Delve Into Jesus : Articles : Is the Bible Infallible? Is it all Literal?

Is the Bible Infallible? Is it all Literal?

Posted by arsindelve on 10/10/2007 12:53:49 PM

Article Options

Print This Article

Article Rating

4.7 out of 5.0 in 3 votes

Please let us know what you thought of this article.

(please log in to vote)

Here is what we can say about the infallibility and literalness of the Bible: "The Bible is completely accurate where it intends to be and to the degree to which it intends to be."

Where the Bible intends to be Accurate, It Is.

Liberal scholars will say that the Bible is accurate and infallible where it discusses a matter of doctrinal importance. These would include the resurrection and Jesus' virgin birth, for example. Most liberal scholars would not say that infallibility extends to historical matters, which would suggest that the Bible could be wrong about who was ruling a territory at a given time, or dates when certain events occurred.

Conservative scholars (of which I am one) would go further and say that infallibility extends to historical matters as well. Regardless of the the topic or subject, where the Bible expresses a fact which is intended to be accurate, that fact is accurate.

Doesn't the Bible Always Intend to Be Accurate?

No, not at all; it would be much less interesting if it did! Part of what makes literature so interesting and exciting are the various expressions the authors employ which tug at our emotions and our imagination. One could say, simply, "she was upset and cried," or one could say, "her tears fell like a torrent". No one expects that she literally was in danger of having her bed float away, but the implications are clear. This kind of expressive language gives us an emotional connection to the story. It gets our attention.

The Bible uses language like this. Have a look at Psalm 6:6, "I am worn out from my groaning. All night long I flood my bed with weeping and drench my couch with tears."

Jesus himself used many figures of speech. In Matthew 23:34 he tells the Pharisees, "You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

How Do we know what's literal and what's a figure of speech?

It's very difficult! Two very sincere, honest and intelligent people can come up with two different answers depending on their background, their education or their assumptions about the Bible. People have been debating these issues for two thousand years, and there are some issues which will never be resolved.

There have always been fundamentalists who take every single passage in the Bible literally. I sympathize with their motives. If it's difficult to distinguish between what is supposed to be literal and what is not, then surely there is safety in going to the extreme, right? It's a noble thing to attempt, but it can't be done in reality. There is real danger that these fundamentalists end up misunderstanding the intent of the passage.

Let's look at Hebrews 4:12, for example, "For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow;" Any attempt to take this literally will result in a misunderstanding of the meaning. There can be no way to ignore the figurative language and still understand the author's point. Thus, by trying to take the safe road, literalists may be doing themselves more harm than good.

Though it is difficult, we have to face up to the challenge and use our God-given mind to distinguish between literal and figurative passages.

With that in mind, there are several tools we can use to guide us.

1. The Genre of the Book. Books of poetry, such as Psalms and Song of Solomon will be much more likely to contain figures of speech or phrases which are not intended to be taken literally. On the other hand, almost everything in the Book of Acts should be taken literally because by his own admission, Luke has endeavored to create an accurate representation of what really happened.

2. Other passages on the same subject. Ask yourself, "If I take this literally, is it consistent with other passages I've read?" If you have read dozens of passages which explain the point clearly, and a single passage which seems at odds with all the others, perhaps that single passage is not intended to be taken literally.

3. Common sense. Hell is described as being full of darkness, yet eternally on fire. Wouldn't the flames provide some light? Clearly, the images of hell are intended to make the point that it is a terrible place, not to provide details of what it's actually like.

4. Look for the bigger picture. When Jesus tells us in Matthew, "If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away" should we take that literally? No, we need to get to the heart of what Jesus is saying, which is that we must not make excuses for our sin. Whatever causes us to sin, we must aggressively stop the pattern and break free of it.

What do you mean by, "..the degree to which it intends to be"?

It's not always appropriate to use scientifically accurate language on every occasion. We do this naturally all the time without thinking. When asked the time, we will respond "quarter to three" when it's really two forty three, or when asked how much money we have, we may answer "five bucks" when it's really five dollars and seventeen cents. No one is surprised by these inaccurate answers, and no one would accuse us of not telling the truth.

The level accuracy we expect depends on the context, and the Bible is no different. When the bible says that five-thousand people were present, it could have been as few as forty-five hundred or as many as five-thousand five hundred. We should not complain if the Bible rounds up or down, just as any author would do in the same context.

Comments

I am still a little confused about some of the differences between a fundamental and a conservative Christian.

.. "infallibility extends to historical matters as well" ...

Is creation historical? Is it seven days ... seven ages ... a long long long time?

davec

PS It's a good, thought provoking article .. thanks.

davec- 10/10/2007 1:24:10 PM

I'm not too sure about the titles, either. I call myself "conservative" but not "fundamentalist" mostly because the latter has some negative connotations. What's the difference? I couldn't tell you!

I was afraid you would ask about Creation! I guess I'm not getting out of it. Among liberal scholars, the consensus seems to be that there is no way these are literal, 24-hour periods. It's a metaphor for, "period of time."

Among conservatives, it's probably split 50-50. I have had professors on both sides of the debate. I am in the "period of time" camp. I do not not believe that God created the universe in 6 consecutive 24-hour periods. For details on this, please see Mark's excellent article on Evolution. I have added it here as a related article.

I think it matters very little what you believe as long as you believe in these key points 1) God created everything that exists out of nothing. 2) It was good when he created it. 3) It was his design and purpose to create all of it, none of it was a mistake 4) God created man deliberately and as he is today, not from a series of gradual evolutionary steps. Like Mark, I flat out reject evolution. Mark's article is luke-warm towards it, but during time that has passed since he wrote it, he has decided he is no longer certain the theory offers anything of value at all.

arsindelve- 10/10/2007 1:36:57 PM

That's correct. When I wrote the article, I was of the opinion that God probably used evolution as the means to create all the species on earth. I've done tons of reading since then, and I just don't believe any of it anymore. I don't think there is any evidence that one species has ever evolved into another. I may write another article on it soon, but right now we're tying to get permission to reprint some of the excellent work from the Discovery Institute. Better to get it straight from them, since these guys are on the cutting edge of the intelligent design movement.

marklang- 10/10/2007 7:52:04 PM

Let God be God!!!--6 consecutive days?--WHY NOT?- He is God--and that's why we are not--just because we cannot fathom HOW, or explain it so we can understand, does not make it an impossible feat--or give us the right to banter it around and try to come to a conclusion that we understand, or can scientifically disect--God must smile and shake His head in disbelief at how much time we consume to try and understand His ways.

anonymous- 10/17/2007 12:33:41 PM

You've misunderstood the point of the debate. No one is saying that God could not have, had he wished, created the universe in 6 consecutive 24-hour periods. My point is that it is not likely the correct interpretation of the text. I am not placing limits on what God can and cannot do, I am offering an opinion on one interpretation versus another.

As I said in the article, we can pretend that no verse in the Bible requires interpretation, but that is naive. The text was written in another language by another culture thousands of years ago. Once we translate it into English and try to understand it from the context of our time and society, some interpretation is necessary. If we take every passage at face value and try to interpret it literally, word for word, we will very often misunderstand the meaning. Nothing can be understood without context.

Given the context of this passage, in my opinion, it's more likely to mean 6 "periods of time" rather than 6 "24 hour periods".

arsindelve- 10/17/2007 12:48:53 PM

Have something you want to say about this article? Please don't by shy - go ahead and leave a comment! Don't forget that our forum is also open if you want to join or start a discussion.