Biblical Literalists Can't Have It Both Ways

This piece addresses Christians, therefore it presupposes God.

A common belief among modern fundamentalist Christians living in the United States is that of Biblical inerrancy, the idea that there can be no errors in the Bible. This is a strange position, since the Bible was written and composed by humans, with their own fallibility, and no prophecy or testimony exists which supports the idea that a particular collection of books should enjoy such special stature. Beginning from the idea that Bible cannot be in error, a certain psychological perspective emerges in which the Bible is taken literally, instead of the far more viable view that parts of the Bible represent allegories, metaphors and parable. In almost all cases, Biblical literalism seems to result from an ignorance of either the history of the Bible, or of the content of the Bible itself. 

Although I support people’s freedom to choose their own beliefs, this does not exclude the possibility of criticism. In particular, Biblical literalism has become so confused as to what it represents that it can no longer be seriously considered a consistent belief system. I call upon those who believe in Biblical inerrancy to either adopt a position consistent with their own beliefs, or to abandon Biblical literalism and thus join the billions of Christians who understand the Bible as inspired by God, but not to be understood literally. 

One of the most apparent flaws in a literal interpretation of the Bible comes from taking the Book of Revelation (also known as the Apocalypse of John) as a literal description of the end of days. This idea is not necessarily problematic, except many such believers seem to also believe that the end of days is now. These two propositions are necessarily disjunct!

Consider this: if the Book of Revelation is to be taken literally, then there is no ambiguity as to how to interpret its events. For instance, in Revelation 8:7 it says “The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.” This clearly states a rain of hail, fire and blood will occur, and that one third of all trees will be destroyed in flame. Has this happened? No. The rest of this chapter contains equally explicit descriptions of disasters, none of which are happening today. 

Consequently, Biblical literalists must bear this vital point in mind: until you see the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse described in Revelation, chapter 6; until you experience the disasters described in the later chapters first hand, until you see with your own eyes the seven-headed red dragon cast down from heaven in chapter 12, you have no basis for concluding that “the end of the world is nigh”.

Of course, one can subscribe to Biblical inerrancy and not take the book of Revelation literally – opening the door for it to be read in the manner of, say, Nostradamus, with the content being interpreted figuratively or metaphorically. For example, Irvin Baxter Jr. takes the fact that Chernobyl is Ukrainian for “wormwood” as the fulfilment of Revelation 8:10-11, which tells of a star named wormwood that falls upon the Earth, causing many to die because a third of the waters become bitter.

But if one opens the door to such interpretations, one has ceased to take the Bible literally (a positive step!) If the Book of Revelation does not need to be taken literally, then why should Genesis be taken literally? Abandoning the commitment to literalism allows for a vast variety of interpretations, and once this step has been taken one is no longer in a position to say that such-and-such a part of the Bible must be taken literally. If the opposition to evolution by those who believe in Biblical inerrancy is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, then taking Revelation figuratively opens the door to the not-so-challenging idea that evolution and the Bible need not be incompatible – that evolution was part of God’s plan for bringing life to our planet. 

A historical analysis of the Book of Revelation does not support the idea that the events it describes are occurring now. In fact, there are strong reasons to suppose that the preterist view of this book (the most common view except for Christian denominations founded in America after the 16^th century) is valid. In particular, Greek and Hebrew gematria (a type of numerology practiced by Jewish and early Christian mystics) renders the name of Emperor Nero to the number 666, suggesting that he was the “Antichrist” mentioned. Additional support for this idea comes from certain early manuscripts of the Book of Revelation placing this number at 616 – the value derived from rendering Nero’s name in Hebrew. This being so, many of the prophecies contained in this book were resolved in 70 AD.

This is the Catholic view on this matter; that all that remains to be fulfilled is the second coming of Christ, while the Eastern Orthodox Church do not read this book of the Bible publicly at all, and chastise those who would presume to know when the end times will be, since they will come at a time of God’s choosing. 

If one wishes to accept the Biblical idea that the world will end in fire and destruction, I would suggest there is no stronger interpretation than the idea that this will happen as the sun reaches the end of its solar life cycle. In which case, we have some five billion years remaining before the sun becomes a red giant, boiling away the Earth’s oceans and rendering it uninhabitable. This interpretation is consistent with both the Bible and scientific investigation, and suggests a serious re-evaluation of Christian behaviour: if God intends that we inhabit this planet for a few more billion years, shouldn’t Christians take seriously their God-given obligation to take care of it until then?

There is another reason for Biblical literalists to reconsider their beliefs, and that is based solely upon sound reflection on the Bible. One of the central tenets of all the Abrahamic faiths is to avoid idolatry – that for a believer, God must be above all else. Treating the Bible literally renders the words and sentences of the Bible as more important than the content of the teachings of Jesus, the commandments given to Moses by God, and the teachings of the Prophets. These teachings do not focus on wishing for the end of days, but upon loving one’s neighbour and striving to be a good person. To ignore these teachings in favour of esoteric readings of scripture is to elevate the stature of the Bible too greatly. This is a kind of idolatry – a book is treated as higher than God.

If Biblical literalists can cast aside their arrogance in believing that they alone have the true interpretation of the Bible, admit to God their vanity, and enter into a spirit of fellowship and discussion with other Christians who hold diverse yet equally sacred views, perhaps Christianity can be saved from an idolatry which poisons the very message of Jesus – a message that should and must be central to the beliefs and behaviour of all honest Christians.

Comments

[Trevel]

I got a letter the other day from a friend of mine, which included a poem and an account of her day. I interpreted the account of her day literally -- she literally went to the store to get some groceries -- and I interpreted the poem symbolically.

I don't understand why various people -- including yourself, it would seem! -- have difficulty with believing that a book can contain parts meant to be interpreted literally and parts meant to be interpreted symbolically, especially when the book is composed of separate books written centuries apart. -- and, in fact, I've never met a bible literalist so literal that they don't take the parts of the bible that are obviously symbolic as such. The problem resides in the parts that are NOT obviously symbolic -- or exactly how symbolic to treat the parts that are. (And, of course, it does not help that the bible seems to indicate that some of the prophesies have had multiple fulfillments before, and will again...)

Granted, biblical literalists tend to overstate themselves -- they believe that they believe that every word in the bible is literally true, but don't necessarily believe that every word is literally true, just the parts that are meant to be -- as a simple example, if the bible says "Joe said that the dog ate the wolf" then believing this is literally true means believing that Joe said that, not believing that a dog ate a wolf -- that could be literal or symbolic depending on the context, regardless of whether the text is literal.

The trouble with Genesis is that it's in a part of the bible that tends to indicate history: genealogies, tales of what took place before, legal codes -- whereas Revelation is obviously rife with symbolism. (And, of course, to take it "literally" is to believe that John had the series of dreams in which the events listed occurred.) Hardly something that can be fairly claimed equivalent.

My opinion on your conclusions notwithstanding, I don't see much merit in the argument you have put forth to reach them. Care to try again?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Chris, your problem is that you take Biblical literalists literally when they say that they take the Bible literally.

;-)

Like nearly all problems, fundamentalist literalism started out as a solution. Liberal theology had this really nifty way of throwing out stuff they found uncomfortable with the Bible. They take it "figurativly". Thus, when the gospels talk of Jesus rising from the dead on the thrid day from his crucifixion, but this sort of miraculous event is deemed to be embarrassing, they conclude that it should be interpreted in a "spiritual" sense, about how the disciples felt in their hearts that Jesus wasn't a failure and so it was sort of as if he had been raised. All very convenient. The trouble is, that's not at all what the gospel writers were intending to say, but these theologians pulled up all sorts of interesting convoluted arguments to say that the entire history of Christianity had been wrong in their interpretation - it was all just a metaphor.

The fundamentalists argue that, if the liberals want to deny the resurrection, they ought to just come out and do it. The Bible says Jesus rose from the dead - it makes a pretty big deal about that event. If you disagree, fine. But to say that actually its all metaphor, so that you can continue to claim some sort of allegiance to the Bible is disingenuous to say the least.

So, the fundamentalists responded by saying "enough of this bullshit - take the Bible at its word. Give an inch, and they'll take a mile." OK, so they never would say "shit"... ;-)

But, in their admirable defense of the Bible against liberal theological hand waving, they've bit off more than they could chew, and come to some rather absurd positions. Don't get me started on this idea of inerrant autographs - where our faith is grounded in an inerrant Bible that nobody has ever seen or has access to.

[Chris]

Trevel: I accept your criticism here. I don't expect this to be an argument to reach such people - really, I was just blowing off steam. :)

An interview posted somewhere with someone coming out of An Inconvenient Truth lambasted the film for not showing that the end of the world would be in fire and brimstone like it says in the Bible. Now I blame the media for this in its relentless desire to dig up entertaining crackpots and suppress moderate opinions (on the grounds that they are not commercial), but still - there are lot of Christians in the US whose understanding of their own religion is severely limited.

I don't believe we need to reach such people, though. The generation boundaries are the locus of change; it's more about educating for the future than changing the present. This would be a lot easier if religion could be taught in schools in the US... I don't see this as a violation of Church and State. In the UK, mandatory religious eduction seems to have produced no major issue - and of course, I'm talking about educating people about *all* major belief systems, not just one of them.

I don't have a problem with parts of the Bible being interpreted literally and parts being interpreted metaphorically - this is a given as far as I'm concerned for any religious document. I do have a problem with people treating the Bible as an idol. I believe this is a dangerous and indeed unchristian attitude.

WfO: I agree with your assessment here: liberal theology has forced Biblical loyalists into a corner where they have become entrenched. The attacks by the New Atheists continue to push them further into the same corner - it just isn't going to help matters.

I'll have more on this in a far more substantial form when I dig into Nietzsche's "God is Dead" but finding the time for this is proving tricky. I'll get there, though...

---

Thank you both for the comments!

[Marcus Riedner]

I just finished reading the snide and vitriolic 'God Is Not Great: how religion poisons everything' about a week ago. At least you present your arguments without childish insults.

I think you are bang on in identifying a problem that has plagues any religion that demands literalism from it's writings.

As someone who is going through a quest to find out what I believe, whether I have faith or not, and in what I have faith in, this is a huge problem for me to overcome. It lacks a certain amount of logic and involves far to much double think for my liking.

As to Nietzsche, he is sitting with one of the other authors I can never manage to read, no matter how hard I try. Damn you Tolkien and Nietzsche!

[Trevel]

I do have a problem with people treating the Bible as an idol.

I believe one of my theology professors talked about this as "The Paper Pope". (And the idea was very nicely handled in a story by Adrian Plass, wherein a character caught himself just before quoting scripture at God to show Him the error of His ways.)

Myself, I tend to be a biblical literalist, inasmuch as I believe that, for example, Ephesians is literally a letter that Paul wrote to the church in Ephesus, and should be read first and foremost as such.

-- I think you've miscast your complaint here, though: the problem is not that this fellow believes that the world will end in fire and brimstone; it very well might. The problem is that this fellow is seemingly upset that not every movie in the world echoes his opinion. That's a very different matter, and has nothing to do with 'biblical literalism'.

[Chris]

Marcus: I can't believe Hitchins attitude to these things. It just can't possibly be helpful, except in terms of his own self-promotion. Shameful.

I've never heard Nietzsche and Tolkien compared before... :D For Tolkien, I suggest skipping the over-long and totally rambling book version of The Lord of the Rings (it all falls apart after Fellowship anyway) and get the BBC radio play instead. For Nietzsche, skip the overwrought and utterly self-indulgent 'Thus Spake Zarathustra' and read the fifth edition of 'The Gay Science' instead, or perhaps 'Twilight of the Idols'.

Or just read what you like. ;)

Good luck with your quest to find out what you believe! It is my contention that this quest is in itself the important part of religion and spirituality, wherever it takes you.

Trevel: "Paper Pope" - I love it! :) And you're spot on with your observation here... We're free to believe whatever we like - but we have no right to insist that everything must reflect that opinion.

Once again, I ask that this piece be read as me blowing off steam, and as little more.

I don't mean to pick on the Biblical literalists - I mean them no ill will, and often defend their freedom of belief - and I accept your criticism of the use of the term (clearly the epistles are letters!) but having moved from Manchester, UK to Knoxville, TN has put me into a fascinating world of people with a tremendously powerful loyalty to a religion they sometimes seem to know very little about! :)

Best wishes!

[Trevel]

Ah, the Regurgitationist sect. The world could do with fewer of those -- regardless of what beliefs they're currently failing to digest.

[James Lillis]

Hi Chris

James from Brisbane here. I wrote a big long reply to this post - which I have just deleted.

I have just finished running a seminar on the book of Revelation, so I have quite a few opinions as I'm sure you can imagine!

But permit me to say one thing: if you are really interested in understanding the Apocalypse, I highly recommend the New International Greek Testament Commentary by G.K Beale.

It's large, and it helps if you understand Greek, but it's still understandable.

Other than Beale, I recommend reading (or listening to) D.A. Carson. He has some especially good things to say about gematria.

... and I'm still going to keep asking you about games and work! I'm still working on that one.

I've got a few ideas up on my blog, if you get a chance to peruse them Iet me know what you think.

http://kryptonitecafe.typepad.com/

Cheers,

James

[Matt Mower]

In a nutsehll, what's the problem with Hitchen's? I have not read the book but have seen some of the commentary around it only.

[Chris]

James: Don't worry, I haven't forgotten you who are. ;) I've added your blog to my "Other Curiosities" and subscribed to it in my reader, so expect me to pop up from time to time in your comments. :) Best wishes!

Matt: in a nutshell, Hitchen's problem is redefining religion to be inherently negative, and then harping on about what a bad thing it is! :) Best (and shortest) review I've seen is the FT's which you can read here.

[Kelly Logan]

"I do have a problem with people treating the Bible as an idol."

That brings up an excellent point. Like the American flag, the Christian bible has become an icon. Words from this bible are recited and written without thoughts to their underlying context or meaning. Translating the bible from Latin seems to have not promoted an overall literacy among the Christian populace, but instead moved them further away from context and interpretation to biblical soundbites.

On post's concentration on Revelations, it is worth considering the more intrinsic controversies surrounding Revelations; it's origin hundreds of years after the original New Testament writings, the author who, despite his claim of being one of the original writers, submitted his text in a different language, not to mention the absence of any similar concepts in the original NT writings.

[Chris]

Kelly: I agree with what you say here. Luther may have helped break the oppressive power of the Catholic church, but handing the Bible over to the masses has not been an unqualified success!

And I personally find the inclusion of The Book of Revelation in the Bible to be rather suspect... There were many things not included which I suspect more accurately reflected what Jesus was teaching. If it were up to me, I'd move it into a "new apocrypha" which could include all the other books that were excluded, but of course it's now rather too late for such things...

Best wishes!

[Doug Davis]

One important thing to keep in mind as you try to examine the literal vs. interpreted bible is the basic questions(who, what, when, how, and why).

Who was it written by?
What were they trying to communicate?
When did they live?
How did they present their vision?
Why did they say this?

Applying it to a present day. If I was to travel 200 years in to the future, I feel quite certain that describing the things that I see would be spoken from a reference point of today in 2007. Reading this at a later point in time (200 years in to the future) would sound very strange.

The same thing stands for the bible. John writing in 70 A.D. had a reference point of 70 A.D. How would someone describe a helicopter in 70 A.D.? What words could you come up with to describe that? Having never seen such a thing before? Possibly something like it was "a grasshopper the size of a house descended from the heavens and began destroying men..." Or how would you describe Napalm? It would probably be something along the lines of Rev. 8:7 "“The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.”

I always here those statements that the bible contains fallacy within itself but I rarely here that from someone who has taken the time to read it and examine it in it's entirety from beginning to end.

[Chris]

Doug: I have read the Bible from beginning to end several times. I wouldn't contend that it contains 'fallacy within itself', per se, but I would say that certain interpretations of the Bible lead to fallacy with astonishing alacrity. I support people's freedom of belief to interpret the Bible in whatever way they choose, but I feel it is a great shame that the thrust of Jesus' message gets lost to the minutiae of the Bible text.

The implication in your comment is that you think that Revelation could apply to the modern world... Almost every generation since this dream was recorded seem to have thought similarly. Still, the balance of evidence seems to lie in favour of the interpretation I have given above - that most of the book of Revelation referred to events many centuries ago - this is the stance I'm going to take personally, but everyone is free to believe otherwise, if they so choose.

I don't see what good can possibly come from the belief that we currently live in the end of days. If you have a counter argument, I would be most grateful to hear it.

Thanks for your comment!

[Dave K.]

Inerrant and literal are not the same thing... If fact they are completely different things.

Most Christians don't believe the bible is the written word of man, but rather the written word of God produced via man.

[Chris]

Dave: of course you are correct, but this piece only works by blurring the boundaries between these terms. :) Also, I get the impression that many Christians in the Bible Belt of the US (where I was living when I published this) can't tell the difference between the two, so the distinction becomes tangential anyway.

Most draw-dropping line heard in Tennessee respect of the Bible: "If the King James version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!" :o