I didn't choose to believe in the truth of the Bible, I was persuaded to the truth of the Bible.

So every time someone has explained some science to you have been rudely insulted? Or is that only after you start citing scripture at them? Of which, I assume, you have documented evidence. I guess that's the one reason you're so great at it then.
But wait - you just said above that it "wasn't possible" for you to learn about science. We'll have to ask to see your 'cv' at this point. I am almost scared to ask, but can you give me an example of a 'knowable truth' that exists beyond the boundaries of scientific confirmation ? ... and we also have this infallible test to determine which witnesses are actually 'faithful'. Ever stop to consider maybe you never understood what you thought you were believing in the first place?
Or is it that believing in God is just a lot more comforting seeing as how you haven't been able to learn any science? Two unrelated contentions in one sentence.
Science takes no position on the status of Jesus as a god.
It might on bringing people back to life, depending on how long their heart has stopped beating. How do you objectively distinguish a metaphor from an accurate historical account of events?
I guess you would have to use... a science of some sort - perish the thought.
But, as GDR implies, doesn't a metaphor have the same heuristic value as an accurate historical narrative if you are simply trying to teach someone something ?

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.