4 Good Reasons to Not To Read The Bible Literally?

Recently David Loose from the Huffing(paint)ton Post gave his expert reasons as to why you should not take the Bible at "face value" or shouldn't read it literally. After reading the article, this self-confessed Bible thumper (hey, I embrace the insult) actually seems to provide reasons to not read the Bible rather than having a simple constructive conversation about his feelings on the matter. Give it a read:
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/4-good-reasons-not-to-read-bible-literally_b_919345.html

If you don't want to read it, here is the summary of his key points:

1) Nowhere does the Bible claim to be inerrant.
2) Reading the Bible literally distorts its witness.
3) Most Christians across history have not read the Bible literally.
4) Reading the Bible literally undermines a chief confession of the Bible about God.A typical good place to start. Like Christians haven't heard this one before, right? Well, he brings up some good points. And it's not as if most Christians know how to defend themselves with scripture, evidence, apologetics, or simple logic. So, let me help defend our faith.

So what is "inerrancy?" It is, that when all facts are known, the Bible - in it's original manuscripts and properly interpreted - will be shown to be true and never false in all that it affirms, whether related to doctrine, or the social, physical, or life sciences. The belief in inerrancy rests on four lines of argument: the biblical, historical, epistemological, and the slippery slope arguments. Our columnist claims that the Bible never says that it is inerrant. This is true, as even a translation, the Bible never uses the word. Most often cited is 2 Tim 3:16. Most translations will say that Gods word is "inspired," but the Greek word used means 'God Breathed." Wait... How did God create the world, was... wait... yep, it was through His breath. The Bible does in fact claim that it's historically correct. See John 10:34-35, or NM 23:19, 1 Sm 15:29, Ti 1:2, and there are several more. The theme in all of these, is not the writer saying "what was, is, and is to be written is completely factually based, and you should believe it or you are wrong and dull-minded, period." No, the writers/speakers quote passages because it is mostly known to all present that the citing of Pentateuch and Torah scriptures are in fact, accurate. It's simply peer review and accountability factors at work. The Hebrews memorized entire books, entire scrolls, entire prophecies, and it wasn't up to a secret council as to what elements made the final product - it was the community coming together to verify. If that doesn't please you, read on.   

To the second point of our great theologian writer:
A great friend in high school always said "the bible was written by man, of course it can't be true." That's quite a position. So, even after I click "publish post"  after completing this, nothing I said can be verified, or.. it has to be verified in order for you to believe in it? Let us get one thing straight: the Bible is what it is, and the historical validity game has been going on for Milena. Documents, like defendants, are innocent until proven guilty. Corroborators, like Papias, were defending the Gospels for accuracy as early as first-second Century, as did Flavius Josephus. The latter of these two especially, have been regarded by many as affirmative and accurate. Whatever right? They're "just men." But, I don't think so.

Third point examined:
Who exactly are most Christians? What are the bounds of "literal." If i am quoted for saying "man, the Fighting Sioux devoured the Golden Gophers this weekend" they "swept them," will you assume that this conversation about about cannibalism or household chores? No, because you understand the context and the language I am using. When Jesus said you have to be "born again" it took the most learned Pharisee (yes, they did know the scriptures quite well), a thorough night-long talk with Jesus to confirm that nobody had to pass through the womb again. Historically, many languages and forms of writing have been taken up to describe events, prophecy, and ideas. I will not examine each individual case, but remember the syntax and context matter greatly.

I will focus on a small example of what David here, our columnist, is pointing out. Some Gospels contain contradictions, he claims. How many women were present at Jesus' Resurrection tomb? When was the veil split? Was Jesus tempted by Satan? The point here is that some Gospel accounts give differing statements, or some don't contain a reference to particular event. Therein, according to sceptics, the Bible is false and completely untrustworthy. If my boss, and two other employees told you what I did today, and they gave you the agenda in the wrong order and some claimed I did things that others didn't, are they wrong? If one said I ate Chicken and peas, and other said I ate Chicken and rice, are they wrong? What's really important here? David Loose proclaims himself to be a "pretty regular" reader of the Bible, and has even written a helpful book on how you should read it.  Clearly, he is more interested in making $$ by figuring out what criticisms he can bring forth, than reading the Bible with his heart. Remember that fourth argument point I mentioned; the slippery slope? It is simply put: inerrant is so fundamental that those admitting errors into the Bible will soon surrender other central doctrines like the Deity of Christ and/or the substitutionary atonement. It's not true in every case, but it is a trend among non-believers and skeptics. these differing accounts should be evidenced as a honest source, because if they were all the same wouldnt you think 'conspiracy?'

Whether peas or rice, I still had lunch. I believe it is truly a tool of Satan, the deceiver, that coaxes us into talking ourselves into the slippery slope. You can and I hope you do see these differences, but Jesus didn't come to create a world of matching phrases; he came with a message. More emphasis need to be placed on the grasp of the message - repent/ Grace is a free gift/ salvation is a package deal/ works are the outward sign of faith/ and Jesus is coming back. Each day, more discoveries are made as whiteness to the Bible in accuracy, and less is revealed about "imperfections" of the Bible. No, these same "legitimate" arguments have been used forever, literally. I said this once to a great friend who has turned from his faith: "what would be the glory of believing in something that everyone knows without a doubt to be true?" I take much more pleasure and faith in believing in a God that doesn't just 'POOF' change you in order to understand - like a slave or zombie. If you are waiting for some earth shattering evidence to emerge before you become a Christian - you will taste only death in your hiding. It takes a personal transformation and revelation of the HEART - but most won't connect those 20 inches to the brain.   
Couple key points:
- Ignore what you want, but the same book that contains these "errors" also has 400 specific prophecies fulfilled by one man - to the precise specifications.
- God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. 1 Cor 1:27
- Just cause you don't believe it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
- A martyr never dies for a borderline word or detail.
- Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see. - Heb 11:1
- Your doubt is a part of what God intends, but it is not the end result; just a good spot to begin.

If these things make me a fool to the world, God has judged me wise. 

Carry your cross.