Taking the Bible Seriously, but not Always Literally

Hey friend...

Get unlimited one way backlinks free here!...

I appreciate all of what you said. I do want to clarify my point with which you take issue. My point was not that the creation stories of Genesis must be taken as scientific or infallible historical accounts, but that when we minimize them to being SIMPLY myth, fiction, or didactic accounts, we suck God's life and breath out of them.

Myth stems out of man-made verbal tradition with questionable reality. Fiction stems from one man's imagination, absolute lacking any reality. Didactic accounts are simply fiction with intention to teach-- parables or fables if you will. If ever say that ANY part of scripture is simply man-made in any way, we by definition suck the life and breathe that comes from God's inspiration out of it. That's what I meant. Not that one had to read the Bible absolutely literally to encounter God, but when we start to take scripture that is God's truth in SOME capacity and say that it is sourced in man, we remove God's reality from it.

To put it in more practical terms, we can debate until we're blue in the face about whether or not creation days are 24 hours periods, etc., but please don't try to make any part of scripture written by man alone. It would be no longer scripture.

Thanks chadbowen. Consider me in complete understanding. Though permit me to perhaps belabor a point-I'd like to discuss an idea.

Christians start many conversations about divine inspiration with Hebrews 4:12. Understandably so, it's a great verse: "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

Because we believe this to be true, we understandably have a tough time understanding the mechanics of how Scripture became, well, Scripture. Scholars have a tough time, laypeople have a tough time, and that is part of the challenge (and fun) in Biblical interpretation. But, for a moment, let's acknowledge something: all great literature is, in a sense, living and active-each time we read it, we see the words in a new light. But, as you said, that is the human aspect of it. What of the divine?

As Christians, our claim on Scripture is not that each word was divinely dictated to the human who wrote it, but rather that in some form God's breath was present in the process by which it was written and then later compiled, and that as Christians we have the Holy Spirit to help us interpret its words and meaning-a fact that distinguishes the Bible from other great literature. Thus the beauty of Genesis 1 (Robert Alter's translation): "When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath was hovering over the waters, God said, 'Let there be light.'" The Spirit-God's breath, the Hebrew word ruah-has always been and always will be present.

By now, I'm sure you see the implications of this: God's reality, as you put it, is always among us. Thus, in the case of divine inspiration in Scripture, I would argue that even if the Bible is partially constructed of myth or fiction, which many scholars think to be the case, God's presence is still very close to the action. C.S. Lewis would call it God's divine pressure-not man alone, as you said, but God present and actively involved, though sometimes only in the most undetectable ways.

This is an excellent point. People have also used the bible to justify polygamy, abortion, homosexual marriage, adultery, contraception.

Thanks chadbowen. Consider me in complete understanding. Though permit me to perhaps belabor a point-I'd like to discuss an idea.

Christians start many conversations about divine inspiration with Hebrews 4:12. Understandably so, it's a great verse: "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

Because we believe this to be true, we understandably have a tough time understanding the mechanics of how Scripture became, well, Scripture. Scholars have a tough time, laypeople have a tough time, and that is part of the challenge (and fun) in Biblical interpretation. But, for a moment, let's acknowledge something: all great literature is, in a sense, living and active-each time we read it, we see the words in a new light. But, as you said, that is the human aspect of it. What of the divine?

As Christians, our claim on Scripture is not that each word was divinely dictated to the human who wrote it, but rather that in some form God's breath was present in the process by which it was written and then later compiled, and that as Christians we have the Holy Spirit to help us interpret its words and meaning-a fact that distinguishes the Bible from other great literature. Thus the beauty of Genesis 1 (Robert Alter's translation): "When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath was hovering over the waters, God said, 'Let there be light.'" The Spirit-God's breath, the Hebrew word ruah-has always been and always will be present.

By now, I'm sure you see the implications of this: God's reality, as you put it, is always among us. Thus, in the case of divine inspiration in Scripture, I would argue that even if the Bible is partially constructed of myth or fiction, which many scholars think to be the case, God's presence is still very close to the action. C.S. Lewis would call it God's divine pressure-not man alone, as you said, but God present and actively involved, though sometimes only in the most undetectable ways.

I think that at any time we try to remove either the mystery from God's word or the factuality of God's word, then we are reading scripture incorrectly. Certainly the Bible was not written as a science textbook, not even the Genesis stories. So, to try to say that Adam and Eve existed 5,000 years ago-- that is to try to pin down a date at all-- is missing the point of Scripture. However, to try to write off the story of Adam and Eve in the garden as simply myth, or fiction, or didactic writing, sucks God's life and breath out of it.

Any time we approach the Bible, it is necessary to approach it with a sense of awe and wonder, knowing that the God whom it describes is infinitely more complex than we could ever imagine, much less comprehend.

The danger in saying that Adam and Eve is fictional, however, is that then we as humans get to start picking and choosing what is fictional and what is not. We no longer approach Scripture as if we have something to learn about an infinite God, but we come as if we already know all, including how the earth works on account of our "historical, archaeological, and paleoanthropological evidence" and are really just learning about morality.

It's a fine line to walk, and that isn't easy. It must be attempted.

Cesar, what theological background do you have to back up your statements? Your post seems nothing more than the post-modernist opposition to the meta-narrative of original sin and the fallen nature of humans, thus the need for a Savior. You can slice and dice the Bible however you want, but in the end it is the inspired word of God, useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. At some point, we must take the Word seriously, and with humility, and not change it based on the times or our feelings.

Thank you, thank you for your insightful article. People have used the Bible to justify slavery, racial segregation, the suppression of women, and the abuse of Gay people. The Bible wasn't written for these reasons.

IIRC (though I am not a Catholic), the Catholic teaching on Adam and Eve is that they were two distinct individuals, who had human souls that were created to inhabit their bodies which may well have evolved a la natural selection. That way, they really were the first two true humans, as opposed to creatures with humanoid bodies.

That being said, yes it is *very* important that the bible be read in context. I applaud you for spelling out the kinds of context that exist. One thing to remember though is that there is a difference between what's mandatory, permitted, and forbidden. (FWIW, Islamic scholars tend to categorize acts into these three categories). Stuff that falls into the "permitted" category may well not be good things, but merely permitted because our hearts are hard (take divorce, OT/NT era slavery for instance). So the defenders of slavery in the 19th century got it wrong when they didn't realize that they were defending a bad practice that probably wasn't abolished by scripture, perhaps due to the hardness of human hearts. (Although I am curious as to why God acted the way he did, rather than boldly having the scriptures demand the freeing of the slaves.)

As for subjugating women, racism, and abuse of homosexuals, well the Bible does not say anywhere that women are to be subjugated. Even the hard-core complementarians will agree that woman plays a very important role in creation, a role that is not inferior. Nor can the Bible be reasonably read to be racist. Ruth was a non-Israelite who is celebrated. When coming to race, it's only with bizzare readings that one can get a racist reading, such as claiming (w/o proof) that blacks have the mark of Cain, etc. etc. The Bible seldom goes into detail on human appearances at all. Male homosexual acts are condemned, along with a bunch of other acts like drunkenness, but it does not say homosexuals are to be abused.

Here are all of the forms of Biblical marriage. If the Bible were taken literally in whole, all of the following would be perfectly OK:

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/04/29/the-var...

1. Polygynous Marriage
Probably the most common form of marriage in the bible, it is where a man has more than one wife.

2. Levirate Marriage
When a woman was widowed without a son, it became the responsibility of the brother-in-law or a close male relative to take her in and impregnate her. If the resulting child was a son, he would be considered the heir of her late husband. See Ruth, and the story of Onan (Gen. 38:6-10).

3. A man, a woman and her property - a female slave
The famous "handmaiden" sketch, as preformed by Abraham (Gen. 16:1-6) and Jacob (Gen. 30:4-5).

4. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines
The definition of a concubine varies from culture to culture, but they tended to be live-in mistresses. Concubines were tied to their "husband," but had a lower status than a wife. Their children were not usually heirs, so they were safe outlets for sex without risking the line of succession. To see how badly a concubine could be treated, see the famous story of the Levite and his concubine (Judges 19:1-30).

5. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war
Women could be taken as booty from a successful campaign and forced to become wives or concubines. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes the process.

6. A male rapist and his victim
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes how an unmarried woman who had been raped must marry her attacker.

7. A male and female slave
A female slave could be married to a male slave without consent, presumably to produce more slaves.

and of course

Brother César:

I notice that in your beginning statements, you referenced certian groups, institutions and individuals as the basis for your article. Some observations:

1. What was the motive behind the actions of the individuals and institutions? Where these individuals and institutions disciples of Christ? (One usually can tell by the fruit produced and if it be of Christ)

2. As I recall, the Bible does not speak too highly of Scholars in academic settings. Peter and John where unlearnt men and Jesus warned His disciples to be ware of the Scholarly types.

My young brother, you have based your entire arguments upon the actions of men. No where is there mention of the Holy Spirit leading and guiding one into all truths. His Word is truth. No where in God's Word is there a timeline.

Why does the written account of Adam and Eve sound so far fetched to you? When you perform CPR, are you not performing in the image of God? When you are buried, are you not placed back from whence you came? Why would Adam and Eve account be so difficult to understand? If an individual partakes in illegal drugs and injects a foreign substance into their body, does it not infect them? Was/is sin an infection of the spiritual body, which was the orginial state of man?

Remember, my young brother: Wide is the road that leads to destruction and many are on that road but narrow is the road that leads to eternal life and few will find it! Do not allow that actions of those walking upon the wide road to bling you, so that you have eyes, but cannot see the narrow road.

Thank you very much for bringing up the various not-so-savory parts of the OT. Something to keep in mind when studying the OT is that much of it was directed toward ONLY the Israelites, who had a theocracy. The theocracy was very harsh, dare I say toward all sorts of behavior. All sorts of things were permitted or even commanded that we wouldn't seriously think of today.
Now, God had to keep the Israelites upright and pure, set apart from everyone else, for the ultimate redeeming work of Jesus to take place. The polygamy that took place was described, but was never condoned. Same goes for the concubines. In fact, the OT is full of examples of Kings (like Solomon) getting into trouble with his 700 wives and concubines; it should give us pause. Adam was married to Eve and only Eve in the Garden of Eden before the fall. Further "enhancements" are unlikely to improve things.
Today, how much of those practices should we actually legislate into human law? Probably not much. One, we're not ancient Israel. Two, Jesus had fulfilled the law. Three, it's by no means obvious (in fact I will argue it's wrong and I hope others will agree) that we should make our civil government a theocracy based on OT or NT rules. After all, Jesus did mention that his kingdom was not of this world. HE certainly did not try to establish a theocracy on Earth when he was here, why should we? So civil government can be guided to simply set up a lowest-common denominator that people, Christian or not, can agree with for the most part.

Cesar, what theological background do you have to back up your statements? Your post seems nothing more than the post-modernist opposition to the meta-narrative of original sin and the fallen nature of humans, thus the need for a Savior. You can slice and dice the Bible however you want, but in the end it is the inspired word of God, useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. At some point, we must take the Word seriously, and with humility, and not change it based on the times or our feelings.

Nor does the Catholic church teach that homosexuals are to be abused.... that is just a straw man arguement to say that people have abused homosexuals so the teaching regarding homosexual acts, that they are sinful, is bad. It is a logical fallacy to connect the two in this case.

I agree that not every word in the Bible must be taken literally, but it all must be taken seriously. We should take literally things that are written as an eyewitness accounts, such as the Exodus and the Gospels. Other parts, such as the first few chapters of Genesis and the book of Job don't necessarily need to be taken as literal history. That being said, Jesus and Paul talked of Adam as if he were a real historical figure and I don't think it was the Son of God's cultural conditioning that led him to believe that. I believe Adam and Eve were real people but whether their story happened exactly as it's laid out in Genesis, I'm not so sure. You guys should look up a book called Genesis Unbound that claims that the first few chapters of Genesis can be taken literally and that they don't contradict what science is telling us about the age of the earth and the development of life on the planet. It's arguing that what mainstream science is telling us and the story of Adam and Eve can exist in harmony. It's not arguing for a young earth or against evolution.

IIRC (though I am not a Catholic), the Catholic teaching on Adam and Eve is that they were two distinct individuals, who had human souls that were created to inhabit their bodies which may well have evolved a la natural selection. That way, they really were the first two true humans, as opposed to creatures with humanoid bodies.

That being said, yes it is *very* important that the bible be read in context. I applaud you for spelling out the kinds of context that exist. One thing to remember though is that there is a difference between what's mandatory, permitted, and forbidden. (FWIW, Islamic scholars tend to categorize acts into these three categories). Stuff that falls into the "permitted" category may well not be good things, but merely permitted because our hearts are hard (take divorce, OT/NT era slavery for instance). So the defenders of slavery in the 19th century got it wrong when they didn't realize that they were defending a bad practice that probably wasn't abolished by scripture, perhaps due to the hardness of human hearts. (Although I am curious as to why God acted the way he did, rather than boldly having the scriptures demand the freeing of the slaves.)

As for subjugating women, racism, and abuse of homosexuals, well the Bible does not say anywhere that women are to be subjugated. Even the hard-core complementarians will agree that woman plays a very important role in creation, a role that is not inferior. Nor can the Bible be reasonably read to be racist. Ruth was a non-Israelite who is celebrated. When coming to race, it's only with bizzare readings that one can get a racist reading, such as claiming (w/o proof) that blacks have the mark of Cain, etc. etc. The Bible seldom goes into detail on human appearances at all. Male homosexual acts are condemned, along with a bunch of other acts like drunkenness, but it does not say homosexuals are to be abused.

If he is trustworthy due to a "credible theological background" than you have to jump on board with others who went to the same school and have differing views.

One's education does not make them right or wrong. In Acts 4:13 it says that Peter and John were "unschooled and ordinary men" - should we negate their lives on this truth?

I would also like to ask the author; you have decided that Adam and Eve are fictional because of "historical, archaeological, and paleoanthropological evidence"...When Jesus turned water into wine, was it minutes old or did it seem years old? If God were to create a tree, would it have rings in it that claim its age when the reality is that it is new? What I am trying to say is that you have stepped into dangerous ground - and you seem to do so boldly, as though there is no credible opposition - by limiting God to working only within the confines of time, modern science, and human wisdom (things he created).

I agree with 1Grace's post after this - "Cesar is accountable to God for what he teaches , and having that said is enough."

Brother César:

I notice that in your beginning statements, you referenced certian groups, institutions and individuals as the basis for your article. Some observations:

1. What was the motive behind the actions of the individuals and institutions? Where these individuals and institutions disciples of Christ? (One usually can tell by the fruit produced and if it be of Christ)

2. As I recall, the Bible does not speak too highly of Scholars in academic settings. Peter and John where unlearnt men and Jesus warned His disciples to be ware of the Scholarly types.

My young brother, you have based your entire arguments upon the actions of men. No where is there mention of the Holy Spirit leading and guiding one into all truths. His Word is truth. No where in God's Word is there a timeline.

Why does the written account of Adam and Eve sound so far fetched to you? When you perform CPR, are you not performing in the image of God? When you are buried, are you not placed back from whence you came? Why would Adam and Eve account be so difficult to understand? If an individual partakes in illegal drugs and injects a foreign substance into their body, does it not infect them? Was/is sin an infection of the spiritual body, which was the orginial state of man?

Remember, my young brother: Wide is the road that leads to destruction and many are on that road but narrow is the road that leads to eternal life and few will find it! Do not allow that actions of those walking upon the wide road to bling you, so that you have eyes, but cannot see the narrow road.

Thank you very much for bringing up the various not-so-savory parts of the OT. Something to keep in mind when studying the OT is that much of it was directed toward ONLY the Israelites, who had a theocracy. The theocracy was very harsh, dare I say toward all sorts of behavior. All sorts of things were permitted or even commanded that we wouldn't seriously think of today.
Now, God had to keep the Israelites upright and pure, set apart from everyone else, for the ultimate redeeming work of Jesus to take place. The polygamy that took place was described, but was never condoned. Same goes for the concubines. In fact, the OT is full of examples of Kings (like Solomon) getting into trouble with his 700 wives and concubines; it should give us pause. Adam was married to Eve and only Eve in the Garden of Eden before the fall. Further "enhancements" are unlikely to improve things.
Today, how much of those practices should we actually legislate into human law? Probably not much. One, we're not ancient Israel. Two, Jesus had fulfilled the law. Three, it's by no means obvious (in fact I will argue it's wrong and I hope others will agree) that we should make our civil government a theocracy based on OT or NT rules. After all, Jesus did mention that his kingdom was not of this world. HE certainly did not try to establish a theocracy on Earth when he was here, why should we? So civil government can be guided to simply set up a lowest-common denominator that people, Christian or not, can agree with for the most part.

Nor does the Catholic church teach that homosexuals are to be abused.... that is just a straw man arguement to say that people have abused homosexuals so the teaching regarding homosexual acts, that they are sinful, is bad. It is a logical fallacy to connect the two in this case.