What does it mean to literally read the Bible? It commonly means to ignore the type of writing (historical narrative vs opinion vs story) and treat everything at face value. Just like Drax the Destroyer. Drax would treat the story of creation, the Psalms, and the Gospels the same. No metaphors, all opinions are fact, no bias, and everything as literal fact.
Most people see the problem with this thinking when put in terms of Drax. It’s much harder to sort out in real life. And here’s why:
We have to decide what to believe about something before we can believe what it says.
Drax has it worked out – take everything at face value. We aren’t so naive (though I love Drax!) and that makes our job difficult. When should I take something at face value? A while back our church read through the book “How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth,” by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. I highly recommend it. But rather than go over its contents, because you should read the book, I’d like to offer some advice.
To all who follow Jesus:
Come to terms with your beliefs about the Bible and recognize that others don’t have to share that view to be faithful followers of Jesus.
To those who read the Bible “literally:”
Take a minute to make sure you haven’t deified the Bible – it is a human record of encountering God, not God Himself. The Bible doesn’t have to be factually correct in order to be inspired, nor does it need to be factually correct for any other purpose. It just needs to be consistent as a historical document (version control). And it has proven to be far more so than any other ancient text.
To everyone:
Take the time to recognize those basic beliefs others have about their beliefs. Speak in a way that honors the right of people to have beliefs, even when you disagree. Recognize that these underlying beliefs are equally valid (different from correct) for all because they are axiomatic – unproveable assumptions.
The Way of Humble Living 
There is no more than a hair’s breadth between Fee&Stuart and the Jesus Seminar. These attempts at human reasoning are unwise.
Throughout the Old Testament, judgment fell on people who didn’t take God’s Word literally. Jesus quoted Scripture as if it were literally true. He affirmed that Scripture cannot be broken. Jerusalem was destroyed, because people didn’t take Scripture literally, thereby failing to recognize the time of their visitation. The religious leaders of Jesus’ time did not recognize Him, because they didn’t connect all the Messianic prophecies literally. New Testament authors quoted Scripture as if it were literally true. Biblical literalism is a prudent approach, and books written by Deity should be deified.
LikeLike
I appreciate the opinion. But you need to address the underlying assumptions first. Neither the authors, you, or I disagree with your assessment of scripture above. The argument you make is a logical fallacy: that no one can hold similar beliefs unless they hold yours.
The underlying assumptions are:
You: literalism – a poem or opinion is just as factually correct as the historical narrative of the prophets.
Me: the Bible is inspired and represents God’s interactions with us. I read the opinions of the human authors as such – I don’t believe that because Paul said Cretans are liars that they all are.
The Jesus Seminar: the Bible is just another ancient religious text, corrupted by zealous followers. There is no Deity of any kind.
Those are big differences.
LikeLike
Thanks for the response. Very helpful in understanding your position.
From a process standpoint, however, your approach is no different from that of the Jesus Seminar. You assess Scripture, and you decide, based on a set of predetermined criteria (underlying assumptions) which Scriptures are valuable, applicable, outdated, ignorable, etc. In essence, every person can make up their own Bible, and all of those Bibles have equal validity. To the contrary, Christians are to be of one accord, since there is only one God, one Word, and one Spirit.
I can’t find anywhere in Scripture where your approach is demonstrated, recommended, or authorized.
My underlying assumption is that all Scripture is God-breathed, and anyone who takes any type of license with it, however well intentioned, is on thin ice, susceptible to the fashionable heresies of their day.
You obviously have not yet arrived at the Jesus Seminar’s final destination, yet I honestly wonder if they began where you are.
LikeLike
Thanks for the response. Very helpful in understanding your position.
From a process standpoint, however, your approach is no different from that of the Jesus Seminar. You assess Scripture, and you decide, based on a set of predetermined criteria (underlying assumptions) which Scriptures are valuable, applicable, outdated, ignorable, etc. In essence, every person can make up their own Bible, and all of those Bibles have equal validity. To the contrary, Christians are to be of one accord, since there is only one God, one Word, and one Spirit.
I can’t find anywhere in Scripture where your approach is demonstrated, recommended, or authorized.
My underlying assumption is that all Scripture is God-breathed, and anyone who takes any type of license with it, however well intentioned, is on thin ice, susceptible to the fashionable heresies of their day.
LikeLike
My assumptions aren’t about what to believe, nor does the book suggest that. Rather it recommends we be aware of the type of writing we are reading. We understand the apocalyptic style of Revelation; no one believes the beast is actually a beast but a person. Same goes when we read Daniel. In the same manner, when we read Proverbs we understand it to be wisdom – the opinion of a God-fearing man. It is not universally true just because it is recorded in Proverbs. The vast majority of the OT is either historical narrative or written testimony (the prophets). There’s no reason to call it into question as being factually incorrect. The Gospels and Acts are historical narrative. The Epistles are letters with a bunch of theology and opinion thrown in – even Paul will admit it.
That’s why I didn’t go over the contents of the book and instead focus on identifying the pitfalls of the different groups of people. The point is to recognize that people are in different groups and one can’t argue a point except by undermining the assumptions behind it.
To your final point, you also (I’m guessing) take license with scripture for the above-mentioned reasons. You don’t read Revelation literally, but understand that the metaphors are meant to be interpreted. I take them to be about future events, but not everyone does. It seems our only differences are in how universally opinions should be treated and how the bits of Genesis that Moses wrote that pre-date him should be read.
LikeLike
Sorry for the duplicate post! It didn’t look like the first one went through.
LikeLike
Two quick follow-ups:
On the topic of the Jesus Seminar, I have done extensive research. The Westar Fellows site says:
“Westar Fellows are critical scholars. Critical scholars make empirical, factual evidence—evidence open to confirmation by independent, neutral observers—the controlling factor in historical judgments, rather than putting dogmatic considerations first and insisting that the factual evidence confirm theological premises. ”
Over the years, I’ve met a great number of opinionated people who have loads of preconceptions, who rely almost exclusively upon dogma, yet who consider themselves to be academic, learned, fact-based, and objective. Or at least they wish to give that impression. Ergo my preference for literalism when it comes to the Word. There is too much at stake.
On the topic of Cretans, Paul did not invent the saying, of course, but rather assented to the saying of a Cretan prophet, which would seem to indicate a societal prevalence. The point?
People of that nature, whether Cretan or not, need to be rebuked sharply. Would you say that is a valid point?
Thanks again for giving me a glimpse of your treatment of Scripture. I do appreciate your time, but if you need to move on to other priorities, of course I understand. Now I know that perhaps I can gain additional insight from others who see value in the “How to Read the Bible…” school of thought. At the moment, that school of thought simply makes me nervous. Praying for you, and perhaps you’ll do the same for me. God bless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Identifying their assumptions about the nature of reality should make it clear what the will believe about the Bible. They speak of factual evidence, but whose facts? I’m a plasma cosmologist. I long since stopped believing the mainstream “facts” because they dogmatically conform to their underlying beliefs. They boldly claim to be neutral; that should scare anyone the minute they read it. We all have assumptions, neutrality is impossible.
As for the Cretans, you’ve just interpreted an expression rather than literally believe Cretans are liars. That feels like we are both saying the same thing but disagreeing on what is opinion vs fact. That is very different from the Jesus Seminar.
LikeLike
Thanks again. Plenty to consider. Further proof that one never knows where a Marvel Comics search will lead.
LikeLike
Forgot to ask:
Is there a Bible commentary or study Bible you favor? Or have you written one? Even a partial? It will be interesting to see which Scriptures — especially New Testament Scriptures — you believe must be obeyed exactly as written.
LikeLike
I have re-read all of the above many times, and have laid my finger upon the crux of the issue for me. When I study Fee&Stuart, as well as your original post and subsequent explanations, there is an image in my mind and a voice in my ear. The image is of one refueling an auto with a lighted pipe in his mouth (unnecessary risk), and the voice is from Genesis 3:1 (“Did God really say…?) So sorry, but I just can’t get past those. If that means my underlying assumptions are too strong, then perhaps a change will come someday. Of course, I believe there is a vast swath of Scripture that favors the validity of my current assumptions.
Whatever it takes to read the Bible in the Fee&Stuart fashion — whether it is intellect, sophistication, “tolerance”, or something else — I don’t have it. Drax and I will remain naive, taking things at face value, refusing to drain the Scriptures of their eternal authority in daily living.
1Cor3: 18Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” a ; 20and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” b 21So then, no more boasting about human leaders!
You: Take a minute to make sure you haven’t deified the Bible – it is a human record of encountering God, not God Himself.
John 1: 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2Peter1: 19We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
1Cor14: 36Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.
I could list dozens of other verses, wherein the Scripture attests to the validity of its own face value, but must I really?
If indeed you must proceed in the Fee&Stuart fashion, please be careful that your analysis assesses the risk of a face value application versus the risk of a potentially erroneous alternative application. Cheers.
LikeLike
I appreciate the words of caution, and can see they are meant well. I will likewise ask for caution, that you don’t err toward legalism and works-based salvation (having to get things correct or else).
For now, we will just have to agree to disagree. Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Blessings, Bobatar. Vaya con Dios.
LikeLike
I misread your earlier caution, thinking you wrote literalism. To be clear, I do not support legalism. I do agree with James, however, that salvation is a molecule, not an element. Remove either oxygen or hydrogen, and one no longer has water. Remove either faith or works (not the works of the Law), and one no longer has salvation. Faith without works is a dead faith, and a dead faith cannot save anyone. “Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by what I do.”
LikeLike
As a very wise man of God once said, “I will read God’s Word (the Bible) as it is written with the Holy Spirit’s guiding and when I get to heaven find there might have been some discrepincies, then not to have believed it and not get to heaven. Man’s wisdom is foolishness to God unless we seek it in His word.
LikeLike
Amen to that
LikeLike