Difficulties in Literal Interpretation
Fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism are founded on a literal interpretation of the Bible:
A literal interpretation of Scripture generally means reading the biblical text in a plain-sense manner, taking each passage to communicate what it normally conveys in grammar and context. This approach does not exclude recognizing figurative language, symbolism, or poetic devices. Rather, a literal method seeks to understand each passage according to its genre, historical context, and authorial intent. ("Interpret the Bible Literally?")
How is it then that those holding to this interpretive viewpoint cannot agree on what the Bible says? There are a number of difficulties with regard to literal interpretation that can explain this conundrum.
- Issues with Translation
- Many people assume that words in one language have a one-to-one correspondence to words in another language. However, this is not true. In fact, some words cannot be translated into another language because the concept of the word does not exist in that second language. The texts of the Bible were written in a variety of languages.
- Also, language does not exist in isolation but is part of a historical, cultural context. Despite every effort, it is impossible to completely understand a distant historical and cultural context in order to absolutely understand the language. Scholars rely on historical, archaeological, anthropological, sociological, and linguistical studies, which are limited by what can be learned about the past. This is complicated by the presence of unique words within the text, where interpreting the exact shade of meaning can be difficult.
- Sometimes language is idiomatic and finding a similar idiom in meaning can be difficult and complicated, even shifting the meaning or significance away from the original idiom. The phrase μη γενοιτο (me genoito) literally means "may it never happen," but the phrase in Greek is much more emphatic than the English translation. So, the King James translators replaced the Greek phrase with an English idiom common at the time that had similar forcefulness: "God forbid." [Note: However, that "God forbid" is both a curse and a violation of the commandment "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain."]
- Sometimes a deliberate mistranslation was used. The name El Shaddai is translated as Almighty God, but the word translated Almighty actually means the "many breasted," a female image which the translators chose to avoid (for a fuller discussion,see Made in His Image). The name Lucifer is the Latin name for the planet Venus ("Lucifer"), but the translators avoided the name Venus, probably for its feminine connotations (for a fuller discussion, see Misreading Lucifer).
- Sometimes instead of translating a word, English letters are substituted for the letters of the word (transliteration
). The literal translation of the Hebrew word Satan is adversary, but on several occasions, the translators chose not to translate the word as "adversary" but instead insert the word into the text as a name:
Sa'tan. The word itself, the Hebrew, satan, is simply an "adversary", and is so used in I Sa 29:4; II Sa 19:22; I Ki 5:4; I Ki 11:14; I Ki 11:23; I Ki 11:25; Num 22:22-23; Psa 109:6. This original sense is still found in our Lord's application of the name to St. Peter in Mat 16:23. It is used as a proper name or title only four times in the Old Testament, namely, (with the article), in Job 1:6; Job 1:12; Job 2:1; Zec 2:1, and without the article in I Ch 21:1. (Smith) [The format of scripture references were changed from the original text to support links to verses.]
In the New Testament, the word "baptize" (βαπτιζω) is a transliteration of the original Greek rather than a translation. The translation of the word is "immerse," "plunge," "sink," or "overwhelm" (Elwell). The word may not have been translated because of the accepted practices of sprinkling or pouring, particularly as used for infant baptism.
- Issues with Dogma
- Sometimes commitment to a particular accepted belief or dogma overrode translators' commitment to a plain sense reading of the text. Genesis clearly says that "the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field" (Gen 3:1), but scholars could not accept the plain sense reading of a talking snake and, so, interpreted the passage as Satan speaking through the snake (for a fuller explanation, see Misreading the Serpent).
- Sometimes evidence of genre is ignored in order to support a specific theological view. For instance, despite evidence that Genesis 1 is a hymn of creation, and, therefore, poetry, which should be viewed metaphorically, conservative theology is dependent on a historical reading of the text (for a fuller explanation, see Hymn of Creation).
- The Bible did not always exist in its current form. The various books of the New Testament were selected for inclusion over a period of time by the Church Fathers based on general acceptance by the masses and subject to specific guidelines based on the prevailing dogma and which focused on apostolic authority [eliminating the writings of women--patriarchy is not new to Christianity]. Any viewpoint contrary to the prevailing viewpoint was labeled heretical. The primary impetus to the development of the canon came as a response to an agnostic canon created by Marcion (Cairns 127-8). Books that did not support the accepted theological viewpoint were questioned, if not rejected. James was questioned for his insistence that "faith without works is dead (Jas 2:20) [for context, see Jas 2:14-26], which seemed to contradict Paul's statements that the "just shall live by faith" (Rom 1:17; Gal. 3:11; and repeated by the author of Hebrews, Heb 10:38). Hebrews was also questioned since no author was given. Ultimately, inclusion in the canon was determined by an authoritarian adherence to a tradition of accepted dogma developed over a lengthy period of time (For a more detailed discussion of the process of canonization, see the resources listed).
- Conservatives hold to the doctrine of the inerancy of Scripture, which is based on tradition and a logical argument about the nature of God and revelation rather than specific arguments from the text of the Bible (Vanhoozer). Therefore, any discrepancies between texts are "fixed" because there cannot be any discrepancies (circular reasoning). For instance, Mark states that Christ was crucified at the "third hour" (Mar 15:25) while John states Christ was sentenced to crucifixion "about the sixth hour" (Joh 19:14). A variety of explanations for the discrepancy have been given revolving around the practice of the passover (Lightfoot), a difference between Jewish time calculations and Roman (Henry), the complicated timeline of events (Coke), an error in the transmission of the text (Clarke), and so on.
A discrepancy that is largely ignored lies between the two accounts of creation. In Genesis 1, God says, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind. . . . the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Gen 1:24-25). In the next verse, humanity is created (Gen 1:26). But Genesis 2 states "the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam" (Gen 2:19), making their creation after Adam's.
Many of the difficulties in translation are inherent in the translation of any text distant in time and place. The disparities between various interpretations of the Bible, despite a commitment to literal interpretation, are a consequence of efforts to explain the meaning of the text to fit theological positions. For instance, Genesis does not explain where Cain finds a wife, only that he has one. Any attempt to answer that question will depend on the theological position already taken by the interpreter. This becomes even more complicated in passages that are highly metaphorical and symbolic, such as the prophetic books. A more useful approach to the question of interpretation of the text might be to apply the principles of literary criticism, which is the approach often taken by moderate and liberal scholars. For instance, formal criticism is similar to literal interpretation, but without the underpinnings of or commitment to a particular theological perspective. Other literary critical approaches can offer unique insights into the text although a foundational principle of literary interpretation is that any interpretation must be drawn from evidence within the text and not imposed on the text. For an example of how myth criticism can bring new insight into a text, see the discussion of the axis mundi in Consequences of the Fall.
Attridge, Harold W. and John J. Collins. "Formation of the Biblical Canon." Yale Bible Study: Yale Divinity School. <https://yalebiblestudy.org/courses/formation-of-the-biblical-canon/>.
"Biblical Canon." New World Encyclopedia, . 1 Oct 2023, 03:43 UTC. 12 Jun 2026, 04:42 <https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Biblical_canon&oldid=1124351>. .
Boudreaux, Lyle J. "The Canon of the Bible: Who Decided What Made It In?" The Imaginative Conservative.15 Sep. 2024. <https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2024/09/canon-bible-lyle-boudreaux.html>.
Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967.
Clarke, Adam. "Mark 15: 25." Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible. 1810-1826. Rpt. in eSword, Rick Myers, 2000-2025.
Coke, Thomas. "Mark 15: 25." A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke. 1803. Rpt. in eSword, Rick Myers, 2000-2025.
Elwell, Walter A., ed. "Baptize, Baptism." Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.. 1996. Rpt. in eSword, Rick Myers, 2000-2025.
Engle, Karen. "What Is Exegesis & Why Is It Important? Plus, How to Start." Logos. 9 Mar. 2023. 16 June 2026. <https://www.logos.com/grow/what-is-exegesis-and-why-is-it-important/>.
Henry, Matthew. "Mark 15:22-32." Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. 1708-1714. Rpt. in eSword, Rick Myers, 2000-2025.
"Interpret the Bible Literally?" Bible Hub. 11 June 2026. <https://biblehub.com/q/interpret_the_bible_literally.htm>. .
Johnson, Noelle. "How to Reclaim the Literal Interpretation of the Bible." Church Life Journal. 09 March 2018. <https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/how-to-reclaim-the-literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/>.
Kruger, Michael J. "The Biblical Canon." The Gospel Coalition. <https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-biblical-canon/>.
Lightfoot, John. "Mark 15:25."A Commentary of the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. Rpt. in eSword, Rick Myers, 2000-2025.
"Lucifer." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Rpt. in eSword, Rick Myers, 2000-2025.
Meade, John D. "No, Nicaea Didn't Create the Canon." The Gospel Coalition. 24 Aug. 2020. <https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/nicaea-canon/>.
Mooney, Britt. "How and When Was the Canon of the Bible Put Together?" Christianity.com. 17 Dec. 2025. <https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/how-and-when-was-the-canon-of-the-bible-put-together.html>.
Petrizzello, Melissa, ed. "Literal Interpretation." Britannica. <https://www.britannica.com/topic/literal-interpretation >.
Schachterle, Joshua. Robinson, Laura, ed. "Canonization of the Bible: Understanding How We Got the Bible." Bart D. Ehrman. 11 Sep. 2023. <https://www.bartehrman.com/canonization-of-the-bible/ >.
Sharp, Joshua. "Voices: What does it mean to read the Bible 'literally?'" BaptistStandard. 8 June 2021. <https://baptiststandard.com/opinion/voices/what-does-it-mean-to-read-the-bible-literally/ >.
Smith, William. Smith's Bible Dictionary. 1863. Rpt. in eSword, Rick Myers, 2000-2025.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. "The Inerrancy of Scripture." C.S. Lewis Institute. 1 Mar. 2010. 14 June 2026. <https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/the-inerrancy-of-scripture/>.