Against Wooden Biblical Literalism

[Uber Genius]

This is my first "New Thread" post on Christian Forums.

Many of the straw man attacks by so-called, "New Atheists," against the Bible being a coherent revelation of spiritual truth from God, are a direct result of reading scriptures literalistically rather than literarily (I.e. as the author intended them to be read). Christians can also destroy any possibility of proper exegesis by interpreting idioms literally.

To help, I have included a few examples of how non-literal speech is utilized by some Biblical authors.

Bible authors use of Figures of speech:

Simile

"When calamity overtakes you like a storm,
when disaster sweeps over your like a whirlwind,
when distress and trouble overwhelm you." (Prov. 1:27)

Metaphor

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? (Matt. 5:13)

Hyperbole

"it is easier for an camel to go through the eye of needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matt 19:24)

Hendiadys

"Some sat in darkness and the deepest gloom,
prisoners suffering in iron chains,
for they had rebelled against the words of God." (Psalm 107:10)

Irony

"Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!" (Judges 10:14)

Litotes

"We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We looked like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Num. 13:33)

Euphemism

"After he had gone, the servants came and found the doors of the upper room locked. They said, "he must be relieving himself in the inner room of the house." (Judges 3:24)

Antithesis

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matt. 5:17)

There are thousands of passages throughout both testaments that utilize these and other figures of speech. It would be a shame to be ignorant of the original author's meaning because one was unfamiliar with these figurative expressions.

For more:

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_idioms.html

The site says that the most complete treatment of Biblical idioms is that by:

E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated, 1898. Grand Rapids: Baker Books House, 1968 reprint.

There are book-level treatments of Hebrew and Greek idioms. Often things like alliteration are lost in translation. Hope someone finds this post helpful and that it galvanizes further study.

 

[Hieronymus]

+1 for proper exegesis.

 

[ken777]

This is my first "New Thread" post on Christian Forums.

Many of the straw man attacks by so-called, "New Atheists," against the Bible being a coherent revelation of spiritual truth from God, are a direct result of reading scriptures literalistically rather than literarily (I.e. as the author intended them to be read). Christians can also destroy any possibility of proper exegesis by interpreting idioms literally.

To help, I have included a few examples of how non-literal speech is utilized by some Biblical authors.

Bible authors use of Figures of speech:

Simile

"When calamity overtakes you like a storm,
when disaster sweeps over your like a whirlwind,
when distress and trouble overwhelm you." (Prov. 1:27)

Metaphor

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? (Matt. 5:13)

Hyperbole

"it is easier for an camel to go through the eye of needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matt 19:24)

Hendiadys

"Some sat in darkness and the deepest gloom,
prisoners suffering in iron chains,
for they had rebelled against the words of God." (Psalm 107:10)

Irony

"Go and cry out to the gods you have chosen. Let them save you when you are in trouble!" (Judges 10:14)

Litotes

"We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We looked like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." (Num. 13:33)

Euphemism

"After he had gone, the servants came and found the doors of the upper room locked. They said, "he must be relieving himself in the inner room of the house." (Judges 3:24)

Antithesis

"After he had gone, the servants came and found the doors of the upper room locked. They said, "he must be relieving himself in the inner room of the house." (Judges 3:24)

There are thousands of passages throughout both testaments that utilize these and other figures of speech. It would be a shame to be ignorant of the original author's meaning because one was unfamiliar with these figurative expressions.

For more:

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_idioms.html

The site says that the most complete treatment of Biblical idioms is that by:

E.W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated, 1898. Grand Rapids: Baker Books House, 1968 reprint.

There are book-level treatments of Hebrew and Greek idioms. Often things like alliteration are lost in translation. Hope someone finds this post helpful and that it galvanizes further study.

How would you categorize John 13:14?

 

[Uber Genius]

How would you categorize John 13:14?

14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. (Jn. 13:14)

Epiphora– a word or phrase that is repeated at the end of sentence or clause.

X "washed feet"
Y "wash feet"

But we are not done.

First we recognize it is holds two objects (I and you (the disciples ) in relation.

Second we see at the argument is from stronger to weaker (known as an "a fortiori" argument).

Premise 1 - Jesus is Lord and Master (far superior to the disciples)
Premise 2 (hidden) - those of superior position don't serve inferiors.
Premise 3 - depending on the meaning of kurios here Jesus could be pointing out that you call me "YHWY" and master in which case there is none superior
Premise 4 - disciples are inferior

Argument if extremely superior serve then inferior certainly should serve.

If I then (ει ουν εγω — ei oun egō)
You also ought (και υμεις οπειλετε — kai humeis opheilete)

The comparison is superlative. The highest or best compared with something less.

It is also known in some grammars as "inclusive focus" "if I ...you too"


It has a synecdoche "washing feet" refers to selfless service of any kind.

So there is a lot going on.

And see the next verse,

"15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you."

Same inclusive focus. But figures of speech are missing.

"Should do" "have done" repeated phrase or words in a sentence are also known as diacope.

Diacope is Greek for 'cutting in two'.

My question for you is, what message is John trying to convey? Do the Churches get this message today? Why or why not?

 

[Shane R]

I would like to hear the OP's thoughts on allegorical interpretation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I hold to the view that unbelievers utilize Wooden Literalism merely as a weak excuse. For it is ultimately the pleasure of their own sin as to why people do not believe the Scriptures and come to Jesus (John 3:19-20). For many of them would not be so irrational if we were talking about the works of Shakespear or a schematic involving the design of a plane.

Anyways, we should continue to plant seeds, pray for them, and do good towards them (whenever possible).


...

 

[Uber Genius]

I would like to hear the OP's thoughts on allegorical interpretation.

OP? Who is that?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

OP? Who is that?

I think he is referring to the letters "OP" as meaning "Original Poster"; Unless of course you are aware of that fact and you are simply being sarcastic as a point of this thread of course.



Which is all good.

Anyways, may God bless you.
And please be well.

...

 

[Hieronymus]

I think he is referring to the letters "OP" as meaning "Original Poster"; Unless of course you are aware of that fact and you are simply being sarcastic as a point of this thread of course.



Which is all good.

Anyways, may God bless you.
And please be well.

...

I always thought the TS writes the OP.
(topic starter writes opening post)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I always thought the TS writes the OP.
(topic starter writes opening post)

TS is a new one for me; And I have been talking on forums for a long time. But you could be right. For I do not know all the lingo of course. There may be lingo used on Facebook or other Social Media Networks that I am not familar with (because I strive not to use them).


...

 

[Uber Genius]

I hold to the view that unbelievers utilize Wooden Literalism merely as a weak excuse. For it is ultimately the pleasure of their own sin as to why people do not believe the Scriptures and come to Jesus (John 3:19-20). For many of them would not be so irrational if we were talking about the works of Shakespear or a schematic involving the design of a plane.

Anyways, we should continue to plant seeds, pray for them, and do good towards them (whenever possible).


...

While that seems true of atheists like John Dominic Crossen, and liberals who deny the core message of scripture like John Shelby Spong, why think it isn't also true of Evangelical Christians?

While I certainly blame the Bart Erhman's (who are too well trained in exegesis to make the type of mistakes they make) for trying to obscure meaning to support their presuppositions, I see the same mistakes from my Evangelical Pastor who intends the best and loves Christ and God's revelation, but has not yet developed rigor (emotional maturity) and method (intellectual maturity). He was mentored poorly.

So if Christians, who are Pastors, and love the scriptures, are butchering the exegesis, why think a non-believer is anything other than just ignorant. Most of these individuals I engage , both in-person and online, say "exa what a sis?" when I tell them about how to understand what the original audience would have understood.

Sometimes with the "New Atheist" types I ask them to review their work and highlight the exegetical fallacies, as well as rhetorical fallacies. I will leave them hints as to how many and of what type. Or have them list their hidden premises and presuppositions. This is usually enough to eliminate the trolls.

But one cannot engage as we need to if we see their ignorance as willful rebellion rather than ignorance.

We too were under the curse of the Law, but found our way as people engaged our intellectual barriers. I would assume the best and ask, "do you think the original audience would have understood the passage the way you have represented it? Or, "How could this passage mean something to us, that it never meant to the original audience? Isn't that the incoherence of postmodernism, that makes those types of beliefs self-refuting?"

 

[Uber Genius]

I think he is referring to the letters "OP" as meaning "Original Poster"; Unless of course you are aware of that fact and you are simply being sarcastic as a point of this thread of course.



Which is all good.

Anyways, may God bless you.
And please be well.

...

Was not aware. This is my first post and I am new. Seems however if ShaneT knows enough to use the acronym then he knows that I am the OP, so why talk about me in the 3rd person?

 

[Uber Genius]

I would like to hear the OP's thoughts on allegorical interpretation.

So now that I have an inkling of what "OP" means, I will put something out over the weekend on this practice.

Basically, when the literary style is an allegory we use allegorical interpretation, else WE DON'T!

At the risk of being pedantic (being facetious here because I'm always pedantic), how we know anything about the external world is encapsulated in epistemology. We continue to improve over time in how we understand the physical world (science). We also continue to improve how we know the non-physical world (Math, Philosophy, Theology).

Exegesis and hermeneutics are no different. We have learned how to recover the meaning of the ancient texts. We are necessarily better that Augustine, and Anselm, and Aquinas, and Arminius.

For an allegory in scripture see John 15:1-7. The allegory of the vine and branches.

In fact, I may use that as my example when i post the process of interpreting allegories.

Hope this helps.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

While that seems true of atheists like John Dominic Crossen, and liberals who deny the core message of scripture like John Shelby Spong, why think it isn't also true of Evangelical Christians?

I didn't say it wasn't true for them. In fact, I believe that such a thing is true for believers, as well. I believe sin is the #1 reason why all people cannot understand Scripture (Whether they are a professing believer or not).

While I certainly blame the Bart Erhman's (who are too well trained in exegesis to make the type of mistakes they make) for trying to obscure meaning to support their presuppositions, I see the same mistakes from my Evangelical Pastor who intends the best and loves Christ and God's revelation, but has not yet developed rigor (emotional maturity) and method (intellectual maturity). He was mentored poorly.

So if Christians, who are Pastors, and love the scriptures, are butchering the exegesis, why think a non-believer is anything other than just ignorant. Most of these individuals I engage , both in-person and online, say "exa what a sis?" when I tell them about how to understand what the original audience would have understood.

I would say I know a lot about the Bible; but I am always learning.

To me it is not how many times you have read the Bible or even if you went to Bible school. I know someone who said to me that they read the Bible cover to cover. Yet, their life was not changed. In other words, they didn't really read it because they didn't receive it. In fact, there are tons of false Biblical cults out there where many of them have read their Bibles many times. Yet, they are not really reading their Bibles, though. They are merely believing what some guy says about the Bible versus letting the Spirit guide them into all truth. In other words, we have to truly receive the written Word into our hearts in order to truly understand it. For a person can recite basic facts recorded in a Bible. But if they do not have God's Word rooted in their heart deeply, then they do not know the Word of God. The heart and theme of the Bible is Jesus Christ. It is a spiritual instruction manual given to us by the Lord so as to guide us into a more perfect relationship with Him. The Bible is not for gathering with a bunch of buddies and sipping the latest fashionable drink in a respectable setting. Knowing the Bible is about having it in your heart and being able to talk about it for hours on end non-stop out of your love for Jesus Christ. Quoting parts of verses will become natural to you. One will live, breath, and eat the Word of God if they are born again spiritually. For it is the man of God's spiritual nourishment.

Anyways, here a few things that should be employed when understanding God's Word:

1. Ask God for the understanding in regards to His Word.
2. Context (i.e. Look at the surrounding sentences or even chapters to a particular verse or text).
3. Cross References (i.e. Look to see if the same truth expressed elsewhere in Scripture).
4. Can the truth of the verse or passage be expressed by using a real world example in some way?
5. Does the words stay consitent with their use in other parts of Scripture (within the original languages and still line up with our language)?
6. See what other believers say on the matter (But be cautious and verify what they are saying with the Word like a good Berean).
7. Is God's morality or goodness remained intact with the interpretation of this verse or passage?​

Sometimes with the "New Atheist" types I ask them to review their work and highlight the exegetical fallacies, as well as rhetorical fallacies. I will leave them hints as to how many and of what type. Or have them list their hidden premises and presuppositions. This is usually enough to eliminate the trolls.

I do not like using the word "trolls" in reference to people because it shows a lack of love towards them. Yes, people can act like a troll and even be hateful and wrong, but we are respond with love and kindness in return. Using words that they would use makes it appear that we are not all that different. For Jesus said we are to pray and to do good towards our enemies.

But one cannot engage as we need to if we see their ignorance as willful rebellion rather than ignorance.

I usually try to give a reason for the hope that is in me one time and then I strive to move on. For we can lead a horse to water, but we cannot force it to drink.

We too were under the curse of the Law,

No. This is not true for the genuine true believer in Jesus Christ. For it is written...

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" (Galatians 3:13).

but found our way as people engaged our intellectual barriers. I would assume the best and ask, "do you think the original audience would have understood the passage the way you have represented it? Or, "How could this passage mean something to us, that it never meant to the original audience? Isn't that the incoherence of postmodernism, that makes those types of beliefs self-refuting?"

While I believe the Scriptures are timeless (and speaks to people of all ages), I also strive at times to look at passages in Scripture as if I was in the writer's shoes or the shoes of the audience hearing the message, too. For example: In Matthew 18:20, Jesus says,

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20).​

Now, it is man's instinct to read this from a self centered focused perspective. Yes, Jesus can be among us today if we gather in His name. But Jesus was also saying these words to people around him (during his time), too. Meaning, Jesus was saying that He can spiritually be among those who gather in His name to those people during His Earthly ministry, as well. In other words, while Jesus did have a physical body during His ministry, He also had the power to be Omnipresent (spiritually), as well.



...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Was not aware. This is my first post and I am new. Seems however if ShaneT knows enough to use the acronym then he knows that I am the OP, so why talk about me in the 3rd person?

I imagine people talk a lot here in the third person so as not to offend others. For example: It is against forum rules to judge a person's salvation personally. But to my understanding: We can talk about salvation from a third person perspective or way so as to express our belief in regards to Soteriology (i.e. the Study of Salvation). This may be one reason why he is talking to you in the third person. He could be speaking to you in the third person because he is familar with doing so.


....

 

[Uber Genius]

I imagine people talk a lot here in the third person so as not to offend others. For example: It is against forum rules to judge a person's salvation personally. But to my understanding: We can talk about salvation from a third person perspective or way so as to express our belief in regards to Soteriology (i.e. the Study of Salvation). This may be one reason why he is talking to you in the third person. He could be speaking to you in the third person because he is familar with doing so.


....

Makes sense. Also good advise to depersonalize. My emotional maturity runs the gamut form Christ-like to Tasmanian Devil. When engaging obscurantist (i.e. Old enough to know better) "New Atheists," I can tend to get pretty defamatory.

 

[Uber Genius]

I didn't say it wasn't true for them. In fact, I believe that such a thing is true for believers, as well. I believe sin is the #1 reason why all people cannot understand Scripture (Whether they are a professing believer or not).



I would say I know a lot about the Bible; but I am always learning.

To me it is not how many times you have read the Bible or even if you went to Bible school. I know someone who said to me that they read the Bible cover to cover. Yet, their life was not changed. In other words, they didn't really read it because they didn't receive it. In fact, there are tons of false Biblical cults out there where many of them have read their Bibles many times. Yet, they are not really reading their Bibles, though. They are merely believing what some guy says about the Bible versus letting the Spirit guide them into all truth. In other words, we have to truly receive the written Word into our hearts in order to truly understand it. For a person can recite basic facts recorded in a Bible. But if they do not have God's Word rooted in their heart deeply, then they do not know the Word of God. The heart and theme of the Bible is Jesus Christ. It is a spiritual instruction manual given to us by the Lord so as to guide us into a more perfect relationship with Him. The Bible is not for gathering with a bunch of buddies and sipping the latest fashionable drink in a respectable setting. Knowing the Bible is about having it in your heart and being able to talk about it for hours on end non-stop out of your love for Jesus Christ. Quoting parts of verses will become natural to you. One will live, breath, and eat the Word of God if they are born again spiritually. For it is the man of God's spiritual nourishment.

Anyways, here a few things that should be employed when understanding God's Word:

1. Ask God for the understanding in regards to His Word.
2. Context (i.e. Look at the surrounding sentences or even chapters to a particular verse or text).
3. Cross References (i.e. Look to see if the same truth expressed elsewhere in Scripture).
4. Can the truth of the verse or passage be expressed by using a real world example in some way?
5. Does the words stay consitent with their use in other parts of Scripture (within the original languages and still line up with our language)?
6. See what other believers say on the matter (But be cautious and verify what they are saying with the Word like a good Berean).
7. Is God's morality or goodness remained intact with the interpretation of this verse or passage?​

I do not like using the word "trolls" in reference to people because it shows a lack of love towards them. Yes, people can act like a troll and even be hateful and wrong, but we are respond with love and kindness in return. Using words that they would use makes it appear that we are not all that different. For Jesus said we are to pray and to do good towards our enemies.



I usually try to give a reason for the hope that is in me one time and then I strive to move on. For we can lead a horse to water, but we cannot force it to drink.



No. This is not true for the genuine true believer in Jesus Christ. For it is written...

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" (Galatians 3:13).



While I believe the Scriptures are timeless (and speaks to people of all ages), I also strive at times to look at passages in Scripture as if I was in the writer's shoes or the shoes of the audience hearing the message, too. For example: In Matthew 18:20, Jesus says,

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20).​

Now, it is man's instinct to read this from a self centered focused perspective. Yes, Jesus can be among us today if we gather in His name. But Jesus was also saying these words to people around him (during his time), too. Meaning, Jesus was saying that He can spiritually be among those who gather in His name to those people during His Earthly ministry, as well. In other words, while Jesus did have a physical body during His ministry, He also had the power to be Omnipresent (spiritually), as well.



...

Look again at the tense of my statement, "we too were under the curse..." Not "are"

As for my use of the word "trolls," have you not read what Jesus said about the religious leaders of his day? How about the people who reject his message at Chorazin and Bethsaida? Troll is in common usage and conveys the type of hit-and-run rhetorical style that could be synonymous with how the Bible describes a "Fool." I'm being generous to call them a "troll," by Biblical standards.

Liked your very germane point about application. If we don't become transformed into Jesus' likeness we miss the point of the entirety of the scriptures. Namely, we are to be imagers of God.

Like your list on basic Bible study.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

My emotional maturity runs the gamut form Christ-like to Tasmanian Devil.

[...quietly raises hand...]

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I have noted the 'wooden literalism' is often associated with 'lack of context' to arrive at a very strained interpretation.

For instance, one group of Christians - who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty - use some 'proof texts' to establish a particular belief; the concept of water baptism as 'required' for Salvation, not a proper act of obedience afterward. One such 'proof text' is 1st Peter 3:21 (only).

The KJV renders it as "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

The NET: "And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you – not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

The part they emphasis is the first phrase, "... baptism which now saves ..." But they ignore the prior part about believing, accepting, adhering and cooperating, AND the latter part about "...pledge (or answer) of a good conscience to God ..." Ignoring how one who not already saved and in harmony with God can have a good conscience.

But I agree. The idea of - especially the KJV - reading the words and giving no thought if the word in 17th Century English means the same thing as it does today - not so in some cases - demonstrates a lack of the advice Paul gave Timothy in the second letter (2:15).

 

[ken777]

14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. (Jn. 13:14)

Epiphora– a word or phrase that is repeated at the end of sentence or clause.

X "washed feet"
Y "wash feet"

But we are not done.

First we recognize it is holds two objects (I and you (the disciples ) in relation.

Second we see at the argument is from stronger to weaker (known as an "a fortiori" argument).

Premise 1 - Jesus is Lord and Master (far superior to the disciples)
Premise 2 (hidden) - those of superior position don't serve inferiors.
Premise 3 - depending on the meaning of kurios here Jesus could be pointing out that you call me "YHWY" and master in which case there is none superior
Premise 4 - disciples are inferior

Argument if extremely superior serve then inferior certainly should serve.

If I then (ει ουν εγω — ei oun egō)
You also ought (και υμεις οπειλετε — kai humeis opheilete)

The comparison is superlative. The highest or best compared with something less.

It is also known in some grammars as "inclusive focus" "if I ...you too"


It has a synecdoche "washing feet" refers to selfless service of any kind.

So there is a lot going on.

And see the next verse,

"15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you."

Same inclusive focus. But figures of speech are missing.

"Should do" "have done" repeated phrase or words in a sentence are also known as diacope.

Diacope is Greek for 'cutting in two'.

My question for you is, what message is John trying to convey? Do the Churches get this message today? Why or why not?

An impressive analysis of John 13:14. I am still wondering though how we decide whether something should be taken literally or not. For example, some churches believe "This is my body ..." "This is my blood ..." should be taken literally. Some practise foot washing based on John 13:15. In another forum I was discussing Luke 17:37 which I believe is figurative but others believe is literal. The same people say "day and hour" in Matthew 24:36 is not literal but representative of time in general*. After all the analysis, is it still just a matter of POV?

* Is this an example of synecdoche ... a new term you introduced me to