Is there a trend towards literal interpretation of Bible?

[Laodicean60]

My point is, I think ideas about a young earth have been much more common and mainstream in Christianity than you make it sound

For me as a new Christian years ago I wanted to believe that the whole bible was true in a literal sense. But as time went on I started to learn there was symbolism and language from a long time ago. The NT is a different story I believe to be literal.

 

[J_B_]

For me as a new Christian years ago I wanted to believe that the whole bible was true in a literal sense. But as time went on I started to learn there was symbolism and language from a long time ago. The NT is a different story I believe to be literal.

I believe God has interacted with this world throughout all of history, and that he did so through the Word, which is Christ. Those interactions were recorded in what we now call the Bible.

That's what I believe. I also believe it's important for us to respectfully share and discuss our beliefs with each other because none of us is perfect. I believe sharing in that way will draw us into worship where the Word and Sacrament will sustain us in faith.

 

[Laodicean60]

I believe God has interacted with this world throughout all of history,

and prior to the Genesis account.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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 trend among hyper-conservative Christians to villify the study of applicable topics (such as either the various Sciences and/or the Higher and Lower Biblical Criticism), motivating them to thereby ignore Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis and face-palm any additional educational input that may intervene upon the act of reading the Bible on a prima facie level.

.... hence, we get various forms of (yes, various form of....) Biblical Literalism, with each 'form' claiming the top rung over all others.................

I always thought it was funny how it just seems to work out that way.

 

[J_B_]

There is a trend among hyper-conservative Christians to villify the study of applicable topics (such as either the various Sciences and/or the Higher and Lower Biblical Criticism), motivating them to thereby ignore Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis and face-palm any additional educational input that may intervene upon the act of reading the Bible on a prima facie level.

.... hence, we get various forms of (yes, various form of....) Biblical Literalism, with each 'form' claiming the top rung over all others.................

I always thought it was funny how it just seems to work out that way.

I don't know if it's a trend. There have been concerns about and resistance to Biblical Studies type disciplines for centuries. As with everything, there are legitimate concerns about such things, and then there are those who appropriate those concerns for their witch hunts.

 

[Hawkins]

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?

That's apples and oranges though. 6000 years is never truly biblical as the Bible never says that genealogy can be used as a year calendar. The biblical accounts of genealogy are just a human testimony on that Jesus is from David and subsequently Adam.

 

[Laodicean60]

There is a trend among hyper-conservative Christians to villify the study of applicable topics (such as either the various Sciences and/or the Higher and Lower Biblical Criticism), motivating them to thereby ignore Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis and face-palm any additional educational input that may intervene upon the act of reading the Bible on a prima facie level.

.... hence, we get various forms of (yes, various form of....) Biblical Literalism, with each 'form' claiming the top rung over all others.................

I always thought it was funny how it just seems to work out that way.

I agree' I read the many back and forth but at the end of the day I believe Jesus is Lord and that is all that matters. So what if I don't believe the literal interpretations in parts of the OT it doesn't shake my faith in Jesus or the wisdom of the bible.

 

[BPPLEE]

In Genesis 1 :

Day 3 - God creates plants
Day 4 God creates the sun and moon.

So then - how many billions of years do "some people" think the plants were around prior to the sun? How is that sort of belief "helping" them?
What scientists does that group of "some people" know of - claiming that the plants on Earth came about billions of years before the Sun in our solar system???
=======

In Genesis 1 what we have is this -- in the text.

Intro in Genesis 1 - God created everything. He is the creator of everything -- just like John 1 says.

Each day in Genesis is "a single evening and morning" - so then when part night and next part day.

Day 1 -- God creates light on Earth without identifying the light source.
Day 2 - God creates our atmosphere
Day 3 -- Dry land and plants created in a single evening and morning.
Day 4 -- TWO great lights created (Sun and moon)
Day 5 - Birds and fish created in a single evening and morning
Day 6 - all land animals and two humans created in a single evening and morning.

Gen 2:1-3 - the 7th day - a day of rest, sanctified.


Ex 20:11 hard wires all 7 days as literal days -- in actual legal code

I’ve always wondered if the sun was created on the 4th day what was holding the earth in place until then if there was nothing for it to orbit?

 

[BobRyan]

I’ve always wondered if the sun was created on the 4th day what was holding the earth in place until then if there was nothing for it to orbit?

our entire solar system orbits the center of this galaxy in what is called the "Orion Arm" of the galaxy.

Our planet would stay in that same orbit around the black hole in the center of the galaxy with or without the Sun

What is interesting is that the "spin" - the rotation of the planet was already there as was a barren Earth covered by water - in darkness. That is the conditions at the start of day 1 before any of the 7 day events takes place for this Earth, the Sun and the moon, and all life on Earth.

So then presumably God created the entire universe as well as the Earth in its initial state some time before the 7 days of Gen 1-2

 

[BPPLEE]

our entire solar system orbits the center of this galaxy in what is called the "Orion Arm" of the galaxy.

Our planet would stay in that same orbit around the black hole in the center of the galaxy with or without the Sun

What is interesting is that the "spin" - the rotation of the planet was already there as was a barren Earth covered by water - in darkness. That is the conditions at the start of day 1 before any of the 7 day events takes place for this Earth, the Sun and the moon, and all life on Earth.

So then presumably God created the entire universe as well as the Earth in its initial state some time before the 7 days of Gen 1-2

That gives The Gap Theory more credibility then

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know if it's a trend. There have been concerns about and resistance to Biblical Studies type disciplines for centuries. As with everything, there are legitimate concerns about such things, and then there are those who appropriate those concerns for their witch hunts.

True. But I also see the Reformation, and the later more rigid and literalistic Fundamentalism(s), as a "trend" in the grand scheme of history.

 

[J_B_]

True. But I also see the Reformation, and the later more rigid and literalistic Fundamentalism(s), as a "trend" in the grand scheme of history.

OK.