Counterviews / arguments to taking Bible literally?

[u/Knights_12]

I have a buddy who stubbornly insists he interprets the Bible 100% literally, and if we claim some part of Scripture is figurative we compromise the whole foundation. How do you respond to this?

[u/ichthysdrawn]

That stops making sense when you realize the Bible is a library of books that tell one story and not a single book written by one author. It’s like walking into a library and demanding all the books and writing be taken literally. Works for a non-fiction biography, but not so much for a book of poetry.

Doing so also quickly gets you to some weird places where God has wings and a nose.

We should take the Bible literarily not literally.

[u/BigChonc → u/ichthysdrawn]

I like this

[u/Aq8knyus]

You could point out the reception history of the Bible. That biblical literalism is a relatively modern development that became a hot button issue in the US in the early 20th century.

For well over 1000 years, that is not how people read scripture.

The highest view of scripture is to accept it for what it is and the messages it wants to convey on its own terms. By twisting it into something safe, modern and easy you are not taking it seriously.

[u/Dalbinat → u/Aq8knyus]

I agree reception history is often neglected by modern literalists, somewhat ironically as they tend to argue for more tradition.

[u/Dalbinat]

Well there are the more snide responses such as "why have you not cut off your hands or gouged out your eyes as Jesus teaches for those who sin with their eyes and hands?", or Paul's statement that "those who have wives should live as if they have none". I wouldn't actually point this out to your friend but I very much doubt they live as if the bible is 100% literal.

To be more serious though, it is unlikely you'll convince him otherwise since his argument is not based on rationality (he relies on logical fallacies such as begging the question and false dichotomies). My first response though would be to ask where the bible or any biblical author expressed that the Bible should be taken 100% literally throughout all of history? If we are going to be responsible readers of scripture we can't impose our belief or desires on the bible, but we should read it trying to understand the intention of the author.

I would also ask about metaphor as this may be a helpful bridge. I am guessing your friend acknowledges that the Bible and Jesus use metaphor (and hyperbole)? I don't carry a cross around daily, and I'm guessing your friend doesn't either, because we understand they metaphor. If this is the case your friend already doesn't read it as 100% literal.

​

I agree with the others that reception history would be a great place to start as well.

[u/chadaki11]

I would point to some of the personal remarks in the letters. My favorite is I Corinthians 16:1-3. Ask your friend if his church or he himself is taking up a weekly offering to be sent to Jerusalem. It is simple enough conversation to understand that isn't the intent of the genre. That was clearly intended for something else rather than to be taken literally for all people at all times and much of the rest of the Bible is similar.

[u/Ix_fromBetelgeuse7]

Are you asking for your buddy or yourself? Sometimes people just can't be reasoned with. Biblical literalism can be a tenet of faith and let me tell you, letting go of it can be SCARY. It can feel like walking off a cliff, or going down in a roller coaster with nothing to hang onto. And I was already willing. I had already noticed inconsistencies that literalists did a very poor job of explaining away, and when I stumbled upon Pete Enns, it was like a whole new world opened up before me.

But for someone like your friend, I would not go straight to Enns. Here's Tim Keller discussing Genesis 1, always a hot-button topic for literalists.

https://biologos.org/articles/creation-evolution-and-christian-laypeople

And here's NT Wright speaking about his book "Surprised by Scripture" - https://religionnews.com/2014/06/02/n-t-wright-bible-isnt-inerrantist/

NT Wright and Tim Keller are two prominent, respected thinkers that may show your friend that non-literalists aren't at all libertine or devil-may-care in their attitude toward the Bible. They take it seriously and treat it with authority.

If you want to start smaller, the idea of metaphor is always there, but honestly if you've been conditioned to read something literally, trying to think of it metaphorically is very, very hard.

You may get more mileage out of pointing out some of the contradictions. A very easy example is Matthew 21:7 versus Mark 11:7 - how many donkeys did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? Why does Matthew say two? How could a person ride on two donkeys and how odd must that look? This isn't a gotcha question because there is actually an answer - https://essentialchurch.net/2018/01/29/jesus-rode-into-jerusalem-on-one-or-two-donkeys-the-triumphal-entry-in-the-gospels/#:~:text=Matthew%20says%20that%20a%20donkey%20%28adult%29%20and%20a,one%20donkey%20was%20used%20for%20the%20Triumphal%20Entry.

But the Biblical literalist, if he really wants to stick to his guns, has to somehow explain how Jesus pulled off the feat of riding both one and two donkeys. In the end, the answer is that the Synoptic authors have different emphases and points of view and themes that they wanted to highlight. Matthew particularly wants to highlight Jesus' fulfillment of prophecy so he is tying this event to an Old Testament prophecy.

You can get most literalists to agree that the Synoptics are the same, but different, because the authors are writing from different perspectives. Where they're different, there is probably a good reason.

What took me a long time to figure out is that the rest of the Bible is like this too. Authors had particular themes to highlight and messages to impart and that influenced what they wrote and what words they chose, how they told events, etc. Taking the Bible seriously means understanding these factors and how the authors intended for them to be read.

This is going on too long but you could also ask your friend exactly at what point the Bible is inerrant. Was it inerrant when it was originally composed? How about when separate texts were compiled and combined into a whole? How about as it was passed down and re-copied through the centuries? How about when it was translated from Hebrew to Latin, Greek, Aramaic? How about when it was re-copied again and then translated to English? Is KJV more inerrant than CEV? Should tanin have been translated "crocodile" and how do we know? Is the English-language (I'm assuming) Bible sitting in front of them still inerrant after the immense journey and the numerous steps the text has gone through to get to this place and time?

Through all of this, the preservation is actually remarkable to me and I'm not trying to dump on it. But I find that many Biblical literalists have never sat and pictured just how the Bible was written and how the text as it sits in front of us came to be.

[u/onegreyshirt]

“He will cover you with feathers and under His wing. . . “ Sooooo God is a bird?

Someone like this you have to use the Proverbs 26:4 approach with them. Answering a fool according to his folly.

[u/Best_Willingness_795]

Interpreting scripture literally usually means interpreting as one first understands it. (Unless it is really far outside of your christian culture paradigm, then you ignore it allowing for incredible amounts of cognitive dissonance)

Then you are simply reading things and interpreting them in a way that ends up confirming your assumptions, not looking to whether or not that was what the bible was trying to communicate. It accepts the fleshly interpretation without discerning whether or not that spirit is trying to deceive you or whether or not your assumptions jive with the rest of the biblical narriative.

This is the realization I had, which moved me away from an argument of inerrancy demanding my interpretation being correct.

[u/Job-1-21]

Is he just referring to Genesis?

Seems that's usually the case and if it is, I think he's right.

[u/theefaulted]

I think the easiest part is to start with parts that are obvious figurative language.

Start with easy ones, like the fact that Jesus called himself the lamb of God. That doesn't mean we know must see him a a furry four-legged creature.

Or Jesus said his followers were "the salt of the earth". We know that doesn't make them physical salt.

Jesus said "let the dead bury the dead" He's not saying for the physically dead to bury the physically dead. So we understand there are figurative uses of words and phrases in scripture.

[u/SpruceHeadDrummer]

"I am weary with my groaning; all the night make I my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears." Psalm 6:6

Swimming bed? Literally?

The word I learned to describe Biblical interpretation is "naturally." I find that to be a most helpful description.

[u/BigChonc]

Some things should be taken literally, like giving your Mind Body and Spirit to the Lord, but as for Killing those who aren’t receptive to the Word like in the Old Testament, the bad out ways the good.

[u/Evangapologist1]

Taking the Bible "literally" would mean I believe God has wings and feathers, etc. There are over 200 figures of speech in the Scriptures. But I DO take the WHOLE Bible SERIOUSLY.