Should the Bible Be Interpreted Figuratively?

Objection: The Bible Is Flawed

One category of objections can be summarized as “the Bible is flawed.” Basically, because of the characteristics of Scripture itself, they argue that it isn’t realistic to interpret it literally.

The Bible was written by many people over a long period of time.

First, they say that the Bible was written over thousands of years by different people. That’s actually correct. Moses wrote in the 1400s BC, and the last book in the New Testament, Revelation, was written in the second half of the first century AD. It’s possible that Job is the oldest book in the Old Testament, since several elements of the narrative hint that it might have taken place during the period of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. If it were written at that time, it would be hundreds of years older than Genesis.

It gets even more complex when you realize that not only were the human authors of the Bible separated by time but also vast differences in their circumstances. The authors of the Bible were fishermen, kings, shepherds, priests, prophets, Levites, tentmakers, and court officials. One would expect that if the Bible were solely the product of human authors, it would be full of the prejudices and limited perspectives typical of whatever period the biblical book was written in. However, there is a unified message across the whole of Scripture that is impossible to explain if the Bible were just a book written by men.

The Bible has been translated and retranslated.

Second, they claim the Bible has been “translated and retranslated.” The particular listicle says, “From ancient Greek and Hebrew, to Latin, to modern English, nuances change!”2 This makes it seem like the Bible was translated from its original language to Latin, then from Latin into English. This is not the case. All the standard versions of Scripture are translated directly from the original Greek and Hebrew into English (or German, Spanish, etc.), and where this isn’t the case, such as the Douay-Rheims Bible from the Vulgate and the New English Translation of the Septuagint, it is clearly stated what the source text is. Bible scholars continue to study the original languages of Scripture along with the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves in order to give the best translations possible. It’s always better to learn the original language if you have the opportunity to do so, but a good translation will convey the meaning of the original.

The Bible is full of contradictions.

Third, they claim that the Bible has contradictions and cite the various Gospels’ accounts of Jesus’ life as an example of contradictions in the Bible. However, they are the sort of differences in incidental detail that you would expect in different peoples’ memories of the same event recorded decades later. They aren’t contradictions but differences in details. For example see our articles nested here: AnswersInGenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/.

The Bible’s events have been disproved.

Finally, they claim that events in the Bible have been disproved. The article’s only example is that there is no archaeological proof of the global flood, and we have to admit, they’ve got us there! It’s not like there are billions of tons of sedimentary rocks laid down by water filled with animals that were buried quickly and fossilized before they could rot, including soft-bodied organisms and dinosaur bones that still have soft tissue. It’s further not like there’s a global cultural memory of a huge watery event survived by one man and his family on a boatlike vessel. Oh, wait. We have all of that!

The Bible is one of the most-authenticated sources of ancient history.

In fact, the Bible is one of the most-authenticated sources of ancient history. Where it talks about people, places, and events, and there is independent archaeological evidence, that independent evidence invariably corroborates the Bible’s account. While the Bible is more than a book of ancient history, it is no less than an excellent historical source.

Objection: The Bible’s Morality Is Flawed

Another category of objections can be summarized as—the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally because its morality is problematic if interpreted literally.

The Bible’s rules are brutal.

First, the article claims that “from stoning people for adultery to rules that sound incredibly harsh to our modern sensibilities, insisting it’s all God’s infallible word creates moral problems.”3 It’s true that stoning adulterers seems harsh to modern ears, but the world was harsh in biblical times. There was no social safety net other than the family, so the family’s integrity was absolutely crucial. Adultery undermines that, so a proportionately serious consequence would have acted as a deterrent.

The Old Testament Law claims to be better than that of the surrounding nations (Deuteronomy 4:7-8). The very nature of the law is supposed to "evangelize" the nations around them, making them wonder at how wise and suitable it is (Deuteronomy 4:6). While some of it seems harsh to modern readers, when seen in the context of the seriousness of sin, and the realities of the ancient world, we can understand how it was good (Deuteronomy 10:13) in that context and pointed to their need, and ours, for a Redeemer. So as Christians who worship the same God who gave the Old Testament law, we should be able to defend it.

The Old Testament God is mean, unlike Jesus.

The article further states, “The Old Testament God often seems vengeful, a stark contrast to Jesus’ message of love.”4 It’s understandable, for instance when the Old Testament God says, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Oh, wait, that was Jesus (Matthew 10:28). Jesus taught more about hell in his recorded teaching in the Gospels than the whole of the Old Testament.

Today’s culture is more desensitized to sin than previous generations were. In a culture where sin is celebrated, it can be uncomfortable to realize that God condemned whole people groups and regions for engaging in egregious sins. However, we should take encouragement that both the Old Testament God and Jesus in the New Testament offer forgiveness to anyone who repents and trusts in him. That’s because God is the same in the Old Testament and the New Testament, and Jesus is God in human flesh. See this article for more discussion: Isn’t the God of the Old Testament Harsh, Brutal, and Downright Evil?.

The Bible can be used to justify terrible things.

The cultural acceptance of Christianity in the ancient world is what showed that slavery and oppression of women were bad things!

“Slavery, oppression of women—literalists twisted the Bible for their own ends.”5 However, the cultural acceptance of Christianity in the ancient world is what showed that slavery and oppression of women were bad things! In the Roman empire, slaves and women weren’t even considered people on the same level as free Roman citizen males. So yes, some misinterpretations have historically justified atrocities, but that doesn’t mean that Christians shouldn’t seek to properly understand and plainly interpret the Scriptures. See this article about slavery in ancient Israel: Feedback: Does the Bible Encourage Masters to Beat Their Slaves?

As we have seen, this particular listicle uses some of the most stereotypical accusations against the Bible to argue that we shouldn’t interpret it literally, but those arguments fall over in the slightest examination. Part 2 will examine accusations against believers, both ancient and modern, and claims that unbelievers are smarter and more spiritual.