About the BioLogos Forum
Favorites
The BioLogos Forum is designed to foster a serious and comprehensive discussion of Christian faith and the sciences. We believe that charitable engagement of different perspectives within the Church helps sharpen our thinking and deepen our commitment to the truth that is hidden in Christ. So while many of the articles and videos under the distinctive Forum banner come from BioLogos staff and Senior Fellows, we feature a range of voices, including those that disagree with us and with each other. Unless otherwise noted, views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here, and join the conversation in the comments section at the end of each post.
The Problem with Literalism: Chronicles
In this four part series, Pete Enns explains the logic of reading the Bible literally as well as the problems that come with it. He notes that one should only take a literal reading of an account if the text itself is making historical claims. Even then, he continues, there are some minor differences between accounts describing the same historical events. He walks through several examples with the readers as he compares and contrasts 1 and 2 Samuel and Kings to 1 and 2 Chronicles.
Favorites 
The Problem with Literalism: Introduction
As the logic goes, once you start down the road of not taking the Bible literally, there is no telling where that road will end.
The Problem with Literalism: The Books of Chronicles (1)
The problem, though, is that Chronicles and Samuel/Kings both claim to report history, yet they report that history differently—and significantly so.
The Problem with Literalism: Chronicles (2)
These two different accounts were not given to us by the Spirit of God in order for us to blur the distinctions and make the two into one. The distinct message of 1 and 2 Chronicles is God’s word to the postexilic Israelites. It is worthy of our full respect and attention.
The Problem with Literalism: Chronicles (3)
These examples show that these two historians have very different reasons for writing their histories.