The issues of evolution and the origin of the earth have fueled the motivation behind the question: is the Bible literal? Many times in personal conversation this question has been asked of me, often with a sense of incredulity, “You don’t really believe the Bible is literal, do you?”
Frankly the question is unanswerable because it is a nonsense question, that is, it makes no sense. It’s like asking “What is the color of a mile” or “How heavy is a rectangle?” Though the questions are framed correctly grammatically, they make no sense semantically; for neither a mile nor an rectangle have such characteristics.
The problem with asking if the Bible is literal is the equivocal use of “literal.” Literal is not a genre of literature. A genre is a type of category for literature: historical, mystery, poetry, fiction, non-fiction, etc. Let’s say I pick up a novel of John Grisham and hand it to you. You have read it and are familiar with it. If I asked, “Is this book literal,” what would you understand me to mean? Do I mean fiction versus non-fiction? Do I mean historical versus historical-dramatic? Do I mean real or unreal? The question is very ambiguous.
Let’s say I hand you a book of poems by Edgar Allan Poe. I then ask, “Are these poems literal?” How is that answered? A poem can refer to a historical event, The Charge of the Light Brigade, or it can be totally within the author’s mind, Richard Cory. The question simply doesn’t make sense. “Literal” as a genre of literature is just plain confusing.
However, what literature is comprised of—language—can be literal or non-literal. Before I continue, let me ask the reader, “What is the definition of literal language and non-literal language?” The term “figurative language” is used as frequently as non-literal language. Often the word “metaphorical language” is used. What is the difference between literal language and figurative language?
What is downright amusing with the above question is that depending on what dictionary is used, the definition of each is the negative of the other! In other words, the definition of literal is non-figurative whereas the definition of figurative is non-literal. Now, that is helpful, isn’t it??? This same sort of non-sense occurred in Hermeneutics (science of interpretation) in seminary. All those authors did was beef up the nonsense, e.g., a text is figurative when it is obviously not literal. There are no guidelines here, no practical tools to determine literal from non-literal.
From reading C. S. Lewis (esp., Bluspels and Flalansferes), I. A. Richards, Owen Barfield, and the field linguistic tools used by the Wycliffe Bible Translators I would like to suggest a practical tool to distinguish between literal and non-literal language. When I first stumbled across this concept in Lewis’ essay, my entire approach to language was turned upside down. As I continued to study and reflect on this issue, it became clearer and clearer to me how to practically identify figurative and non-figurative language.
Moving to the essence of the issue, literal language is that language which can be perceived by the senses (and instruments which magnify the senses), and non-literal language is that which is not perceived by the senses and is understood as a comparison (an analogy). Illustrations will make this clear.
If I use the phrase “rabbit ears,” our first reaction are the two long ears that rabbits have (perhaps you see Bugs Bunny in your mind as I do). The first meaning we think of (called the primary meaning) is the literal meaning if it is something that can be perceived by the senses: sight, touch, etc. When my son was four or five years old I made the remark one day, “I’m going to the store and buy some rabbit ears.” He must have laughed and giggled for two days over that. He thought I meant real rabbit ears. He had no idea what a rabbit-ears antenna for the TV was. I explained to him that the rabbit ears that I was buying were LIKE real rabbit ears. (It made no difference; he continued to giggle for a day.)
A literal definition of what I was buying was a unit, comprised of a plastic base with an extended wire, with two collapsible rods opposite each other on the base, forming a V-shape, which, when attached to a TV would bring in the signal better.. Obviously it is much easier to say a “rabbit ears antenna,” or “rabbit ears” for short.
Obviously I can use my senses to perceive actual rabbit ears or a rabbit ears antenna. The difference is that there is no rabbit to actually perceive with the antenna. When one begins to reflect on all the things that are referred to that are LIKE something else, our usage of non-literal language explodes. There are philologists who believe as much as 1/3 of our language is non-literal. Think of all the language we use in which a comparison is explicit as implicit: “The White House announced … The Yankees slaughtered the Angels … Give me a minute … She’s sweet as an angel … He’s a grumpy bear this morning … etc, etc.” Frankly, non-literal language appeals to the imagination and is more pleasing, stimulating, and exciting.
Here is the important issue about non-literal language which is ROUNTINELY misunderstood. Non-literal language has NOTHING to do with being real or unreal, historical or non-historical, true or false. So often when I have heard people ask if the Bible were literal or figurative, they are using figurative as synonymous with non-historical, as unreal. Consider the example: “The White House announced that …” Obviously the White House did not announce anything. Some person associated with the White House announced something. The language is figurative; yet, the incident is historical and real and true.
Literal and non-literal are verbal methods to make language more interesting and has NO INHERENT CONNECTION WHATSOEVER with real or unreal, historical or fiction, or true or false. If I lived on a remote island with no background in literature or history, I could believe that Sherlock Holmes was real and historical if a book of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s would wash ashore my island. In contrast, I might consider a short magazine article on the Jewish holocaust as unhistorical because I might do computations and come to the conclusion that so many people could not have been murdered by so few in such a short amount of time. In both cases, the language has zero weight in determining what is true or false. Also, in both cases I would be 100% incorrect.
The question “Is the Bible literal” is an impossible question to answer. Literal is not a genre of literature, but literal and non-literal are characteristics of the language used in literature. Yet, literal and non-literal do not tell me if the substance of what I am reading is real or unreal or historical or non-historical.
Certainly it is possible for the language of a book to be so dissimilar to reality that we know the book is not real and not historical, but that is not anything in the language. It is because what is described cannot nor could ever exist. If I read a novel about an alien altering a human so when he opened his mouth thousands of flies would come out, obviously the language is literal. IF I could visualize the event (use my senses), I would see flies coming out the mouth; however, it is not the language that tells me it is false. It is my experience. (Of course, there is the assumption that there are no aliens who could do such a thing, but underlying that assumption is another assumption that aliens do not exist, and, if they do, they wouldn’t have such power.)
The Bible is neither literal or non-literal. The Bible has language that is literal and non-literal. Whether the events described by the Biblical language in any particular passage is real or unreal or historical or non-historical has to be determined by something else. The language merely makes the event more interesting, more descriptive, appeals more to the mind, or appeals more to the imagination. But reality and historical and truth have to be determined by something outside the language.
So, is the Bible literal. No, it is not. The language of the Bible may be literal or non-literal. Regardless of the language used, the test whether what is being described by the Bible is real or unreal, historical or non-historical cannot be determined by the language. Other tests are brought to the language to determine if what is being described is real or unreal, true or false.
