ARE WE TO READ THE BIBLE LITERALLY?

It depends on what we mean by "literally." For the sake of clarity, I will use the modern definition of this term: The literal is contrasted with the figurative or poetic use. In this sense, none of us read the entirety of the Bible literally. For example:

·       So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.” (John 10:7)

Is Jesus literally a rectangular wooden door with a handle? Of course, not! Instead, He often taught figuratively. He also instructed His disciples to pluck out their eye and cut off their hands if it causes them to sin. Clearly, no one takes these teachings literally.

Instead, we try to understand the Bible in the way it was intended. I think that Jesus was telling His disciples that:

·       It is better to maim yourself physically than spiritually through a life devoted to sin.

Why this conclusion? If we take His teaching literally, it claims that if we maim ourselves, we can stop sinning. This interpretation is not Biblically or even realistically possible. All maimed people share the same sin problem.

We can resolve many apparent contradictions when we interpret a verse in a more figurative sense. For example, the Bible claims that all have sinned (Romans 3:23). The skeptic, taking the Bible literally, will claim:

·       You see, the Bible contradicts itself. It says "all have sinned," but it also it also claims that Jesus never sinned.

The skeptic can only conclude that this is a contradiction when he interprets the Bible stiffly rather than organically, as a whole. When we interpret with sensitivity, we understand that Jesus is in a category all His own.

This demonstrates that in order to correctly interpret any single verse, we also need to have a correct interpretation of the whole.

Are we making special allowances for the Bible? No! Instead, this is the way we interpret all literature.

WHAT HAS IT MEANT TO INTERPRET THE BIBLE LITERALLY?

For those who understand the Bible literally, it means to attempt to understand the Bible how it had been intended to be understood. This requires the interpreter to be sensitive to the context and genre of the various books and even passages of the books of the Bible.

For instance, the literal interpreter understood Jesus' instructions to pluck out theirs, cut off their hands, or to buy a sword figuratively as hyperbole or exaggeration, and not in a wooden but a literal manner.

Literal interpreters had historically attempted to regain a sense of the intentions of the original writers. The great Reformer and Bible translator William Tyndale (1494–1536) had the same understanding of what it had meant to interpret in the "literal sense":

·       "Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is but the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Nevertheless, the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently." http://creation.mobi/william-lane-craig-vs-creation

This discussion is more than a mere quibbling about words and their definitions. How so? The Bible critics who want to construe the Bible in a progressive way seek to demean the literalists by redefining "literal" to refer to Bible traditionalists who are out-of-touch with the literature of the Bible, making them seem ignorant, narrow, and uneducated.

Why would the Bible progressives malign us in this manner? Simply this - to make their own progressive interpretations more palatable!