Board index ‹ Bible

[Witty One]

How do people justify taking The Bible as 100% literal?

I understand that certain sects of Christianity take The Bible entirely literally, every part. I'm wondering what people's thoughts are on this. I'm especially interested in the human aspect of it. Personally, I think The Bible doesn't claim to be entirely the word of God in the same way the Quran does. It was written by followers of God/Jesus and is their interpretations of the meaning of their particular religious experiences, or in the case of the Gospels, a biography of a charismatic preacher they followed around (written almost 50 years after the fact in some cases) who turned out to be the son of God. Additionally, it's interesting to look at how chapters were selected, and who wrote them from a historical perspective. Especially viewed through the lens of a lot of the new testament (especially Revelations and portions of the Gospels) are heavily biased against the Roman Empire, and some people go as far as to say they were originally written as political tools.

Sorry for the extremely open-ended question. I've just been reading a lot about the compilation of The Bible and I'm interested in hearing Christians' thoughts on it.

[jimwalton]

The Bible is a rich 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.

It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author. In that case we'll take the Bible *seriously*, but "literally" doesn't take us anywhere.

> Personally, I think The Bible doesn't claim to be entirely the word of God in the same way the Quran does.

It does. 2 Timothy 3.16 and 2 Peter 1.21 say so.

> It was written by followers of God/Jesus and is their interpretations of the meaning of their particular religious experiences, or in the case of the Gospels, a biography of a charismatic preacher they followed around (written almost 50 years after the fact in some cases) who turned out to be the son of God.

Yes, but that doesn't make them ineligible to write about it. In John 14.25, Jesus said that God would help the followers of Jesus remember what he said to write it accurately. 50 years isn't unreasonable for a prominent, life-changing teacher. 50 years ago takes us back to 1968. Do you think you could still find people to tell you about things that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr said? Of course. It was impactful.

And, by the way, Muhammad also wrote of his particular religious experiences.

> it's interesting to look at how chapters were selected, and who wrote them from a historical perspective.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. How chapters were selected? The chapters themselves were put in during the 16th century to help people find things in the Bible. Do you mean what parts of Jesus's life and words the authors selected to write? Do you mean which books were included in the New Testament? You'll have to clarify.

> Especially viewed through the lens of a lot of the new testament (especially Revelations and portions of the Gospels) are heavily biased against the Roman Empire, and some people go as far as to say they were originally written as political tools.

Rome had participated in the crucifixion of Jesus, and they were martyring Christians by the truckload. Rome was used, just as Babylon had in ancient days, as a symbol of godlessness in the world.

I don't believe the Gospels were written as political tools. The secular worldliness of Rome was a convenient symbol of "all things against God." The early Christians witness heavily in Rome and to Roman citizens, soldiers, and politicians. They weren't biased against Rome, but they used it as a literary (and therefore spiritual) motif.

> how much human bias do you think is in The Bible?

None. God used their personalities—the authors wrote with their own words—but bias is not part of the product.

> do you think certain things that are embellished (ie the inconsistencies between John and the other gospels)

A certain amount of embellishment was allowed in an oral culture, just like when we tell a joke we heard from someone else. As long as the structure, core, and point are the same, some embellishment of details is allowed.

As far as the "inconsistencies" between John and the Synoptics, they are more a function of writing with a different style and agenda than technical inconsistencies.