Biblical Inacurracies

[TheGrungeDiva]

but then God corrected your assumptions and informed you that he was only a day old, would you then turn around and call God a "lying", "trickster"?

If someone told me that something I was looking at was not what it was, then yes, that person would be literally wrong.

I don't believe God can be "wrong."

If a person is purposely trying to fool me into thinking that what I was looking at was something else, then yes, that person would be a liar and a trickster.

I don't believe God is a liar or a trickster.

If I am looking at a duck, and it passes all the tests to be a duck -- it quacks like a duck, it waddles like a duck, it has the exact right DNA to be a duck, etc. -- and someone tells me it's not a duck, then yes, that person is not literally correct.

I then have to think about the person who's talking to me. Is he or she stupid, and doesn't know what a duck is? Or is he or she purposely trying to deceive me? Or maybe he or she is making some sort of poetic statement about ducks, like "This isn't just a duck you see, it represents all waterfowl." I have to look at the person I'm talking to and make an assessment about which is most likely. I don't reject what my senses tell me, that this is a duck. I question why the person is telling me otherwise.

More often than not, when a statement contradicts what your senses tell you, it's not your senses that are wrong, OR that the person making the statement is wrong, but that your have misunderstood the statement.

The very first time I read Genesis 1:1-2:4a, it was very clear to me that it was not intended to be taken literally. It was clearly intended as a story. A wonderful, fabulous story, written by God, the greatest author there is. This story is far better, far more important, far superior than any factoid any scientist can tell me about evolution or the big bang. Sure, I accept both evolution and big bang, but neither one can hold a candle to any of God's story of creation, as told in the Bible.

You keep thinking that referring to Scripture as myth is somehow "demeaning" or "insulting." That is absolutely false. If anything, the opposite is true: the more mythic, the more symbolic something is, the more "true" it is. God's creation story is not literally accurate, but that doesn't mean it isn't "real." It's more real than 2+2=4. It's so real, that historical and biological data can't possibly contain all the truth there is, so God had to reveal it to us as a myth, rather than as a history lesson or a biology text book.

Once you accept that truth is bigger than facts, you'll see that Jesus is there, not just at one point in history, but beyond time, transcendent of human experience.

 

[AwaketoParadise]

If someone told me that something I was looking at was not what it was, then yes, that person would be literally wrong.

I don't believe God can be "wrong."

If a person is purposely trying to fool me into thinking that what I was looking at was something else, then yes, that person would be a liar and a trickster.

I don't believe God is a liar or a trickster.

If I am looking at a duck, and it passes all the tests to be a duck -- it quacks like a duck, it waddles like a duck, it has the exact right DNA to be a duck, etc. -- and someone tells me it's not a duck, then yes, that person is not literally correct.

I then have to think about the person who's talking to me. Is he or she stupid, and doesn't know what a duck is? Or is he or she purposely trying to deceive me? Or maybe he or she is making some sort of poetic statement about ducks, like "This isn't just a duck you see, it represents all waterfowl." I have to look at the person I'm talking to and make an assessment about which is most likely. I don't reject what my senses tell me, that this is a duck. I question why the person is telling me otherwise.

More often than not, when a statement contradicts what your senses tell you, it's not your senses that are wrong, OR that the person making the statement is wrong, but that your have misunderstood the statement.

The very first time I read Genesis 1:1-2:4a, it was very clear to me that it was not intended to be taken literally. It was clearly intended as a story. A wonderful, fabulous story, written by God, the greatest author there is. This story is far better, far more important, far superior than any factoid any scientist can tell me about evolution or the big bang. Sure, I accept both evolution and big bang, but neither one can hold a candle to any of God's story of creation, as told in the Bible.

You keep thinking that referring to Scripture as myth is somehow "demeaning" or "insulting." That is absolutely false. If anything, the opposite is true: the more mythic, the more symbolic something is, the more "true" it is. God's creation story is not literally accurate, but that doesn't mean it isn't "real." It's more real than 2+2=4. It's so real, that historical and biological data can't possibly contain all the truth there is, so God had to reveal it to us as a myth, rather than as a history lesson or a biology text book.

Once you accept that truth is bigger than facts, you'll see that Jesus is there, not just at one point in history, but beyond time, transcendent of human experience.

Fair enough. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion. Sometimes I just wonder what comes first, the conclusion that Genesis is poetic and not to be taken literally or the conclusion that science must be right therefore Genesis HAS to be poetic and not taken literally.

Regardless, as long as you believe Jesus was literally God manifested in the flesh, and literally died for your sins and literally rose from the dead on the third day then you sound Christian to me.

 

[Laodicea]

Inspiration of the Bible

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Sometimes I just wonder what comes first, the conclusion that Genesis is poetic and not to be taken literally or the conclusion that science must be right therefore Genesis HAS to be poetic and not taken literally.

Well, in this case, it wasn't much of a contest. Long before scientists figured out the age of the world, theologians were interpreting Genesis symbolically rather than literally. The Jews at the time of Jesus thought that the world was only 4,000 years old, but they also believed the 6-day creation story was symbolic.

Until the late 1800s, Christians had the same view. So when Darwin came along, there really was no contradiction. Genesis was already understood as poetic. It wasn't until after that that some Christians decided to challenge science, for some reason (and I still don't know why), taking an interpretation that had not been generally accepted before, just to be at odds with science.

Regardless, as long as you believe Jesus was literally God manifested in the flesh, and literally died for your sins and literally rose from the dead on the third day then you sound Christian to me.

Thanks.

I know some people who take the resurrection as symbolic as well. I disagree with them, but it isn't up to me whether or not they're Christian.

 

[AwaketoParadise]

Well, in this case, it wasn't much of a contest. Long before scientists figured out the age of the world, theologians were interpreting Genesis symbolically rather than literally. The Jews at the time of Jesus thought that the world was only 4,000 years old, but they also believed the 6-day creation story was symbolic.

Until the late 1800s, Christians had the same view. So when Darwin came along, there really was no contradiction. Genesis was already understood as poetic. It wasn't until after that that some Christians decided to challenge science, for some reason (and I still don't know why), taking an interpretation that had not been generally accepted before, just to be at odds with science.


Thanks.

I know some people who take the resurrection as symbolic as well. I disagree with them, but it isn't up to me whether or not they're Christian.

While there are those who have always took a symbolic approach toward Genesis, I have to highly question whether or not that has ever been the dominate view in Christianity. When I read commentaries that date back before the 1800's the vast majority of them (at least the ones I have read) take Genesis literally. Ultimately though, all that matters is how the Bible interprets Genesis and I am convinced it interprets Genesis literally.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Ultimately though, all that matters is how the Bible interprets Genesis and I am convinced it interprets Genesis literally.

"The Bible" does not interpret anything. One can interpret the Bible. It cannot interpret itself.

The Bible doesn't "do" anything. It is an object. It must be acted upon. Don't think you can get away with letting the Bible do your homework for you.

If you are saying that some parts of the Bible refer to Genesis, and that is why you think it is literal, I have pointed out numerous times that simply referring to something in no way implies or suggests that it is literal. People refer to fictional characters all the time, and that practice was even more common in the ancient world than it is today. Referring back to a story, myth, legend or tale was in fact more common then than referring to a historical event, since history was not really taught as a subject back then. People would not have known historical events, but they would have been taught the stories and their symbolism. The fact that these stories are referred to later in the Bible is further evidence that they are, in fact, symbolic and not literal.

Again, if you want to believe them to be literal, you may, but it is a break from the tradition of the Church that has been handed down to us for at least 4,000 years, and it is a break from reason, since it contradicts all evidence to the contrary.

I would be curious to hear what your authority is for taking Scripture literally rather than symbolically. It can't be Scripture, Tradition, or Reason, because all of those things indicate a symbolic interpretation. If you'd like to share what your authority is, I'd be interested in hearing.

 

[AwaketoParadise]

"The Bible" does not interpret anything. One can interpret the Bible. It cannot interpret itself.

The Bible doesn't "do" anything. It is an object. It must be acted upon. Don't think you can get away with letting the Bible do your homework for you.

Sure it does. You have to be willfully blind if you think when the people of the New Testament quote Genesis that they believe they are quoting myths. Atheist call the stories in the Bible "myths" to discredit it. You mean to tell me all this time atheist were actually "complementing" the Bible when they called the stories within it myths? Judging by you the Bible is a book full of half truths.

I could quote an endless amount of verses in the New Testament that prove beyond any doubt (at least for a reasonable person) that Genesis was a literal account, but I wont waste my time. I tell you, if I thought the Bible was a book of fables, I wouldn't put my faith in a fairy tale, but maybe thats just me.

 

[AwaketoParadise]

Apologetics Press - Genesis 1 thru 11

 

[AwaketoParadise]

Here is something taken from the above link

2. The Genesis narrative is to be accepted as literal history because this is the view adopted by Jesus Christ. As Whitcomb has said:

...It is the privilege of these men to dispense with an historical Adam if they so desire. But they do not at the same time have the privilege of claiming that Jesus Christ spoke the truth. Adam and Jesus Christ stand or fall together, for Jesus said: “If ye believed Moses, ye would believe me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46- 47). Our Lord also insisted that “till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law (and this includes Genesis) till all things be accomplished” (Matthew 5:18) [1972, pp. 110-111, emp. and parenthetical comment in orig.].

In Matthew 19, a discussion between Christ and the Pharisees is recorded, the topic of which was marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The passage makes it clear that the Pharisees’ intent was to trick the Lord into contradicting the Law of Moses and thereby turn the people against Him, because most of the Israelites viewed Moses with great respect—and rightly so. On that occasion, however, the Lord did not fall prey to the Jewish leaders’ trap because He understood their strategy. Instead, He pointedly asked those hypocrites: “Have ye not read [citing Genesis 1:27 —BT] that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4). Concerning this discourse, Wayne Jackson observed:

Here Jesus plainly affirms that: (1) There was a beginning, (2) The first couple was made, (3) They were male and female. When Christ spoke of Adam and Eve being “made,” He used the aorist Greek verb epoisesen, stressing the fact that this pair was made by single acts of creation. Had the Lord subscribed to the notion that the first humans evolved over vast ages of time, he would have employed the Greek imperfect tense, which is designed to emphasize progressive action at some time in the past. Thus, Christ actually verbally refuted the concept of evolutionary development. And certainly the Lord was in a position to know what took place in the beginning, for He was there (John 1:1), and was the active agent of creation (Colossians 1:16) [1974, pp. 26- 27, emp. in orig.].

In the words of Henry Morris: “Denying the historical validity of the Creation account also undermines the authority of the New Testament and of Christ Himself!” (1966, p. 92). Whitcomb concluded: “If Genesis is not historically dependable, then Jesus is not a dependable guide to all truth, and we are without a Savior” (1972, p. 111).

 

[WolfInOxHide]

I don't believe God is a liar or a trickster.

Right.

If I cover a nickel with a piece of paper, then you or I remove the paper and you see the nickel, I have concealed and revealed.

If I cover a nickel with a piece of paper, then you or I remove it to find a penny, I have deceived.

YHWH conceals and reveals for purpose of instruction and testing. But He does not deceive.
We on the other hand, do a great job of deceiving each other.

 

[Mich223]

Hello Everyone,

I have recently finished a round-trip tour of the Bible, and have discovered some obvious mistakes. The mistakes are nothing more than penmanship, and authorship errors. However, due to the large quantity I have found, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible can not be the infallible Word of God. Emphasis is on "infallible". I will demonstrate a few to show my findings. These are from my KJV. I use a facsimile of the 1611 KJV to ensure they are also similar. That allows me to rule out this particular Bible, as the reason for the mistake.

Some are simple numerical issues. Forget a number here, and one there.

1 Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horseman."
2 Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horesman."

Some are about how to live.

Proverbs 26:4-5 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his conciet."

Some are about our faith.

2 Kings 2:11 "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."
John 3:13 "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

And one is about God. There are numerous sources and teachings that show that God is good. God cannot commit evil acts. But one chapter in Ezekiel has God speaking to Israel, and he says something odd.

Ezekiel 20:25 "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live."

My study bible offers no commentary on that particular verse. I have found that people believe that God "gave them into their own evil practices" but, to my knowledge, that does not agree with the Hebrew text.

I am wondering if I am alone in this discovery, and is it wrong or bad to say that the bible is not 100% accurate?
Thank you very much in advanced. God bless!

There is a biblical scholar, Bart D. Erhman who says that there are biblical inaccuracies. However, he was a Christian and is now an agnostic. If there are any, they are minor. I still believe the bible is God's word.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Sure it does. You have to be willfully blind if you think when the people of the New Testament quote Genesis that they believe they are quoting myths.

You keep saying this, but saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

From where I'm sitting, it seems blatantly obvious that they believed they were quoting myths. It seems to me (and to millions of other Christians throughout the ages) that anyone who thought for a second they were being literal would be very thick indeed. Clearly, you believe that, but from where I am sitting, it just makes zero sense. And saying that you believe because "it's obviously true" doesn't mean that you are correct. Because my way of thinking is just as obviously true to me (and to others) as your way is to you and others who agree with you.

Atheist call the stories in the Bible "myths" to discredit it.

Very few do. In fact, most atheists believe exactly as you do: that the authors intended those stories to be taken literally, and to them, that is proof positive that there is no god. Any god that would do literally what the god of the Old Testament has done is unworthy of worship. Any god who would trick a king into sinning, telling him to do something, and then immediately punishing him for doing the very thing he commanded, does not deserve belief let alone worship. If this was intended to be literal, reporting an historical event, then the god of this story is evil.

You mean to tell me all this time atheist were actually "complementing" the Bible when they called the stories within it myths?

I have never met an atheist who believes the Bible is "myth." I've met a few agnostics who might say that, but atheists, based on what they believe, would never call the Bible "myth." Atheists just think it's wrong.

See, you still seem to be getting that word wrong. You still seem to think that the word "myth" is somehow the opposite of "truth," but that's not the case. In fact, a myth HAS to be true in order to be a myth, which is why atheists reject all of them.

Judging by you the Bible is a book full of half truths.

Case in point. If the Bible had any "half-truths" in it, it would not be mythic. You're still not getting it.

I could quote an endless amount of verses in the New Testament that prove beyond any doubt (at least for a reasonable person) that Genesis was a literal account,

And again, those quotes, those verses in the New Testament, when read by me or any "reasonable person" I know, prove beyond any doubt that Genesis was intended to be taken as a myth.

Look, I opened the book, I read the words, it was obviously a myth. I don't know how to make it any plainer. Insulting me and calling me names is not going to change what God wrote.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Right.

If I cover a nickel with a piece of paper, then you or I remove the paper and you see the nickel, I have concealed and revealed.

If I cover a nickel with a piece of paper, then you or I remove it to find a penny, I have deceived.

YHWH conceals and reveals for purpose of instruction and testing. But He does not deceive.
We on the other hand, do a great job of deceiving each other.

Nice analogy. I like that.

Allow me to tie into that analogy to illustrate:

Evolution is a penny.

The story of God creating the world in six days is a nickel.

God wrote a nickel. It's a beautiful nickel. It's worth five whole cents. Worth WAYYYYYY more than a penny.

When we remove the paper, we find that what really happened, scientifically, literally, is a penny.

The fact that a penny is underneath the paper does not diminish the value of the nickel. We still have the nickel. It's still shiny and beautiful, and still worth five times as much as the penny.

A literalist wants to remove the penny and replace it with the nickel. They want to pretend that the penny isn't there. But the penny is there, it has been there all along and will continue to be there. It has been proven to be there. You don't have to look at it, you don't have to touch it, it's still going to be there.

The fact that God wrote a nickel instead of a penny doesn't mean God lied. The fact that God put a penny under the paper instead of a nickel doesn't mean God lied.

It's only when we try to turn one into another that we have a problem. Let each thing be what it was supposed to be, and stop making God into a liar. It's not that hard.

 

[AwaketoParadise]

You keep saying this, but saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.

From where I'm sitting, it seems blatantly obvious that they believed they were quoting myths. It seems to me (and to millions of other Christians throughout the ages) that anyone who thought for a second they were being literal would be very thick indeed. Clearly, you believe that, but from where I am sitting, it just makes zero sense. And saying that you believe because "it's obviously true" doesn't mean that you are correct. Because my way of thinking is just as obviously true to me (and to others) as your way is to you and others who agree with you.


Very few do. In fact, most atheists believe exactly as you do: that the authors intended those stories to be taken literally, and to them, that is proof positive that there is no god. Any god that would do literally what the god of the Old Testament has done is unworthy of worship. Any god who would trick a king into sinning, telling him to do something, and then immediately punishing him for doing the very thing he commanded, does not deserve belief let alone worship. If this was intended to be literal, reporting an historical event, then the god of this story is evil.


I have never met an atheist who believes the Bible is "myth." I've met a few agnostics who might say that, but atheists, based on what they believe, would never call the Bible "myth." Atheists just think it's wrong.

See, you still seem to be getting that word wrong. You still seem to think that the word "myth" is somehow the opposite of "truth," but that's not the case. In fact, a myth HAS to be true in order to be a myth, which is why atheists reject all of them.


Case in point. If the Bible had any "half-truths" in it, it would not be mythic. You're still not getting it.


And again, those quotes, those verses in the New Testament, when read by me or any "reasonable person" I know, prove beyond any doubt that Genesis was intended to be taken as a myth.

Look, I opened the book, I read the words, it was obviously a myth. I don't know how to make it any plainer. Insulting me and calling me names is not going to change what God wrote.

Calling you names? I don't remember doing that. Anyway dont take it personally, you are probably a nice person for all I know. You see it the way you see it and I see it the way I see. From my point of view, rejecting that the book of Genesis is literal (which is the foundation of the Bible) undermines the whole Word of God.


Well, I guess the word myth has a range of meanings.

myth (mth)
n.
1.
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: "German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth" (Leon Wolff).

myth 
noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2.
stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3.
any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4.
an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5.
an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

 

[RickShafer]

There are more mistakes by scribes and copyists.
I won't point them out because they don't affect the doctrine
of Jesus Christ or the gospel message at all.

I don't think it wise to hold a book written by 40 different writers over two thousand years to
stringent copy rules.

The words of God are written in prophecy and fulfillment throughout the book.
Also the words of life are evident to the person who is reading them.
The Bible is a living book.
Every time I read it, it speaks to me in a new and fresh way.
After all, it IS a matter of faith.
How can God be pleased without it? Just enough faith and intuition
with the Holy Spirit mixed in. - To help you rightly divide what it means.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Well, I guess the word myth has a range of meanings.

That it does.

The first set of definitions is how I am using the term, and how I have always heard the term used in literature. I do hear the second set used in advertising and politics from time to time, but in literature, "myth" is always used to label something whose basis is true, not false.

Especially that first definition puts it very well. Note: "serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society"

If it does not explain actual aspects of the natural world, it's not a myth. In other words, if it's "wrong," it's not a myth. So calling Genesis a myth is by no means saying it's wrong. On the contrary, it is affirming its ultimate truth, by recognizing that a literal interpretation just does not explain the natural events adequately.

In my mind, rejecting that the book of Genesis is myth undermines the whole Bible, because then you're stuck with a God who lies, and you'd have to read the entire New Testament with that lens, which .... well, it's a contradiction. God can't lie. At least, the God I worship does not lie. There's no way to avoid that contradiction in a literal reading, so you're stuck having to throw out parts of the Bible to keep your world view. I would rather be able to keep the whole Bible, just as it is, all it's parts together, than throw one part or another part away. One cannot do that with a literal reading.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Hello Everyone,

I have recently finished a round-trip tour of the Bible, and have discovered some obvious mistakes. The mistakes are nothing more than penmanship, and authorship errors. However, due to the large quantity I have found, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible can not be the infallible Word of God. Emphasis is on "infallible". I will demonstrate a few to show my findings. These are from my KJV. I use a facsimile of the 1611 KJV to ensure they are also similar. That allows me to rule out this particular Bible, as the reason for the mistake.

Some are simple numerical issues. Forget a number here, and one there.

1 Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horseman."

2 Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horesman."

ALTER2EGO -to- ASTALLIA:
The issue here is simply what we today refer to as a typographical error caused by human imperfection. What most people do not realize is that the original Hebrew writings were copied and recopied and recopied because there were no printing presses back then.

The inspired writings were written on scrolls. Eventually, the scrolls would wear out. The only way to preserve the inspired writings of Almighty God was by handwritten copying, which was done by God-fearing Hebrew men aka imperfect humans.

The "typo" you are referring to at 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 is only with one single word (forty vs four), that can hardly be considered an example of the Bible being fallible. Especially when one takes into account the thousands of other correctly rendered words within the pages of the Judeo-Christian Bible.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Some are about how to live.

Proverbs 26:4-5 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his conciet."

ALTER2EGO -to- ASTALLIA:
I don't see anything contradictory with the above instruction. Perhaps you can explain what you think is wrong with it.

 

[Alter2Ego]

There have been what we call copy errors...all well known documented and corrected.
The amount of horses Solomon had really wont stumble your walk or mislead you.

Read deeper if you need to understand...such as the Eze passage...this is a judgement
Judgements are not blessings. Follow context...a verse cant stand alone.

your John reference is harder to explain without a deep teaching in context which i wont do but this is the gist:

Jesus was talking of assention and dessention because ,He was explaining He was bringing the mysteries of God because He originated
in Heaven.......No other man before him has accended to heaven....learned the mysteries of God then decended to earth
and revealed it to men.

OK? study is greatly rewarded....keep it up bro!

ALTER2EGO -to- ABIDING:
Well said. The number of horses is apparently a copyist error. Minor copyist errors do not affect the overall them of the Bible such as repentance from wrongdoing, Jesus Christ's role as the Messiah and redeemer of obedient mankind, God's heavenly kingdom being the only hope for mankind, the importance of true worship of Almighty God Jehovah, etc. Like you said, the number of horses does not affect anything. Copyist errors should therefore not stumble anyone.

 

[Mediate]

Hebrew and Aramaic are languages full of hyperbole and symbolism, just like English.

When I say 'It's raining cats and dogs', it's not literally raining cats and dogs but it's a way of saying the raindrops are very heavy and abundant.

Here's a biblical example;

'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge', also 'broken the yoke'. These are in two sentences within 3 verses of Jeremiah. So you can imagine the amount of symbolism just within one book!

There is A LOT of biblical symbolism, especially in the Old Testament.

It is not to be taken as a literal translation but rather as imagery. The bible is something that requires deep study to get the message and the motive behind the teaching, rather than the literal 'facts' if you like.