Board index ‹ Bible

[Bo is Right]

Those of you who interpret the Bible as entirely literal rather than metaphor, how do you answer and explain these questions?

1. Was the earth created in seven days? How do you hold this belief when modern science seems to reduce this claim to nonsense?

2. Do you believe women should not be allowed any authority over men? “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12). What do you make of this for example?

3. Do you believe genocide and killing should be allowed in order to spread the Christian faith? ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3). What do you make of this extract?

4. Do you believe homosexuality to be wrong? ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.' (Leviticus 18:22). What is your opinion of this?

5. Do you believe slavery is acceptable as a practice? “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18). What do feel about this verse?

6. Do you believe God was right in ordering the sacrifice of Isaac?

7. Do you believe Mary had a virgin birth?

8. Do you believe the serpent really spoke to Eve?

In my opinion, the claims of those who answer this string of questions under literal interpretation of the Bible fall into two categories: the logically impossible and the immoral, and create views that are not acceptable in modern society and do not stand the test of modern science. Thus, I assert that to interpret the Bible in a literal sense leads to contradiction and the formation of immoral views and actions, whilst simultaneously being incompatible with modern science. How do those who literally interpret the book refute these assertions?

[jimwalton]

Bible believers are often accused of attributing difficult texts to "metaphor," but that's a vast understatement and a reductionistic perspective about the Bible. The Bible is a rich and deep literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding. The Bible is far more well-written than just the two choices of either literal or metaphorical. But let me approach your questions.

1. I think Genesis 1-2 are an account of functional creation, not of material creation. I take them literally to be about the roles and functions the different aspects of creation filled, and how God ordered the universe to function. It is not a conflict with modern science. This is a much larger conversation.

2. Women and authority, and 1 Tim. 2.12. The teaching of 1 Timothy is limited to that place (Ephesus), and it is not a general teaching. It's obvious in 1 Corinthians 11 that Paul allows women to speak, so he never meant 1 Tim. 2 to apply to everyone everywhere. This is a much larger conversation.

3. The alleged "genocide" of the Amalekites is a dreadful misunderstanding of ancient cultures. Archaeologists have uncovered information that helps us understand that the "kill them all" rhetoric of the ancient world was exactly that: warfare rhetoric, and was not carried out literally. It's the way they spoke, but not the way they acted. This is a much larger conversation.

4. Yes, homosexuality is wrong. This is a much larger conversation.

5. Slavery is not an acceptable practice, and the Bible never commands or endorses it. Slavery in the ancient world was a different entity than the way we understand it, and Peter was telling people how to be godly, not endorsing social structures. This is a much larger conversation.

6. You misunderstand the "sacrifice of Isaac." The text makes it quite clear that human sacrifice is not at all what's going on.

7. Virgin birth? Yep. They had no reason to make it up because it only hurts their case.

8. Serpent spoke to Eve? Nah. The Hebrew word for serpent is nahash, which is indeed the common word for snake, but it also possibly means "able to stand upright." There are all kinds of verbal possibilities here. For instance, nahash is the same root as nehoset, which means "bronze." So the shiny, upright snake in Number 21.9 is the same root: it was a literal thing, but a spiritual symbol. "Snake" could also be a word play, because the Hebrew word for "deceive" is very close to it, and is the same root as for magic and divination. Snakes in the ancient world were very much associated with spiritual powers, magic, and cultic rituals. So what if this "thing" (the nhs) was a spiritual power, represented to the woman as a bright creature, speaking "spiritual wisdom", and yet was deceiving her—the word for snake? Just a little bit of research changes the whole picture.

These all call for much more conversation than space allows when you ask 8 deep questions. I've answered very briefly and inadequately, but you set me up for that. If you want to talk about any of them further, let me know.