Many people claim to believe “literally” in the Bible. More or less. They read it as God speaking to them, often in the “original English” (to quote a school board debate).
But if we start with the creation story, it turns out no one literally believes in the Bible.
After all, the literal story in the Bible is that God separated the primal waters so that half are below the world (which floats on them) and half are above the great solid vault of the sky (and where rain occurs when God opens the windows of the firmament to let water fall on the earth and where the sun and the moon are embedded in the solid walls rising and setting as they move about).
Using the New English Translation (a scholarly work by evangelicals, well-regarded, with a nice free app available[Lumina]), and starting with the very beginning with Genesis, Chapter 1 (the relevant footnotes following the text):
1:2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. 1:3 God said, “Let there be light.”And there was light! 1:4 God saw that the light was good, so God separated the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called the light “day” and the darkness “night.” There was evening, and there was morning, marking the first day.
1:6 God said, “Let there be an expanse23 in the midst of the waters and let it separate water24 from water. 1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.25 It was so. 1:8 God called the expanse “sky.”27 There was evening, and there was morning, a second day.23 tn The Hebrew word refers to an expanse of air pressure between the surface of the sea and the clouds, separating water below from water above. In v. 8 it is called “sky.”
sn An expanse. In the poetic texts the writers envision, among other things, something rather strong and shiny, no doubt influencing the traditional translation “firmament” (cf. NRSV “dome”). Job 37:18 refers to the skies poured out like a molten mirror. Dan 12:3 and Ezek 1:22 portray it as shiny. The sky or atmosphere may have seemed like a glass dome. For a detailed study of the Hebrew conception of the heavens and sky, see L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World (AnBib), 37-60.
24 tn Heb “the waters from the waters.”
25 tn Heb “the expanse.”
1:14 God said, “Let there be lights34 in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs to indicate seasons and days and years,
34 sn Let there be lights. Light itself was created before the light-bearers. The order would not seem strange to the ancient Hebrew mind that did not automatically link daylight with the sun (note that dawn and dusk appear to have light without the sun).
That is, in the initial creation the literal story is that God separated the primal waters so that half are below the world (which floats on them) and half are above the great vault of the sky (and where rain occurs when God opens the windows of the heavens to let water fall on the earth).
I could go on. No one, even the most literal of believers, thinks that the world consists of an island floating on endless waters with a solid firmament above that has water on the other side (where we would think of outer space beginning), light independent of the sun radiating it, and the sun and the moon moving across the solid dome of the heavens.
[Note that game designers do create worlds just like that — I even worked on a project with such a world in the 1970s].
Once you realize that you can’t get anyone who believes in a literal translation of the Bible through the first 10-20 verses, but that they re-interpret the Bible into their own understanding and in some ways as an allegory or as a figurative understanding. With that you start to realize that the Bible cannot be taken literally, but rather as a communication limited by language, context, intent and understanding.
At that point, other things begin to make sense.
The genocides in Exodus that did not happen (since the same people who are recorded as completely exterminated are still around in the book of Kings — I‘ve written about that elsewhere). The flood occurred, and didn’t cover the entire earth (since the Nephilim are recorded as predating the flood, missing the Ark, and showing up later).
e.g.
Numbers 13:33. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.
In the Bible, the universal language was shared by all men, yet Noah’s family, while he was still alive, divides the land with other peoples, according to their languages — they encountered humans who spoke different languages than they did and reached treaties with them, well before the Tower of Babel.
To quote a good discussion about Genesis 10:25 and dividing the land with other people who spoke different languages than Noah’s people:
Rather, it is more likely referring to the human population of the Earth. Contextual indicators point to this latter conclusion.
First, the Hebrew term for “Earth” (‘erets) may be used figuratively to refer to the Earth’s inhabitants. In fact, two separate figures of speech employ this use: “synecdoche of the whole” and “metonymy of the subject” (Bullinger, 1968, pp. 578,638). A sampling of Old Testament verses where the figure of speech occurs just within Genesis include Genesis 6:11; 9:19; 11:1; 18:25; 19:31; 41:30,57 (Gesenius, 1979, p. 81; Bullinger, p. 578).
Second, verses both before and after Genesis 10:25 provide further indication that Moses was referring to a linguistic/political/human division rather than a physical division of the land mass. Earlier in the same chapter, he alluded to a separation of the peoples— “everyone according to his own language, according to their families, into their nations” (Genesis 10:5, emp. added). Later in the same chapter, Moses referred to the generational divisions of Noah’s descendants “in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood” (Genesis 10:32, emp. added).
I know.
Someone should have told you that even the most literal of readers of the Bible can’t make it past the first chapter without treating it as something other than the literal words, and that the further you get, the more everyone has to acknowledge that they are either going to re-read the Bible to say something else than what it says or to expand it into a re-translation or an allegory or treat it differently?
So what to do with allegory? Great question. We will have to talk about that sometime.
Until then, let me mostly quote from a developmental analysis (borrowed from a recent book by Thomas Wirthlin McConkie [link]):
“Because adult development has been so poorly understood until recently, many of us have naturally assumed that if others don’t see the world as we do, it was because they were missing crucial information, critical pieces of the puzzle. Provide them with all the puzzle pieces, the thinking goes, and they will snap together the same picture that the rest of us are looking at.
We know now that this reasoning is folly. We have learned from looking at children.
Children make meaning according to capacities in their own awareness—meaning that is logical and consistent within itself. In other words, it’s not just an erroneous view of the “real world” that children offer in their speech, behavior, and play. It’s a perfect representation of their own world, the world their minds construct“As it turns out, we adults are still doing the exact thing we did as children. At the end of childhood and adolescence we do not graduate, cap and gown, into a perfectly accurate, “adult” view of the world. How we perceive and make meaning of the world continue to develop throughout our lifespan.
That is, the language used, and the descriptions used in the Bible are a communication in the construct of the awareness of the listeners. To understand we need to go beyond to the message that construct was intended to convey.
I’ll leave you with one of my favorite Brigham Young quotes:
“When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities…. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.”
There is a lot more to the discussion. But the takeaway is that a literal reading is probably a wrong reading — and no one gets even twenty verses into the scriptures without moving away from a literal reading. And, perhaps, someone should have told you that.
I’ll discuss metaphor, allegory, parables and the effects of communicating with people by using the language and knowledge they have and are able to understand — all of that will get discussed later. But you need to know that someone should have told you that a literal understanding of the Bible not only doesn’t get past the first chapter, it doesn’t fit anything of what we know about reality or about how God actually talks to us. Someone should have told you that.
Notes:
Wheat & Tares 
I am glad you are talking about this subject. I either run into two types of members: they are either at one extreme and are literalists or they thing the stories are all trash and lies. There is a middle way which is more powerful than either camp knows. That is the path of metaphor and allegory. I believe it is the manner the scriptures and sacred stories were meant to be conveyed in. I look forward to hearing the rest of your take.
Why does it have to be a matter of right and wrong? Can we allow fellow Saints the privilege of learning and adapting and holding or changing perspectives according to the dictates of their own consciences?
I’m not saying there is a definite wrong, just that some things aren’t right.
It helps people to realize that some times.
Ji – there are ramifications to how scriptural stories are looked at. Look at the story in the Old Testament of where the Walls of Jericho fell; a story where Joshua prayed to the Lord to have the sun stay up so that every man, woman, child – even including the cattle – were slaughtered. Looking at such a story literally makes absolutely no sense. It makes God out to be a psychopath and more than implies that those unlike your tribe are much less than you. Such a story is not to be taken literally.
When we take stories literally, they can become dangerous. Stories regarding homosexuality, for example, taken literally have been used as an excuse for discrimination and worse. The same thing applies to women and priesthood. Because of this we discriminate against others not like us, perform spiritual violence thinking that God condones it (and maybe even sometimes physical violence too), and make war against those who are not “chosen.” How we look at these stories matters.
But the worst part is that looking at scriptural stories literally destroys the deeper meaning those scriptures were meant to convey. There are deep truths contained in them but you cannot get at them unless you look at them in a different way. Nobody can tell you what each scriptural story means, b/c each has many layers. However, looking at them literally is the lowest form of interpretation. All scriptures are true, but not historically true.
Christianity (and Mormonism) is being destroyed b/c the members don’t know there is a better way.
Interesting reading.
For a different look:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2014/02/gospel-doctrine-lesson-6-moses-819-30-genesis-65-22-71-10/
This is great – if love to take a Bible As Literature class. In fact I wish we could get mormonisms best scholars to put together an online class of curricula. I know Julie Smith taught the Four Gospels online to women in her stake; but it might be creepy for me to move to her stake just for that. So let’s open it up and we’d pay for it, amirite?
Stephen Marsh:
“I’m not saying there is a definite wrong, just that some things aren’t right.”
I think you had better first learn right from wrong. There are no gray areas. What do you know about how the people in Jericho lived? God didn’t kill them for the fun of it. Their lives had been horrible. I imagine human sacrifice had been a part of it. I don’t know but I trust God had a very good reason for doing what He did.
Why don’t a lot of you guys have this kind of trust? Why do you sit there with your hands folded righteously and blinking your eyes sweetly saying, ‘God would never do such a thing.’ ? Well I sit here with my hands folded righteously and my eyes blinking sweetly saying, ‘Oh, yes He would’. The difference between me and you guys is that I am right and you are wrong.
The best thing you can do right now is to learn about God – What He is that you aren’t – What He knows that you don’t. All of you, stop saying these foolish things that can’t do you anything good.
Rich, I think it’s funny that you say that there are no gray areas, then proceed to say, “I imagine…” and “I don’t know but…” Aren’t those statements idicative of, you know, gray areas? I’m not saying that one shouldn’t trust God, but the way an individual trusts God seems to vary by individual. Kind of like in the article, when the op talks about how we construct meaning based on our perspectives and circumstances. Different folks = Different strokes. It’s all gray.
So, when you say “I am right and you are wrong,” do you have anything other than your own perspective to back that up?
Rich, bless your heart, I was talking about interpretation and voice not moral focus.
As for Jericho, you should study some. Human sacrifice was the least of it.
I don’t have the time to educate you right now, but there is a lot available should you take scripture seriously enough to study it.
Interesting that I’ve always interpreted ‘heavens above’ and ‘heavens beneath’ quite differently, as being atmosphere and oceans.
But I think I generally see scripture as a collection of stories viewed by the compilers as ‘faith promoting experiences’, put together with the intention of comforting and strengthening our trust in God. Some stories work for some, others less so. Part of the work of life is knowing this cannon sufficiently to use it compassionately both in one’s own life and that of others. I think that’s the approach that non-orthodox judaism takes, focusing on family stories and the importance of correct behaviour. I can’t comment on it’s historicity, but i like to think of the intent for which any given story has survived the millenia.
The scriptures are literally mostly metaphor and allegory.
That’s a great Brigham Young quote and it suggests he held a semi-literal interpretation of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
It seems to be important to God that His children understand things as literal, even when they are not. “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” Jesus speaks here of a literal belief, not a figurative belief in resurrection as allegory.
But God sometimes stops treating us like babies, like when He confessed to Joseph Smith that hell wasn’t literal, but that He made it sound literal so it would be more “express upon their minds.”
As the post says, today we are in a state where we can’t take everything literally, but we are also encouraged to take a lot of other things literally. There are a lot of grey areas. Suffice it to say that “literalism” as a principle, has some kind of divine purpose or truth to it, as a particularly powerful manifestation of faith. Does your faith include at least some literalism? If it does, then that is probably good. But how much is probably up to you. We are mature enough to be able to have faith even without literal belief. We can say, like the Spanish monk: “even if there were no hell, I would fear thee, even if there were no heaven, I would love thee.”
Suffice it to say that “literalism” as a principle, has some kind of divine purpose or truth to it, as a particularly powerful manifestation of faith.
Literalism is where we begin as children, then Santa becomes figurative. It is a stepping stone of faith because comprehending the spiritual is abstract. Literalism is train wheels for spiritually, religion is the mortalization of spiritualiy.
For me, it works better to read the stories more literally than figuratively. For example, I believe that Jesus was really crucified and resurrected. I believe the walls of Jericho did fall down. I believe homosexual sex to be sin. To others, it is important to teach that there is no sin, and there is no miracle. Each person will make his or her own decision.
Stephen Marsh:
Gray areas only seem to exist because people think these non-existent areas allow them make wrong things into right things and vice-versa or to make wrong things permissive.
When God destroyed Jericho, He didn’t have to tell us why so that He would have our permission to do so. I guess He left it up to the historians to give us enough information to figure out the whys and the wherefores. At least that’s what I think Stephen suggests what I should study more of. I’ll search the internet and see what I can find out.
EH.
Let’s go through your post a little bit – maybe more than a little bit.
First,
“Rich, I think it’s funny that you say that there are no gray areas, then proceed to say, “I imagine…” and “I don’t know but…” Aren’t those statements indicative of, you know, gray areas?”
Definitely not, what I do know is that God wants the Israelites to destroy Jericho, but I don’t know why. To me it doesn’t really matter. I trust Stephen’s study to know that God had good reasons and I trust God without Stephen’s study. So, the internet has to show me quickly why God wanted them destroyed or I’ll suppose that I never will know. I will never trust gray areas because of the way people use them. They try to make God less than He is or themselves more than they are.
“ I’m not saying that one shouldn’t trust God, but the way an individual trusts God seems to vary by individual.“
That is very much the fault of the individual. Maybe some of those individuals will learn that, but until then they will remain in such a ridiculous fault. They will have to learn about God and how He teaches what is right and what is wrong. Only after that study will he be able to escape the fault of the gray area.
“Different folks = Different strokes It’s all gray.”
The only way to cure such a ridiculous reality is to simply understand right from wrong as taught by the true God. I’ve seen Stake Bishopric Meetings fail that. It’s pathetic.
“So, when you say “I am right and you are wrong,” do you have anything other than your own perspective to back that up?”
What I have is exactly what you have – a knowledge of right and wrong. So use it!
Does scriptural infallibility rest on its accounts being literal? It’s all filtered to me. So as far as the Joshua and Jericho thing goes it sounds a lot more like someone using God to justify war. Is that the kind of God you believe in?
We need to discard scriptural infallibility along with many literal interpretations. Any unity across scripture (and church history) is shallow at best.
That’s the only kind of God there is. Your Best belief in God is in the belief that He/She has told you. If your god hasn’t told you that, you’ll have to create your own reality. Look around you. That’s the best you can do.
Oh, and by the way, as far as spiritual stuff goes, your god will have to tell you about that. If you don’t have spirituality then I guess you don’t have a god. I don’t know. You need to talk to him about that.
Finally, until you find out he exists, with me, he’s a small ‘g’.