Is the Bible Literally True?
6/6/24
There's an odd bit of teaching that's been going around now for somewhere around 100-150 years. I guess maybe it's going to stay for a while. Usually it's phrased something like this. "Real Christians believe the Bible is literally true." Notice this can be taken several ways. Apparently there might be some "not-real Christians." The argument has something to do with the way we understand the Bible. Pairing "true" with "literally" is important, too. And the statement can be used either to identify consensus or to complain about someone who believes something outlandish.
Let's try to understand the overall situation by discussing the different parts of the statement. First off, "real Christians." This implies that there are some people who appear to be Christian, or sort of Christian, but who are not. How are we going to define "Christian"? Let's take a rather broad definition which ought to capture the vast majority of Christians. A Christian believes that God in Christ saves all who believe he is the messiah who has paid for their sins through his death and has proven his work through his resurrection. Almost all Christians would find themselves in agreement with the description of the triune God as made in the historic creeds of the Church. There are some people who may seem to be Christians due to their participation in a culture that shows many attributes of Christianity but who don't actually believe in Christ. Most would have a hard time identifying those people as Christians.
Fair enough. Someone will argue about the finer points of that description, but in general we get the idea that a Christian believes Christ is the savior. Someone who doesn't believe that is not a Christian.
They believe. Lots of people have trouble with the careless way we talk about believing. Sometimes it's considered subjective. Yet orthodox Christian theology says that belief is a very specific thing. It's got an object, and that object needs to be something stable enough to sustain belief. It is more based on evidence and a reasoned decision than based on a feeling. When people apply this statement, "Real Christians believe the Bible is literally true" those who are in favor of the Bible take belief to be a reasoned decision. Those who are not in favor of the Bible take belief to be some sort of emotional feeling which isn't backed up by any facts. It's perfectly fair to ask someone what he means by "believe." It may be necessary in order to understand what is being said.
The belief in that statement has to do with the Bible. Though there's some debate in some circles about whether or not a number of apocryphal books are to be included in the Bible, and there are some who hold very strong opinions about whether certain translations of the Bible should be accepted or not, the essential element in this statement is that we know there are certain writings which have normally been considered by Christians to be authoritative. We'll be all right with this.
Now we get to the tough part. "...is literally true." Is the Bible literally true? Well, some of it is. When we read that there's a city called Jerusalem and it is at a relatively high altitude compared to another city called Jericho, that's a literal statement. And you can go there and see the two places for yourself. When the Bible speaks of the way someone might be buried in a cave or a tomb cut out of a rock, likewise, we can look at the evidence and see that people have quite literally been buried that way. When the Bible describes someone called Peter catching a fish, there have certainly been many people called Peter who catch fish. Boats are boats. Rivers are rivers. Lakes are lakes. Buildings have roofs. All this is completely literal speech. Frankly, nobody in his right mind will deny that at least many things recorded in the Bible are literally true.
What is being asked when we speak about literal statements? Numerous people in the Bible are recorded as telling stories using highly symbolic language. Jesus is the most obvious candidate, but we find other people doing this. Nathan the prophet tells King David a story about a man and a pet lamb. It is a story which turns out to be symbolic of the king's recent sin. It isn't a literal man and pet lamb. Jesus tells about a guy who built a tower in a vineyard. He may be thinking of any number of literal people who have towers in vineyards. But the story itself is not intended to be literal or to be a description of architecture. In this way, nobody in his right mind will hold to the Bible being entirely literal.
What's probably being asked in this question is whether the things described as truth in the Bible but which make us uncomfortable are true. Is God the person he is described as in the Bible? How about Jesus? Is he a real person? Is he just an amplified human turned into a hero myth? Or was he who he is presented to be in the New Testament?
I believe the Bible is true. God is God. He is one God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He created and sustains the world in all ways. Humans are what the Bible describes. We have fallen into disobedience to God. We cannot redeem ourselves. We need to be rescued from this condition. As the Bible describes it, Jesus accomplished this rescue by taking on true humanity on our behalf, living a perfect life, and dying to take our sin upon himself and put it to death. I can't explain all of this. I can simply describe it. It is most certainly true, literally true.
What about Jesus squeezing a camel through the eye of a needle, or a Pharisee straining a gnat out of a drink but swallowing a camel instead? Those statements are intended to exaggerate the realities of life. They aren't literally true, though if they were put into practice, the camel, the needle, and the Pharisee would all be rendered completely useless. Likewise, you will never hit a baseball so hard it goes to the moon. That's not literal. But it is vivid!
Let's understand the Bible the way normal humans will understand it.
6/6/24
There's an odd bit of teaching that's been going around now for somewhere around 100-150 years. I guess maybe it's going to stay for a while. Usually it's phrased something like this. "Real Christians believe the Bible is literally true." Notice this can be taken several ways. Apparently there might be some "not-real Christians." The argument has something to do with the way we understand the Bible. Pairing "true" with "literally" is important, too. And the statement can be used either to identify consensus or to complain about someone who believes something outlandish.
Let's try to understand the overall situation by discussing the different parts of the statement. First off, "real Christians." This implies that there are some people who appear to be Christian, or sort of Christian, but who are not. How are we going to define "Christian"? Let's take a rather broad definition which ought to capture the vast majority of Christians. A Christian believes that God in Christ saves all who believe he is the messiah who has paid for their sins through his death and has proven his work through his resurrection. Almost all Christians would find themselves in agreement with the description of the triune God as made in the historic creeds of the Church. There are some people who may seem to be Christians due to their participation in a culture that shows many attributes of Christianity but who don't actually believe in Christ. Most would have a hard time identifying those people as Christians.
Fair enough. Someone will argue about the finer points of that description, but in general we get the idea that a Christian believes Christ is the savior. Someone who doesn't believe that is not a Christian.
They believe. Lots of people have trouble with the careless way we talk about believing. Sometimes it's considered subjective. Yet orthodox Christian theology says that belief is a very specific thing. It's got an object, and that object needs to be something stable enough to sustain belief. It is more based on evidence and a reasoned decision than based on a feeling. When people apply this statement, "Real Christians believe the Bible is literally true" those who are in favor of the Bible take belief to be a reasoned decision. Those who are not in favor of the Bible take belief to be some sort of emotional feeling which isn't backed up by any facts. It's perfectly fair to ask someone what he means by "believe." It may be necessary in order to understand what is being said.
The belief in that statement has to do with the Bible. Though there's some debate in some circles about whether or not a number of apocryphal books are to be included in the Bible, and there are some who hold very strong opinions about whether certain translations of the Bible should be accepted or not, the essential element in this statement is that we know there are certain writings which have normally been considered by Christians to be authoritative. We'll be all right with this.
Now we get to the tough part. "...is literally true." Is the Bible literally true? Well, some of it is. When we read that there's a city called Jerusalem and it is at a relatively high altitude compared to another city called Jericho, that's a literal statement. And you can go there and see the two places for yourself. When the Bible speaks of the way someone might be buried in a cave or a tomb cut out of a rock, likewise, we can look at the evidence and see that people have quite literally been buried that way. When the Bible describes someone called Peter catching a fish, there have certainly been many people called Peter who catch fish. Boats are boats. Rivers are rivers. Lakes are lakes. Buildings have roofs. All this is completely literal speech. Frankly, nobody in his right mind will deny that at least many things recorded in the Bible are literally true.
What is being asked when we speak about literal statements? Numerous people in the Bible are recorded as telling stories using highly symbolic language. Jesus is the most obvious candidate, but we find other people doing this. Nathan the prophet tells King David a story about a man and a pet lamb. It is a story which turns out to be symbolic of the king's recent sin. It isn't a literal man and pet lamb. Jesus tells about a guy who built a tower in a vineyard. He may be thinking of any number of literal people who have towers in vineyards. But the story itself is not intended to be literal or to be a description of architecture. In this way, nobody in his right mind will hold to the Bible being entirely literal.
What's probably being asked in this question is whether the things described as truth in the Bible but which make us uncomfortable are true. Is God the person he is described as in the Bible? How about Jesus? Is he a real person? Is he just an amplified human turned into a hero myth? Or was he who he is presented to be in the New Testament?
I believe the Bible is true. God is God. He is one God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He created and sustains the world in all ways. Humans are what the Bible describes. We have fallen into disobedience to God. We cannot redeem ourselves. We need to be rescued from this condition. As the Bible describes it, Jesus accomplished this rescue by taking on true humanity on our behalf, living a perfect life, and dying to take our sin upon himself and put it to death. I can't explain all of this. I can simply describe it. It is most certainly true, literally true.
What about Jesus squeezing a camel through the eye of a needle, or a Pharisee straining a gnat out of a drink but swallowing a camel instead? Those statements are intended to exaggerate the realities of life. They aren't literally true, though if they were put into practice, the camel, the needle, and the Pharisee would all be rendered completely useless. Likewise, you will never hit a baseball so hard it goes to the moon. That's not literal. But it is vivid!
Let's understand the Bible the way normal humans will understand it.
RSS Feed