Why do you want to know?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?
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.
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.
The OP asked about history. I've been reading books on the history of Scripture interpretation recently, because of this exact question.
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?
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.
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.
My main questions regarding literality, is how to apply it?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.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?
So why does geology and the geological strata seem to indicate a much older Earth - millions of years rather than thousands?
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.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?
Excellent answer.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?
When you read Genesis... what part cannot be literally true? Why do you feel that it cannot be literal?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?
So why does geology and the geological strata seem to indicate a much older Earth - millions of years rather than thousands?
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!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 see no problem with believing that the Earth was created in six literal days, personally
Really? God "can't do" Something? Hmmmm.... interesting..Science tells us that God can't do that !!!
When you read Genesis... what part cannot be literally true? Why do you feel that it cannot be literal?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?