A Literal Bible?

"Do you take the Bible literally?" It's a common question among detractors, Christian and non-Christian alike. There is no real question intended, generally. It is asked with incredulity. It is assumed that no sane person could ever take the Bible literally. "You're not going to claim that you do, are you? That would be intellectual suicide!" That's what is generally suggested in the simple question.

To be fair, there is a problem "taking the Bible literally" if you don't define what you mean. You see, "literally" means something different to various people who use the term. Some suggest that if you are a true believer, you must take the Bible in a "word-for-word" fashion. That's what they mean by "literally". So if the Bible says, "The whole city was gathered together at the door" (Mark 1:33), it actually means every single man, woman, and child stood at the door. You question that???!!! Well, obviously you don't take a literal view of the Bible! (Infidel!) The truth is that taking the Bible in that fashion is nonsensical. The "whole city" concept is an obvious one, but they only get funnier from there. Jesus is a vine and a door. I'm expecting, when we get to heaven, to find that He has hinges and doorknob because, after all, He did say, "I am the door." And, hopefully, at once you begin to see how problematic this approach would be.

However, having discarded a "word-for-word" fashion, I still take the Bible literally. What is meant by most thinking Christians when they say, "I take the Bible literally"? Generally it is intended to convey the idea of "true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual, being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy." It is more accurately expressed in the term "as written" than "literally" or "word-for-word". The concept is that we take it to be true as written.

What is the difference between "as written" and "word-for-word"? When we take it as written, we take into account the writer's intent. A historic narrative is intended to give us a narrative of historical events. (Yeah, talk about obvious.) It is not intended to give us myth, metaphor, or parables. A parable, on the other hand, is intended to be a story (not a real event) that portrays an underlying principle or idea. We don't assume that the narrative never happened nor do we assume that the parable ever happened. Taking into account "as written", we include such things as poetry and the nuances allowed that genre that don't go with other forms of writing. We include metaphor, simile, and things like anthropomorphisms. In case you're not clear, an anthropomorphism is when we assign human characteristics to a non-human thing. So when Isaiah writes, "You shall go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands" (Isa. 55:12), we don't actually think that the inanimate objects will become animated. It is an anthropomorphism. We also allow for what is called "phenomenological language". In this approach, a writer explains something in the way that it appears, not necessarily in the way that it is. We use this concept routinely in our language. The weather man will report times for "sunrise" and "sunset". What ... is he stupid? Doesn't he know that the sun doesn't rise or set? Everyone knows that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Idiot! Of course, we understand that this is just a description of how it appears. So when we read that the four angels were standing at the "four corners of the Earth", there is no reason to get up in arms over "See? The Bible teaches a flat Earth!"

When we take the Bible "literally", we mean that we take it "as written". Let metaphor be metaphor, poetry be poetry, narrative be narrative, and so on. We don't take a narrative and assume it to be a mythical parable. We don't assume that all poetic language should be taken at pure face value. We learn to distinguish between passages intended to convey doctrine and passages intended to convey wisdom because these are different styles and intentions. When hyperbole occurs, we assume it to be hyperbole without needing to be defensive. "Okay, so the whole city didn't actually turn out to see Jesus. What's your point?" When we take the Bible as written, just as you would take any written material, many of these so-called problems go away. So, in answer to the question, yes, I take the Bible literally. I don't find it an intellectual dilemma because I understand "literally" to mean "exactly as written". My return question to any Christian would be "And why would you not take it as it is written?"