There are semantical arguments now being raised that need to have distinctions drawn. First of all, Bush was clear in his opinion that Creation might not be true in terms of Evolution, and that is way, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different from Christ's wonderful parables and stories, which many writers, artist, and theologians say are the greatest short stories ever written.
Next, how do you know which parables are not "literally true," and which were not? Was the parable of the Prodigal Son a short story that Christ made up, or did it actually happen?
In short, we don't know. But again, that was not the context of the statement by Bush.
Lastly, Christ said He was literally the truth: "I am the way and the truth and the life."
It can be logically argued (and theologically) that if the Truth said a parable, it was true.
19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Since ~no~ prophecy is of private (i.e. personalized, subjective) interpretation, there /must/ be an absolute truth for all prophecy of the scripture.
God is faithful. John 10:35 states that the scripture cannot be broken.
Read Jeremiah 36:1-32. Why was God so careful with the words used here? If God’s word is so subjective and figurative then why such care for every word?
It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by ~every~ *word* of God. (Not some words, not the general vague idea, but _every_ word.)
2Co 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God
Why would there be any handling of the word of God deceitfully if there was not an absolute truth to the scriptures? After all, “that’s just your opinion”, otherwise.
47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
I certainly do NOT want to hear those last words, “ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God”, addressed to me in the day of Judgment.
Let’s see, who should I trust with regards to the creation? Some group of guys in white lab coats (whose preposterous often conflicting theories on evolution change every 20 years or less, according to vagaries of fashion; some of whom later recant and support the general concept of an Author of Life) or the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God - who was actually _there_ when it happened, *making* it happen?
True science is repeatable, observable, falsifiable, etc... We can neither go back in time to observe the creation up-front-and-personal, nor can we repeat the creation to observe it now.
God has spoken. Those who ignorantly call him a liar will ultimately answer before the Master, for their frothing.
OK, that's fine -- but what you're really saying is that there are distinctions between the literary forms of the Bible, and that they must be understood as such. It's clearly not one size fits all. So just in that sense, the meaning of "literally true" begins to require some careful definition.
Next, how do you know which parables are not "literally true," and which were not? Was the parable of the Prodigal Son a short story that Christ made up, or did it actually happen?
Oh, it may have happened -- but you're surely not going to argue that Jesus' meaning was limited to a recitation of a particular bit of family drama, especially not in the context of the rest of Luke 15 (i.e., rejoicing in heaven when something lost was found). At the very least, if that story was based on fact, Jesus was nevertheless discussing something different from the literal story. And if the story was made up -- all or in part -- then your whole argument collapses.
It can be logically argued (and theologically) that if the Truth said a parable, it was true.
Jesus certainly used the parables as a way of getting at the truth -- but then, poetry does the same thing, and nobody would claim that it was "literally true."
Jesus Himself discusses the nature of parables, in Matthew 13. The Parable of the Sower is explicitly allegorical. Moreover, Jesus essentially states that the parables are not to be taken literally: This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Clearly parables have, and are intended to have, meaning over and above what is actually said. And Jesus seems to say that the literal meaning of parables is actually different from the real meaning.