Bible literalism.

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'd like to ask about this, because i'd like to know how to understand the Bible particularly the first chapters of Genesis. How did christians approach these chapters in the past - eg. Luther, Calvin, St. Thomas, St. Augustine etc. If there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally, how does one know which parts are not to be taken literally, and which parts are?
Why do you want to know?
If you really need to know and it will change your life for the good, pray, meditate, ask for the Spirit's help, fast for days if needed, ask other like minded Christians, and wait for the answer, which may come in a vision or dream. If you are just trying to win an argument go to some commentary.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Carl Emerson
Upvote 0

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There's a nice quote from Augustine that suggests some flexibility in interpretation, to accommodate science. But probably not enough to allow for the current biological understanding, in which there can't have been a literal single pair of humans.

Please explain...

Are you saying that scientifically, God cant create people out of dust?
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Why do you want to know?
If you really need to know and it will change your life for the good, pray, meditate, ask for the Spirit's help, fast for days if needed, ask other like minded Christians, and wait for the answer, which may come in a vision or dream. If you are just trying to win an argument go to some commentary.

No I wasn't that I am aware looking to win any argument. Is it not possible that people can get help from a commentary - why are you so against them? Is it because you just want people to listen to you and no one else?
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The OP asked about history. I've been reading books on the history of Scripture interpretation recently, because of this exact question.

I didn't exactly ask about history, I asked how to approach the book of Genesis in the Bible - because I was reading some criticism (quoted above from Donald Bloesch) of Biblical Literalism - and I wanted to know how to tell what genre of literature, or manner of account different parts of the Bible are ,such as Genesis.

Some say the days are revelatory, in other words God over a period of seven days revealed to Moses the acts of creation.

The Seven Days of Revelation Theory
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Pavel Mosko

Arch-Dude of the Apostolic
Supporter
Oct 4, 2016
7,236
7,312
56
Boyertown, PA.
✟768,575.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I'd like to ask about this, because i'd like to know how to understand the Bible particularly the first chapters of Genesis. How did christians approach these chapters in the past - eg. Luther, Calvin, St. Thomas, St. Augustine etc. If there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally, how does one know which parts are not to be taken literally, and which parts are?



I think literal interpretation is a normal default approach, but there are some exceptions and variations


1) Hillel's 7 rules of interpretation show that even in the time of the NT there was not a fixed rule of interpretation.

The Seven Rules of Hillel


2) The different genres of scripture require different rules. Some books like the history books are more literal, other ones more poetic and metaphorical.


3) The Canon of Saint Vincent describes the methodology of how the early Christians thought in terms of doctrine.
The Vincentian Canon of St. Vincent of Lerins
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
The OP asked about history. I've been reading books on the history of Scripture interpretation recently, because of this exact question.

For most of church history (until the 16th Cent), Christians believed that the Bible was completely true, but used a variety of approaches to interpretation, ranging from literal to symbolic. Passages that were unedifying were understood symbolically. However I think most Christians thought the creation accounts were reasonably literal. Certainly they thought there was an actual Adam, who really sinned.

There's a nice quote from Augustine that suggests some flexibility in interpretation, to accommodate science. But probably not enough to allow for the current biological understanding, in which there can't have been a literal single pair of humans.

The first signs of the recent scientific challenges occurred in the 16th Cent with Galileo. The Church during the medieval period accepted an approach that I'd call "two books." The idea was that we know about the world through two books, the Bible and nature. If you read what was said during Galileo's time, Catholic leaders said that if it became clear that the earth went around the sun, in the end the Church would have to accept it. This was the time when Calvin wrote. His commentary on Genesis is interesting. He noted a couple of ways in which a literal reading would differ from what astronomers would say. His explanation was that Moses (who he thought was the author) described things as a normal person of his time would understand, because his purpose was not to teach astronomy. He referred to that as "accommodation," that God accommodated the way in which he gave his revelation to what people were prepared to understand. Calvin maintained that the Bible comes directly from God (although the human authors had a significant role), and was completely true, but the idea of accommodation opens a hole large enough to drive a truck through. I think Calvin makes it clear that he would defer to astronomers on the scientific realities.

But it's one thing to say phrases about the sun rising aren't meant literally and another to say that the Fall never happened. It's hard to guess what Calvin would have said. The Catholic tradition has normally accepted science, although sometimes with significant delays, but there are recent official statements that seem to maintain a literal Adam. It's a bit unclear how much flexibility there is in that idea; many Catholics scholars are willing to admit that it's not true. The Reformed tradition (i.e. the heirs of Calvin) has split over Genesis. I think a majority are actually in the mainline churches, and accept mainstream science and history, but there is a substantial group that does not. CF's Reformed and Presbyterian forums are dominated by that group.

The lack of an actual Fall is a really big deal theologically. Even Christians who are otherwise inclined to interpret Scripture to match science have not faced up to the consequences. I think we can say that mankind is fallen even if the specific event in Gen 3 didn't happen, but the natural consequence of an evolutionary view is that people are designed to learn from experience, and that mistakes -- even moral ones -- are part of our original design. I think if you follow this out, there are significant theological consequences.

Re: lack of an actual Fall, I think that is the view of some of the Neo-orthodox (Brunner maybe), its just a story about what happens to each person in their life - I admit having been somewhat receptive to that view at times.

The thing is Fundamentalism (I admit I am somewhat influenced by reading some in the fundamentalist camp, as well as neorthodoxy, and liberalism and am currently working through these often contradictory theologies) doesn't just go by what the Bible says on this, but tends toward a covert trust in empirical validation, and an implicit faith in science.

In Fundamentalism:

"A biblical account of some event is approached and evaluated primarily not in terms of significance but in terms of correspondence with external actuality. Veracity as correspondence with empirical actuality has precedence over veracity as significance." (James Barr)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I'd like to ask about this, because i'd like to know how to understand the Bible particularly the first chapters of Genesis. How did christians approach these chapters in the past - eg. Luther, Calvin, St. Thomas, St. Augustine etc. If there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally, how does one know which parts are not to be taken literally, and which parts are?

Genesis 1-9 ... very literal

extremely literal

Trees, day , sun , sky, water, people, animal, Earth, grass, all being used in way that the reader would expect in a historic account.

extremely figurative - Rev 12 - dragon,dragon tail, stars
extremely figurative - Dan 7 - beasts 4 heads, crowns , lion with wings... etc.
 
Upvote 0

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Genesis 1-9 ... very literal

extremely literal

Trees, day , sun , sky, water, people, animal, Earth, grass, all being used in way that the reader would expect in a historic account.

extremely figurative - Rev 12 - dragon,dragon tail, stars
extremely figurative - Dan 7 - beasts 4 heads, crowns , lion with wings... etc.

So why does geology and the geological strata seem to indicate a much older Earth - millions of years rather than thousands?
 
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I'd like to ask about this, because i'd like to know how to understand the Bible particularly the first chapters of Genesis. How did christians approach these chapters in the past - eg. Luther, Calvin, St. Thomas, St. Augustine etc. If there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally, how does one know which parts are not to be taken literally, and which parts are?
My main questions regarding literality, is how to apply it?

If I can apply a literal interpretation, then I can test the fruit.

If I cannot test it, then I cannot actually know.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I'd like to ask about this, because i'd like to know how to understand the Bible particularly the first chapters of Genesis. How did christians approach these chapters in the past - eg. Luther, Calvin, St. Thomas, St. Augustine etc. If there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally, how does one know which parts are not to be taken literally, and which parts are?
Things are more complex than they sound because there are several different things that interact to produce interpretation.

To me whether a passage is literal or symbolic is only the first stage. It depends upon literary style. I think Gen, including Gen 3, is generally literal. It’s not like Jesus story of the weeds, where weeds are an allegory for challenges to faith.

But then we have to ask a broader question. In a novel generally the text is literal. You’ll find occasional metaphors and symbols, but generally they tell a story, and the wording of the story is fairly literal. That doesn’t mean that the novel is historically true.

A story can be non-historical either because the author intended it that way or because the author didn’t know. In the case of Genesis this is complicated because there are layers of author and editor. Presumably the stories in Genesis were old before they were even written down. Did the person who wrote them think they were history, or traditional stories that were valuable for other reasons? I think that’s hard to tell. I've normally assumed that the editor realized that Gen 1 and Gen 2-3 are inconsistent if taken as history, and thus knew that they were legends. My assumption was that whoever put them together had as one goal to preserve as many of his people's traditions about their history as possible.

But even if the author thought they were historical, that doesn’t meant they were. Nor does the answer have to be all or nothing. There’s plenty of ancient history that has significant historical content, but is colored by the author’s views. E.g. official histories that never show a defeat, or have a particular party line to push. Indeed almost all ancient history has some degree of this. It can also be mixed because the author’s sources aren’t of equal value. E.g. the final editor of the OT history stories may have had only traditional legends for the early days but better historical data for more recent events. It's perfectly reasonable that he would want to preserve both.

Presumably he had no idea of the battle over evolution 3000 years later, and how useful it would have been to have a footnote saying "this account is a traditional legend, which you shouldn't confuse with history."

While it’s hard to know what authors and editors knew and intended, we have a couple of cross-checks:
* with what current historians believe — this is based on a combination of evidence such as written accounts from a number of countries, buildings, inscriptions and other physical evidence.
* in some cases (e.g. the creation story and flood) with astronomy and geology.
* parallel accounts, e.g. Gen - Num vs Chronicles vs Deuteronomy

Based on this I think it’s obvious that although there are surely some historical memories from earlier periods, the OT doesn’t become very historical until the kings, and even then, it’s affected by the political / religious views of the authors. Just how historical it is during the time of the kings is a matter of debate currently.

Gen 3, though, is literal in literary terms, but not historical.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Carl Emerson

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2017
14,667
9,977
78
Auckland
✟376,644.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So why does geology and the geological strata seem to indicate a much older Earth - millions of years rather than thousands?

A rock is not a rock without age...

God created rocks in an instant with age.

Just like He made good wine in an instant from water.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No I wasn't that I am aware looking to win any argument. Is it not possible that people can get help from a commentary - why are you so against them? Is it because you just want people to listen to you and no one else?
Look if I give you "answers", I am no better than some commentary, but you can go on a quest and find the answer for yourself. Run it by me, if you get a chance with your support.
If you look at enough commentaries you can find one that agrees with you.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
It is very, very simple. What is your final source of authority?

Is everything determined by what science says?
Is everything determined by what some popular figure in the media says?
Is everything determined by what God says?
How do you know what God says, is it through the Bible or by your ' feelings ' etc ?

If miracles in the Bible are understood by being interpreted and not as real events, then how do you understand Jesus's prediction of, his death and resurrection. If they are a symbolic, metaphor or metric/spiritual understanding and not literal what is Paul talking about in 2 Cor 15:14 etc.

As I said it is very simple either God can create in 6 days, flood the world, send 10 plagues, heal the sick, raise the dead, stop the sun, float axe heads etc etc then he can also send his Son to save us.
If he cannot do this things then how do you know Christianity is true?
Excellent answer.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I'd like to ask about this, because i'd like to know how to understand the Bible particularly the first chapters of Genesis. How did christians approach these chapters in the past - eg. Luther, Calvin, St. Thomas, St. Augustine etc. If there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally, how does one know which parts are not to be taken literally, and which parts are?
When you read Genesis... what part cannot be literally true? Why do you feel that it cannot be literal?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
So why does geology and the geological strata seem to indicate a much older Earth - millions of years rather than thousands?

lots of guessing... and a preference for long ages. Our atmospheric green house effect keeps Earth's ideal environment for plant life. Much of that comes from the fact that we have tectonic plates that move easily due in part to the heat content in the Earth's crust created by radioactive elements. This means it is highly unlikely that God created earth with zero radioactive elements in the crust. So the "starting conditions" need to be "known" before that age-calculation can be trusted.

When soft tissue was found in dinosaur bones they insisted it was faked.. now they know it is the real deal.

There are many geo-chronometers that predict a short age such as sedimentation rates of all major river deltas.

"Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds.7 There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon.The presence of radiocarbon in these diamonds where there should be none is thus sparkling evidence for a ‘young’ world"

So then chasing the evolutionist's endless guessing games is not going to be the most reliable way to figure out what the Bible says... Moses was not a darwinist ... and not many darwinists arguing that Moses was writing a text on evolution.

===============

When human life is first formed it starts out as a zyogote... God made Adam and Eve on day 6 of creation week - do you really think they came on the scene as "two zygotes"?? Or did they appear as fully formed functional adults that already had the ability to walk, talk, interact etc?

And the same goes for the grass and trees and all life on earth-- it has to be created in a mature functioning form on day 1 of its existence for the Genesis 1-2 story details to be believed.

And there not many atheists out there that are going to have that as their starting assumption for how life got established on planet earth.

==============

In any case as Richard Dawkins often points out - evolutionism is the ideal doctrine on origins for an atheist - and I think he makes a pretty good case for that.

In addition there is a great deal of science evidence that life on Earth is not billions of years old.

Having said that - Genesis 1 starts off by telling us that earth had water covering its surface - before day 1... so something of Earth could have been here before day 1 of Genesis 1. However no life would have been here then.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

danielmears

Active Member
Supporter
Jan 30, 2018
266
156
Phelan
✟132,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'd like to ask about this, because i'd like to know how to understand the Bible particularly the first chapters of Genesis. How did christians approach these chapters in the past - eg. Luther, Calvin, St. Thomas, St. Augustine etc. If there are parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally, how does one know which parts are not to be taken literally, and which parts are?
Genesis is an excellent place to start. There is a lot of fantastic information which ties in with the rest of scripture. I included scripture from Genesis when I wrote the following, In the Image of God. God bless!
Skip to content

The Realm by Daniel Mears

In the Image of God
father-1004022_1920.jpg

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:26-27

Then it says, “God blessed them,…” So, what does this mean we are made in the image of God, and why is God, plural, in this text? In our likeness, it says and implies we are certainly not just another animal but a unique being created in God’s image, given dominion over the earth. Later on, in Genesis there is another beautiful text, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” So, now it points out that besides being created in God’s image we are also a, living soul.

In the book of 1 John, the apostle John is pointing out some characteristics of God which may shed some light on the plurality used in Genesis where it says,”Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” . John writes this.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

This scripture sheds light on the plurality used in Genesis, in our image, after our likeness. In this same book, John also states that, God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” So, both of these combined explain many other scriptures which state that the Word has been put in your heart and in your mouth. Like this one:

But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. Deuteronomy 30:14

My point is that God is not far from us but is us, and has a special relationship with us. We are made in the likeness of God and I do not think that means we look like God since God is in and through all things, which includes the universe. So, when we pray we have to realize that he is in us and through us, that he is the very love within. That we are in God, God in us. This is what Jesus prayed. That we would, be one, as he was with God and us, One. So, as soon as you pray to some far-off deity you immediately cut yourself off from the real God which is in You. God is like, I’m right here, who are you talking to, the sky? The stars? I’m right here, in you, I am you. I AM . I guess God is also in the sky and stars so if you want to, you can look that far but God is also You. He is in and through your very atoms, so God knows what your praying about before it is even spoken. Glory to God! God will give you the power to do, but you must do whatever it is.

This is not near as difficult with God’s Word in our mouth and in our heart, the heart being the center of our being where we believe and our mouth speaking the Word puts spiritual power into motion. Then it is done unto us as we believe.

That being said, there are things which occur that are outside of our realm of understanding. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Isaiah 55:8-9 But we are given these resources so we know we are not left defenseless.

There is a great deal of scripture about the heart and the mouth. One is here.

Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.

Proverbs 4:23

The heart of the wise teacheth his mouth, and addeth learning to his lips.

Proverbs 16:23

In Proverbs 20:27 it says, The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly. In this verse the Hebrew word for spirit is the same word used for breath in the scripture about God breathing the breath of life into man. The breath of life being, the spirit of man.

How fascinating and wondrous I find all of this. What a wondrous relationship we have with the Creator. This is why scripture tells us to, Fear not, neither be dismayed, for if we are walking with this amazing God as one, with an awareness, we only need to realize that we are truly vessels of the living God! Then whatever we take on is with God as our righteous right arm. The bible also speaks of people who are walking under their own, supposed, power as having a right arm of flesh, not realizing they are God’s creation, with God in them, walking according to their own whims and desires. That is walking carnally, with no knowledge of God. It seems a silly existence once you discover the power of God, in you! But everyone discovers at their own pace, so be patient with others, help when you can.

Remember, God sees you as perfect, a perfect creation, no matter what shape, size or color you are. To the Father you are perfect. The world may say you are too skinny, too fat, need make-up, too old, too young or too gray but realize they are just trying to usually get you to buy something or want to make their selves feel better. There will always be those who are ready to put someone else down to lift themselves up saying you are too religious or not religious enough, an ex-drug addict or a goodie-two-shoes. Even if you are a drug addict, a drunk or a criminal, you are still a child of the living God and these behavioral things can be changed the instant you decide to do so. As a man thinketh, so is he, or she. This is a biblical truth.

The only thing to realize is God is love so if you want to feel closer to God, love. This will spread the love to others. We all need love no matter how tough you think you are. People become tough to protect themselves from others who can be harsh. It damages people to live without love because it is not natural. We are vessels of God so we should treat one another accordingly, realizing they too are created in the very, image of God!

Until next time, be blessed and love one another!

Share this:
The Message of the ResurrectionIn "Easter message 2020"

The Awakening of 2020!

God is Spirit!In "Attributes of God, love, light and spirit!"

43ce3801baa02e8d65332a05c80953e5

Author: therealmbydanielmears
Daniel Mears is a spiritual author from Phelan, CA who recently released the book entitled, The Realm. He is the son of a literally illumined minister and an eye witness to this powerful event, the wondrous light of God! View all posts by therealmbydanielmears

43ce3801baa02e8d65332a05c80953e5
Author therealmbydanielmearsPosted onSeptember 5, 2018CategoriesUncategorized
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Science tells us that God can't do that !!!
Really? God "can't do" Something? Hmmmm.... interesting..

I was always taught that HE was all powerful... There is nothing He cannot do.

Do tell.

Oh... but wait.... "Science" tells us that what God said is wrong... is that it?

But.. Science is man's looking at something and deciding what it tells them..

The bible is reading something God said.... and deciding whether to believe it is true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dms1972

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 26, 2013
5,084
1,302
✟593,863.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
When you read Genesis... what part cannot be literally true? Why do you feel that it cannot be literal?

Well in part whether the days of creation ordinary days, but also the talking serpent. I am inclined to think its just picture language to convey something that otherwise would be hard to describe.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jipsah
Upvote 0