Literally the Bible

Whether or not something in the bible is literal is useful for discussion when we're trying to decide what a certain biblical excerpt is trying to tell us. For example, Jesus' parables were not literal stories of events that occurred, probably, but an example of using story telling to portray a certain message in an understandable way. This affects their impact and purpose for us. There are, however, events as detailed in the bible where their literal-ness is naively debated, like Jonah's story. Other events are debated like literal Creation, literal Eden etc. These debates are harmful and stem wholly from a position that denies properties of God and truths as revealed in the bible.

The story of Jonah, very abridged version, is this guy is swallowed by a big fish or whale, in there for 72 hours, then literally thrown up onto a shoreline where Jonah then preached a bunch of people to repentance. He wasn't chilling in the mouth like Finding Nemo - he was in the stomach, presumably, as the bible says he was "swallowed". This is what people take issue with to try and argue this story is figurative.

There are even more aspects to this that are in fact very relevant as they too require miracle work, but those details aren't important for this point. The fact of the matter is that people are arguing whether or not Jonah is literal, and the only reason they could really feel compelled to argue that it is not literal is because it is so chock-full-'o-miracles that it seems to us in our ignorance to be very unlikely to have happened. How could a man survive in a whale stomach? Stomachs are where food goes to get digested. Clearly this must be metaphorical as no man could survive in a stomach for longer than a few agonizing moments, let alone three days.

Here is the problem: the only position it makes any sense to be in, to argue that Jonah was not literal, is if you are an atheist or anti-theist attempting to disprove the bible. When believers question if things like Jonah as described in the bible could be figurative because they are such wild stories, they are not simply questioning the logistics of surviving in a stomach, they are losing the plot entirely. They claim to believe in an all-powerful God capable of any number of incomprehensible miracles, but somehow draw the line here, at a man living in a stomach for three days.

You cannot reconcile believing in an omniscient, omnipotent Creator who willed space, time, and matter into existence through unimaginable circumstances with "man can't live in fish!" This is nothing more than attempting to appeal to atheists who refuse to believe in miraculous, supernatural phenomena, by saying "whoa bud, I'm not one of those irrational Christians who believe in crazy stuff like "man live in fish", I am a smart, reasonable Christian, who just believes in the bible as, like, a guidebook for good behavior, or whatever." Maybe even a naive attempt at finding common ground with these atheists, saying "no, that's fair, some of these crazier stories probably didn't really happen, so it's not that crazy to believe in the bible" forgetting that they will never believe in Jesus's resurrection if they are obstinately opposed to miracles.

Yes, believing that a man could survive in a fish for three days and three nights just to be barfed onto shore somewhere else is the sort of thing that anti-theists look at and go "Christians believe things that are not scientifically possible, and thus, they are dumb," but whether someone thinks it's impossible for a man to live in a fish for 72 hours doesn't affect whether or not God could perform such a miracle if He desired. There is another story in the bible where three men are cast into a furnace so hot that the men operating the furnace died from the residual heat alone, but they emerge alive and unharmed. This is also obviously not possible, even moreso than Jonah and the whale, but I see very few atheist-appeasing Christians argue that the story in Daniel 3 was somehow figurative. It seems almost that the more farfetched the story is, the more likely most Christians accept that it's a miracle from God, but as soon as a story sounds like it could maybe be scientifically explainable but falls short, it's suddenly not legitimate.

It is not defensible as a believer to question whether or not an event as described in the bible could happen, if you simultaneously believe in God, especially if you believe in Jesus rising from the dead, which is so much more intensely unscientific than any other biblical miracle. If you want to debate Jonah's literalism for another reason, just because you truly believe it is metaphorical for some reason perhaps. But you really can't justify arguing that it's not literal just because it is farfetched. If you can't reconcile Jonah's story with your belief in a God that can in fact do absolutely anything, then you have much worse problems facing you can "can man live in fish".