Is there a trend towards literal interpretation of Bible?

[SuperCow]

The creation story is written in such a way so you could read it to a child and it would make sense to them. People did not have the same understanding of science that they do today. (Though they probably had far more than we give them credit for) So if you talked about astrophysics, relativity, and billions of years to a person of that age, then most wouldn't comprehend it. That's why Carl Sagan taught readers about the 4th dimension with an apple.

Most of stories of the Bible and the prophecies have a basic understanding and many have a more complex subtext that you only realize after you've gained more insight into the books. The basic story is the dividing of creation into 6 days, because it fits nicely with explaining the Sabbath to your child. Whether a day is 24 hours or 1000 years or billions of years is really noise interference against the backdrop of what was intended for its primary audience.

 

[Divide]

Oh, of course. Why does the former president/wannabe fascist have to be brought up in every conversation, even if it is not remotely related to the OP?

Well the word on the street is that Trump is God's chosen man. No matter what he may have been before, we all were (or are). When I hear stuff like that, I am real hesitant to speak down on those people Don't let politics get in the way of your relationship with God.

 

[AlexB23]

Well the word on the street is that Trump is God's chosen man. No matter what he may have been before, we all were (or are). When I hear stuff like that, I am real hesitant to speak down on those people Don't let politics get in the way of your relationship with God.

God's chosen man is Jesus. No earthly man. Jesus would not support an insurrectionist.

 

[Laodicean60]

Back in the 80s, when I attended a Presbyterian school, I understood the Bible doesn't change but the Christian interpretation of it does. For example it was once widely understood from the Book of Genesis that the world was created about 6000 years ago. I thought that modern Christians see these events as allegory rather literal truth. Emphasis was on the moral of the story rather than the story itself.

Nowadays it seems the pendulum has swung back towards the literal interpretation - or maybe my church was a very watered-down very form of Christianity. Your thoughts?

This is on another thread. My biggest question was who did Cain marry? This video makes a lot of sense that the language the ancients used was different than what we use today. This is the reason most arguments are over OT scripture. Peace

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

For example it was once widely understood from the Book of Genesis that the world was created about 6000 years ago. I thought that modern Christians see these events as allegory rather literal truth.

Almost every Christians that I know of take these events as literal, because the book of Genesis is narration of our history.

The Hebrew word for day which appears in chapter 1 of Genesis is Yom and it means a literal 24 hour period. Then we also have the phrase 'the evening and the morning' which supports that this is a 24 hour period. This cannot mean an age, but only a day, reckoned by the Jews from sunset to sunset. “Day” with numerical adjectives in Hebrew always refers to a 24-hour period.
In the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, the word “day” when used (as here) with a definite article or numerical adjective means a solar day or a normally calibrated, 24-hour day. Thus, the biblical account of Creation clearly indicates that God created the world in six literal days (Exodus 20:11).

There is no evidence in the Hebrew text for long ages of evolutionary development or a gap of time between verse 1 and verse 2.

Why 6000 years? Adam was created on the 6th day, and was 930 years old when he died. From that, and other ages in the Bible, we can calculate an approximate age of 6,000 years ago. You can look on James Ussher's work.

I keep hearing the arguement that the Earth appears to be old, very old, not young. But who said God created a young Earth? Has anyone seen what the Earth looked like at the beginning? No. Besidrs, if you met Adam the day after he was created, he would look like an adult. Would you also call him a liar, if he said he was only 1 days old? So I dismiss this argument.

But let's say this interpration is wrong. You still need a Saviour who will forgive your sins.

 

[d taylor]

-
​

Not in the area of creation, science has seen to this, with their false claims about God's creation.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Back in the 80s, when I attended a Presbyterian school, I understood the Bible doesn't change but the Christian interpretation of it does. For example it was once widely understood from the Book of Genesis that the world was created about 6000 years ago. I thought that modern Christians see these events as allegory rather literal truth. Emphasis was on the moral of the story rather than the story itself.

Nowadays it seems the pendulum has swung back towards the literal interpretation - or maybe my church was a very watered-down very form of Christianity. Your thoughts?

God said " knowledge will increase ". We know today, through knowledge, that a 6000 year old creation story is simply not possible. That being said, it is considered liberal to think otherwise so some Christians circles will reject it.

Daniel 12:4
"But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase."

 

[Divide]

God's chosen man is Jesus. No earthly man. Jesus would not support an insurrectionist.

You could not be more wrong here Brother. Want some scriptures?

Matthew 22:
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

14 For many are called, but few are chosen.../KJV

It's not talking about Angels here. So how can Jesus be the one and only chosen man? Didn't God choose Saul (Paul)? God knocked him right off his horse and said hey, I want you. You work for me now. Would you like to talk about Moses now? God does choose men sometimes for His purposes. Granted, few are chosen. But it happens.

Jesus would not support an insurrectionist? Surely you Jest! What was Saul before he became Paul? I doubt Trump ever did anything as bad as killing Christians or putting them in prison. Let's look at a couple well known scriptures:

John 3:16-17
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.../KJV

It doesn't say except insurrectionists. This is why I say Surely you jest, lol.

Matthew 9:11-13
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance..../KJV

That seems pretty easy to understand. God would support insurrectionists and has and will continue to do so. So even if Trump is a bad sinner like you and me, The Lord is still there for him. And I don't know for a fact that God chose Trump, it feels to me like He has so I do not talk down on people that may just be the Lord's chosen. Remember when the children were mocking Elisha and that angered God so that He sent two Bears down from the mountain to maul 42 of the boys because they mocked His man? (That's scary!) He will do what He will and we cant stop Him! If you set aside all of the rhetoric about Trump and just take a look at what the man did instead of what people say, it paints a different picture than the media does.

God don't support Insurrectionists, Lol! Do you watch too much TV and not read the word as much?

 

[AlexB23]

You could not be more wrong here Brother. Want some scriptures?

Matthew 22:
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

14 For many are called, but few are chosen.../KJV

It's not talking about Angels here. So how can Jesus be the one and only chosen man? Didn't God choose Saul (Paul)? God knocked him right off his horse and said hey, I want you. You work for me now. Would you like to talk about Moses now? God does choose men sometimes for His purposes. Granted, few are chosen. But it happens.

Jesus would not support an insurrectionist? Surely you Jest! What was Saul before he became Paul? I doubt Trump ever did anything as bad as killing Christians or putting them in prison. Let's look at a couple well known scriptures:

John 3:16-17
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.../KJV

It doesn't say except insurrectionists. This is why I say Surely you jest, lol.

Matthew 9:11-13
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance..../KJV

That seems pretty easy to understand. God would support insurrectionists and has and will continue to do so. So even if Trump is a bad sinner like you and me, The Lord is still there for him. And I don't know for a fact that God chose Trump, it feels to me like He has so I do not talk down on people that may just be the Lord's chosen. Remember when the children were mocking Elisha and that angered God so that He sent two Bears down from the mountain to maul 42 of the boys because they mocked His man? (That's scary!) He will do what He will and we cant stop Him! If you set aside all of the rhetoric about Trump and just take a look at what the man did instead of what people say, it paints a different picture than the media does.

God don't support Insurrectionists, Lol! Do you watch too much TV and not read the word as much?

We are not going to talk about this anymore. God bless.

 

[DragonFox91]

I think it is going on, yes. Genuine Christians are seeing a non-literal interpretation of the Bible leads to paganism. Once you start tossing things out, anything can be tossed out. If Jesus's miracles are a metaphor, if creation is a metaphor, if Jonah is a metaphor, then it's all just metaphor, how do you decide what's truth & what's metaphor, maybe sin itself is a metaphor. It's true or it's not, & we know it's true.

I've seen churches destroyed b/c they started picking & choosing what to believe. A God-fearing church can be turned to anything goes in a year, all because they start choosing what's metaphor & what's not.

What did OP say? 'modern Christians.' God's Word doesn't change, b/c Truth doesn't change.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Back in the 80s, when I attended a Presbyterian school, I understood the Bible doesn't change but the Christian interpretation of it does. For example it was once widely understood from the Book of Genesis that the world was created about 6000 years ago. I thought that modern Christians see these events as allegory rather literal truth. Emphasis was on the moral of the story rather than the story itself.

Nowadays it seems the pendulum has swung back towards the literal interpretation - or maybe my church was a very watered-down very form of Christianity. Your thoughts?

There is a great deal more pushback against the pseudo science called evolution. A number of scientists are pointing out the flaws in evolutionary theory. I personally take Genesis literally, but I also believe that there was a creation prior to Genesis 1:2. So the earth was restored, not newly created. From a spiritual point of view, if man evolved, he is not made in God's image, he is not a sinner and the whole Bible is a fairy tale. There is no other possible conclusion.

 

[hedrick]

I don’t think opinions have changed much within any group. But conservatives are louder, and have a better internet presence. In fact a decreasing number of Americans, even those for whom religion is very important, see the Bible as literally true. Fewer in U.S. Now See Bible as Literal Word of God

I think Christians are also polarizing, so conservative denominations are getting harder line and others more liberal. And a lot of those who don't accept literal accuracy are unchurched. I don't think the big news is so much the decreasing number of Christians as the disassocation of Christians with churches.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Back in the 80s, when I attended a Presbyterian school, I understood the Bible doesn't change but the Christian interpretation of it does. For example it was once widely understood from the Book of Genesis that the world was created about 6000 years ago. I thought that modern Christians see these events as allegory rather literal truth. Emphasis was on the moral of the story rather than the story itself.

Nowadays it seems the pendulum has swung back towards the literal interpretation - or maybe my church was a very watered-down very form of Christianity. Your thoughts?

This is a complicated topic.

Historically, interpretations of the creation story/stories in Genesis have been diverse. St. Augustine of Hippo (late 4th-early 5th century), for example believed (and many others did as well) that all of creation was made instantaneously, there was a singular moment of creation rather than six literal days; the days of creation were interpreted by Augustine (and, again, many others) as non-literal. They also, however, often did believe in a young earth, but they didn't arrive at that idea based on a literal reading, but through an allegorical one. Many early Christians saw the days of creation not as literal days, but as prophetic lengths of time, indicating for example that the sixth day of creation pointed toward a final period of history, with the seventh day--the day God rested--as pointing toward the eternal age to come.

There has never been an official Christian interpretation or view on this particular subject--Christians have, over two millennia, held to many views, and have had different opinions. Historically this has never been much of a problem, because interpreting the days of creation literally or non-literally was never a serious theological issue.

Most Christians, for example, if we go back a few hundred years when geology was still in its infancy and we began to realize the earth could be tens, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years old (or older), this just wasn't that big of a deal. Were there some who didn't like this? Sure, but they were usually out on the fringes of the Christian mainstream.

In the 1920's, during the infamous Scope's Monkey Trial, the Creationists here weren't Young Earth Creationists. Young Earth Creationism just wasn't that popular, even among the most hardcore Fundamentalists. William Jennings Bryan of trial fame held to a Day-Age interpretation, he was an Old Earth Creationist. Which was the most common view among Fundamentalists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In that time period, outside of the Seventh Day Adventists, Young Earth Creationism was exceedingly rare.

It really isn't until the 1960's, with the publishing of The Genesis Flood, that Young Earth Creationism began to gain steam among American Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. And, due to the particular political circumstances of the 60's, 70's, and 80's that it became a wedge issue in some sectors of American Christianity (and, partly as consequence, how it ended up in other parts of the world; not unlike the spread of Dispensationalism).

It is true, that today Young Earth Creationism is a defining feature of conservative American Evangelicalism. But that is largely due to recent events of the last half century or so.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Lost4words]

A lot are suckered in to believing scripture that has been twisted to suit individual beliefs. Like a flat earth, or the moon has its own light source.

Fuelled by the internet and those that are extremely gullible.

 

[Peacemaker1]

the scriptures cant be added to or taken away from, the heaven and the earth will disappear, but the words of christ will not disappear. [ how worthless are any mans words then]

 

[Matt5]

Scripture interprets scripture. The Bible interprets itself. I can't count how many times I've heard that.

Anybody look at the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-23). It's about a farmer and his seed problems. Apparently, he has a lot of bad seeds. Except, Jesus says it's about something completely different. It's not about farming issues at all.

What does that mean for other parables?

A rabbi blew my mind when he explained the Tower of Babel. Apparently, it's about equality. The leaders were converting stones (everybody unequal) into bricks (everybody equal.)

Bricks or Stones? - YouTube

 

[public hermit]

Back in the 80s, when I attended a Presbyterian school, I understood the Bible doesn't change but the Christian interpretation of it does. For example it was once widely understood from the Book of Genesis that the world was created about 6000 years ago. I thought that modern Christians see these events as allegory rather literal truth. Emphasis was on the moral of the story rather than the story itself.

Nowadays it seems the pendulum has swung back towards the literal interpretation - or maybe my church was a very watered-down very form of Christianity. Your thoughts?

What some today would consider a "liberal" interpretation, i.e., not-literal, would have been considered spiritual/allegorical to many early church interpretors. The literal reading was often considered "fleshly" and unenlightened by the Spirit. The whole idea was that in reading the flesh of the text, one encountered the living, risen Christ. But that encounter was spiritual and commensurate with a spiritual reading of the text that went beyond a first-face, literal reading. The spiritual reading was the goal; literal interpretations were the domain of a spiritual beginner.

The Genesis accounts of creation are helpful examples. Hypothetically, if someone believes it's literal but doesn't grasp the spiritual claims being made that inform the rest of the scriptures, all they believe is that some events happened at some time. (Literally it reduces to- some event y happened at time t in relation to subject(s) x, y, z,...) It would be belief empty of spiritual content but certain about historical happenings. All that to say, believing in the historicity of the text adds nothing to faith. If I believe Jesus rose from the dead simply because it's historical fact but don't grasp that his death and resurrection are salvific, I just believe a supposed historical fact.

Whereas, if someone reads the Genesis accounts as communicating spiritual, transcendent truths about God, creation, and humanity,i.e. not literally, and grasps those claims, then they have the spiritual meaning needed to go forward.

Of course, both believe the spiritual claims presented in the Genesis accounts, it's just that the literalist insist on a bunch of physical/metaphysical baggage that is unnecessary and counter-productive to the spiritual telos of the scriptures.

 

[RDKirk]

I want to find a pastor who interprets Song of Songs (Song of Solomon) literally.

 

[Peacemaker1]

yes guys, you fulfil what God says for the end time now, people prefer their own fables, teachers with itching flattery giving ears, its great how you do that exactly at Christmas time too, even Scrooge gave a day off to Marley, but I guess the devil takes no day off himself.


2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

 

[J_B_]

This is a complicated topic.

Historically, interpretations of the creation story/stories in Genesis have been diverse. St. Augustine of Hippo (late 4th-early 5th century), for example believed (and many others did as well) that all of creation was made instantaneously, there was a singular moment of creation rather than six literal days; the days of creation were interpreted by Augustine (and, again, many others) as non-literal. They also, however, often did believe in a young earth, but they didn't arrive at that idea based on a literal reading, but through an allegorical one. Many early Christians saw the days of creation not as literal days, but as prophetic lengths of time, indicating for example that the sixth day of creation pointed toward a final period of history, with the seventh day--the day God rested--as pointing toward the eternal age to come.

There has never been an official Christian interpretation or view on this particular subject--Christians have, over two millennia, held to many views, and have had different opinions. Historically this has never been much of a problem, because interpreting the days of creation literally or non-literally was never a serious theological issue.

Most Christians, for example, if we go back a few hundred years when geology was still in its infancy and we began to realize the earth could be tens, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years old (or older), this just wasn't that big of a deal. Were there some who didn't like this? Sure, but they were usually out on the fringes of the Christian mainstream.

In the 1920's, during the infamous Scope's Monkey Trial, the Creationists here weren't Young Earth Creationists. Young Earth Creationism just wasn't that popular, even among the most hardcore Fundamentalists. William Jennings Bryan of trial fame held to a Day-Age interpretation, he was an Old Earth Creationist. Which was the most common view among Fundamentalists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In that time period, outside of the Seventh Day Adventists, Young Earth Creationism was exceedingly rare.

It really isn't until the 1960's, with the publishing of The Genesis Flood, that Young Earth Creationism began to gain steam among American Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. And, due to the particular political circumstances of the 60's, 70's, and 80's that it became a wedge issue in some sectors of American Christianity (and, partly as consequence, how it ended up in other parts of the world; not unlike the spread of Dispensationalism).

It is true, that today Young Earth Creationism is a defining feature of conservative American Evangelicalism. But that is largely due to recent events of the last half century or so.

-CryptoLutheran

You probably have a better grasp on all the views across the spectrum than I do, but I expect most who ask this question are wondering what views circulated in the mainstream. As the German immigrant population grew during the antebellum era of America and into the post Civil War years, the LCMS became a powerful religious voice in the U.S. - much more so than today (though obviously there were others). I'm pretty sure I recall Walther holding pretty strong views opposing geology, etc. and supporting a young earth - but I'd have to go back and read 'Der Lutheraner' to be sure. Maybe I assumed something incorrectly.

It is true the 19th century didn't really have an 'evangelical' movement as we think of it now. As you said, it started in the 1920s, and largely due to things like the Scopes trial. At that time YEC was pushed into the foreground and became a much more central issue of American Christianity. However, I guess I always had the impression that, though it wasn't a topic shouted from the pulpits, the Puritan elements dominating American religious thought leaned toward a young earth - at least they weren't thinking in terms of billions of years.

My point is, I think ideas about a young earth have been much more common and mainstream in Christianity than you make it sound. I'm not saying that proves a young earth. As I said, I don't think it was a topic that concerned people too much until a few centuries ago, and it didn't cause the rabid reaction we're familiar with until the 1920s. But, I also doubt many Christians were thinking in terms of billion year ages until recently.