The classic example (if there is one) is probably I Kings 7:23 in which Solomon had a 'sea of cast metal' made that was 10 cubits from brim to brim, says it was round, and a line compassing it measured 30 cubits in circumference. That obviously gives the ratio of circumference/diameter as 3, when for a circle it is 3.1415926... And this has been used to "prove" that biblical literalism is invalid.
Most readers (or at least posters) on this site will probably say it does not make literalism invalid, but this example was either using round figures in which the unit of measure is not necessarily fixed technically anyway; or else, as v. 26 later says of this cast, that it was formed as a lily blossom, suggesting artistic curvature outward, and possibly inward then outward. So somewhere a 30 cubit line could have been in place around the brim.
This OP could be made very long, but the case above is enough to get the idea of the consideration here. The knowledge that scripture was written in different languages that change over the eras and was then translated into other languages that also change in that way; the understandings one culture would have had over a passage as opposed to another culture; and how the same incidents recorded more than once are not technically related the same way, and exceptions are made for laws and normal restrictions... these aspects come together such that one could easily say that the Bible cannot possibly be technically accurate, let alone absolutely literal in everything it says. Besides that, there really is no question that much of the Bible is indeed figurative and taking it literally can lead to lousy conclusions-- one example is when Jesus told his disciples to "beware the yeast of the Pharisees." They thought he was talking about literal physical yeast, but he scolded them and made it plain that he meant the Pharisees' teachings and superior attitude-- figurative, not literal.
However, if it is left up to the individual reader to determine how technical the Bible means something it says, then there can always be something-- "it's only figurative"; "that precept was cultural for that time only"; "it's just trying to tell us that..."-- that leads people to believe literally what they want to believe and put the rest it in the Figurative File or the Archaic Archive,..... In a word, just what we have in so many denominations and teachings and cults.
What is your rule for technical v. general, literal v. figurative, passe v. modern, real & present v.ancient & absent, in Biblical understanding?
Most readers (or at least posters) on this site will probably say it does not make literalism invalid, but this example was either using round figures in which the unit of measure is not necessarily fixed technically anyway; or else, as v. 26 later says of this cast, that it was formed as a lily blossom, suggesting artistic curvature outward, and possibly inward then outward. So somewhere a 30 cubit line could have been in place around the brim.
This OP could be made very long, but the case above is enough to get the idea of the consideration here. The knowledge that scripture was written in different languages that change over the eras and was then translated into other languages that also change in that way; the understandings one culture would have had over a passage as opposed to another culture; and how the same incidents recorded more than once are not technically related the same way, and exceptions are made for laws and normal restrictions... these aspects come together such that one could easily say that the Bible cannot possibly be technically accurate, let alone absolutely literal in everything it says. Besides that, there really is no question that much of the Bible is indeed figurative and taking it literally can lead to lousy conclusions-- one example is when Jesus told his disciples to "beware the yeast of the Pharisees." They thought he was talking about literal physical yeast, but he scolded them and made it plain that he meant the Pharisees' teachings and superior attitude-- figurative, not literal.
However, if it is left up to the individual reader to determine how technical the Bible means something it says, then there can always be something-- "it's only figurative"; "that precept was cultural for that time only"; "it's just trying to tell us that..."-- that leads people to believe literally what they want to believe and put the rest it in the Figurative File or the Archaic Archive,..... In a word, just what we have in so many denominations and teachings and cults.
What is your rule for technical v. general, literal v. figurative, passe v. modern, real & present v.ancient & absent, in Biblical understanding?
