Is the Bible Literally True?

Should the Bible be interpreted literally? The best answer to this question is not "yes" or "no," but "it depends." The Bible should be interpreted literally when it is speaking literally, and it should be interpreted figuratively when it is speaking figuratively.

It is clear that the Bible uses figurative language. Jesus often spoke using parables. Last week's readings (Isaiah 5:1-7 and Matthew 21:33-46) were passages describing a vineyard that really had nothing to do with a literal vineyard, but were all about the kingdom of God; the "good grapes" of Isaiah 5 that the Lord wanted were not literal grapes, but the "fruit" (figuratively speaking) of good works.

Thus there are two errors you could make in this regard. One would be to take a figurative passage and interpret it literally; this often happens with the book of Revelation. The other would be to take a literal passage and interpret it figuratively; this is often the case with the books of Genesis and Jonah.

But how can you tell? Usually it is quite clear, but people have preconceived notions that color their interpretation. The book of Revelation, for example, is full of figurative language, such as Jesus being described as a lamb with seven eyes. It is completely inappropriate to suddenly interpret certain passages literally, even when numbers are involved. Just as "seven" is symbolic of completeness (thus seven eyes symbolize the omniscience of Christ, seeing everything), so the span of 1,000 years is symbolic of "a long time" and refers to the age in which we now live, not some future Messianic kingdom lasting exactly 1,000 years.

On the other hand, some will try to maintain that the Creation account in Genesis 1-2 is not incompatible with evolution, if you interpret the six "days" of creation as six "epochs"; likewise, the long ages of the antediluvian patriarchs are held by some to be symbolic of something rather than literal years. But the book of Genesis continues without interruption through Noah and the Flood right on to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and his 12 sons, who are clearly presented as historical. There is no shift in language or theme anywhere in Genesis, as though the author thought that Creation was a myth but Abraham was real.

I haven't yet answered the question of whether the Creation account of Genesis actually happened. (I believe that it did, but that will have to be the subject of a future blog post.) My point here is that you cannot say, "I believe the Bible is true, but Genesis is a figurative account of how God created life through evolution." If you want to believe in evolution, you have to concede that the Bible got it wrong. (Maybe you're OK with that; personally, I'm not.)