It seems to me that large parts of the Bible were written as something to take literally, though not quite as much as the fundies think. Job is certainly a literary creation, Jonah is an entertaining folk tale, and maybe even Balaam's talking donkey is the creation of an ancient Hebrew Aesop.
We can also allow that whatever the author's intention may have been, some parts have been read figuratively from ancient times. For instance, Augustine did not take the Genesis creation story as a literal point-by-point history.
There are also passages which are understood to convey a spiritual truth but are also deemed to be literally true. That is the case with many of Jesus' miracles: cleansing a man of leprosy (supposedly) shows Jesus to have the power to forgive sins. However, until very recent times no one doubted that a man was actually healed of a skin disease.
However, IMO, there is still a problem with the liberal use of the Bible. There will be some point which they insist is true, likely that Jesus saves us from our sins. Now the only way they could know this is from the Bible, but how did they separate this one precious nugget from the other 99% which is largely dreck: atrocities, genocides, etc?
Grant that there is a revelation of spiritual truth in the Bible, and you give licence to the fundies to claim the whole damn thing is God's perfect revelation.
We can also allow that whatever the author's intention may have been, some parts have been read figuratively from ancient times. For instance, Augustine did not take the Genesis creation story as a literal point-by-point history.
There are also passages which are understood to convey a spiritual truth but are also deemed to be literally true. That is the case with many of Jesus' miracles: cleansing a man of leprosy (supposedly) shows Jesus to have the power to forgive sins. However, until very recent times no one doubted that a man was actually healed of a skin disease.
However, IMO, there is still a problem with the liberal use of the Bible. There will be some point which they insist is true, likely that Jesus saves us from our sins. Now the only way they could know this is from the Bible, but how did they separate this one precious nugget from the other 99% which is largely dreck: atrocities, genocides, etc?
Grant that there is a revelation of spiritual truth in the Bible, and you give licence to the fundies to claim the whole damn thing is God's perfect revelation.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House
