Why the Bible Cannot and Should Not Be Taken Literally

DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2014.43035   PDF   HTML   XML   6,921 Downloads   10,719 Views  

Abstract

This paper argues that there are at least five reasons why the claim that the Bible is to be taken literally defies logic or otherwise makes no sense, and why literalists are in no position to claim that they have the only correct view of biblical teachings. First, many words are imprecise and therefore require interpretation, especially to fill in gaps between general words and their application to specific situations. Second, if you are reading an English version of the Bible you are already dealing with the interpretations of the translator since the earliest Bibles were written in other languages. Third, biblical rules have exceptions, and those exceptions are often not explicitly set forth. Fourth, many of the Bible’s stories defy logic and our experiences of the world. Fifth, there are sometimes two contrary versions of the same event, so if we take one literally then we cannot take the second one literally. In each of these five cases, there is no literal reading to be found. Furthermore, this paper sets forth three additional reasons why such a literalist claim probably should not be made even if it did not defy logic to make such a claim. These include The Scientific Argument: the Bible contradicts modern science; The Historical Argument: the Bible is historically inaccurate; and The Moral Argument: the Bible violates contemporary moral standards.

Share and Cite:

Firestone, R. (2014) Why the Bible Cannot and Should Not Be Taken Literally. Open Journal of Philosophy, 4, 303-318. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2014.43035.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Barr, J. (1989). Literality. Faith and Philosophy, 6, 412-428.
[2] Benner, J. (2007). The Living Words (Vol. 1, pp. 28-29). College Station: Virtualbookworm Publishing, Inc.
[3] Chicago Statement (1997). The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm
[4] Coleman, J. (1982). Negative and Positive Positivism. In J. Feinberg, J. Coleman, & C. Kutz (Eds.), Philosophy of Law (9th ed., pp. 123-140). Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
[5] Colless, B. (2013). The Empire of Sargon.
[6] Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion (pp. 268-316, 2008 ed.). New York: First Mariner Books, Houghton Mifflin Company.
[7] Finkelstein, I., & Silberman, N. (2001). The Bible Unearthed (p. 60). New York: Free Press.
[8] Gannon, M. (2013). 6 Miracle Birth Stories beyond Jesus. Live Science.
http://www.livescience.com/42187-miracle-birth-stories-beyond-jesus.html
[9] Holman Christian Standard Bible (1999). Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers.
[10] Jones, J. (2011). In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally. Gallup.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-Bible-Literally.aspx
[11] Murray, M. (2010). The Atheist’s Primer. Ontario: Broadview Press.
[12] Plaut, W. (1981). The Torah: A Modern Commentary. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
[13] Pope John Paul II (1992 & 1996). L’Osservatore Romano. Weekly Edition in English. In M. Rea, & L. Pojman (Eds.), Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (7th ed., pp. 502-507). Stamford: Cengage Learning.
[14] Sartre, J. P. (1949). Existentialism Is a Humanism. In R. Solomon (Ed.), Existentialism (2nd ed., pp. 212-213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[15] Wikipedia (2014) Global Biodiversity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Biodiversity
[16] Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. In L. Pojman (Ed.), Ch. 36. Classics of Philosophy, Volume II: Modern and Contemporary (pp. 1156-1164). New York: Oxford University Press.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.