Questions "Part IV"

 

The next question down the Atheist list will again be superficial. The question itself has no real meaning, but because he asked it, we will attempt to address it. He asked, "When is the Bible being literal?" He is implying by his question no one cannot discern between literal and symbolic language when reading the Biblical text.

I can remember reading through the entire Bible when I was 13 years old, when I finished, nor at anytime during the process did I ever stop and have to wonder was that literal or symbolic language.  I had no more difficulty discerning the intent of the sentence structure than I had when reading any other book or paper. The Bible is not written in some obscure syntax where you cannot apply normal grammatical tools and techniques to determine the meaning of the text at hand. 

Modern translations render the reading more readily comfortable to the modern eye, but it is so easy to read that even as a 13-year-old boy I had no difficulty even with the old English version. It is true after 53 years I understand the Biblical text in greater depth than I did in the beginning, and I expect to continue to grow in that understanding as I progress in my study. Though my understanding is in greater depth, it is not a different understanding than I obtained as a 13-year-old. As a young boy completing the reading of the Bible for the first time, I readily understood the message and concept of what it was about. Now after 53 years I simply understand that message and concept in greater dept.

He (the atheist) points to a number of examples to support his thesis, one being the account of Jonah being swallowed by a whale. In his commentary, he points out that some Christians take it symbolically and others literally. Thus, he rests his point and demands to know, which is it? Who can know?

But this has nothing to do with the clarity of syntax, the obvious reading of the text reveals it was intended to be taken literally. That is the way I read it as a young boy, and it is the way I read it now. The text requires a literal reading, the reason some such as Bill O'Reilly and others determine to take it symbolically is because of the miraculous content, not because it cannot be determined by the text. There is symbolic language in the Bible, but when it is used it is easy to determine from the language itself, or many times the text itself identifies the symbolism.

The next question he brings to our attention addresses a valid issue, but he miss-applies the application. He asks, "Why do God's morals keep changing?" His argument is related to the fact as secular society and cultural changes occur, the Christian moral value eventually changes with it. 

Unfortunately, he is correct in his observation, however, he miss-applies it suggesting God's standards change. The Biblical standard of Christian morality has not changed, the fact Christians no longer want to walk in them is not something new to our era. The Church throughout history has been politicized and corrupted in various degrees because men are sinful and do not love God's law. The visible church has gone through various levels of correction and corruption throughout history, but the Biblical standard never changed. 

This is the 3rd posts addressing a number of questions the atheist brings to our attention. They have all either been mis-applied or asked from a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. There is no real substance to these or the remaining one's he brings to the table. I feel this is a sufficient response for the time, and we will move on to hopeful something of more substance value in the next post.

God bless,

David