Bible literalism.

[Carl Emerson]

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.

Exactly... my comment was 'tongue in cheek'

 

[JacksBratt]

Well in part the 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.

I believe that the literal days are pointed by the simple fact that God went to the trouble to state:

"and there was evening and there was morning, the first day", second day, third day , forth day.. etc.
Can't really miss that detail... kinda reminds you every day of the creation....

Talking serpent gets you too eh? Well what about a talking donkey? Is that fake? or the fish with the coin in it's mouth? Or Jesus standing up and telling the storm to stop? Or Three men walking around in a fire?

But.. a talking snake stumps ya?

I'm inclined to believe that it happened exactly as stated.... Some people in white coats don't like it... I'll still believe the word of God cause God could do it that way... and... He said that He did do it.

If I cannot believe that.. then.. how do I tell people that Christ walked on water, turned water to wine, made deaf hear, lame walk, blind see, cured leprosy, brought people back to life and saved a young girl from miles away??????

 

[JacksBratt]

Exactly... my comment was 'tongue in cheek'

AH... Gotcha... Missed that.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Well in part the 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.

How come we are OK with a talking donkey but not a talking serpent ???

 

[JacksBratt]

Well in part the 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.

Hard to describe?

"I created life and it changed and changed and then we had man"..

Wow... very hard.

 

[Swan7]

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?

If you want the answers then go to the One who is the Author and ask Him. Allow His Spirit to teach you.

This was (and still is) pretty vital in my Christian walk with Jesus, to ask Him things I don’t understand. With patience I was rewarded.

 

[Basil the Great]

Interesting question posed by the OP. I would point out that Judaism must have originally accepted a literal interpretation of most of the Hebrew Scriptures, as the Jewish calendar dates the Earth to about 6,000 years old.

 

[lsume]

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 Truth about The Word of God is that one cannot understand it until Christ Opens your eyes and ears. Over 30 years ago Christ came to me as a thief in the night. When He opened my eyes and ears it was easily the most exciting day of my life. I have a KJV Bible that was pretty worn out at the time. I had highlighted many verses and studied The Bible. However, when Christ opened my senses to The Word, I was embarrassed at what I had highlighted. To See The Truth everywhere in The Word. I don’t argue about The Word. There is no place for contention in the Christian heart. The Word Says that we are not to strive with our fellow man as I recall. Seek The Truth with all that you are. The Word promises that if you seek, you will find. I was called and honestly felt myself to be totally unprepared for what happened to me. I certainly was taught The Fear of The Lord. The only reason we are here is to find Christ. Please pray on this.

Thank you

 

[Tom 1]

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 suppose that depends what your theology is, although it does require a clutter free drawing board to be able to think about it I suppose. Doctrines like original sin are ideas about the bible, rather than in the bible as such. The Eden story for me anyway links most plausibly to the dawn of consciousness, or rather the further development of consciousness beyond a certain point, something like the ‘civilising’ of Enkidu in the Gilgamesh epic, and I should think the written versions in both cases record stories that are much, much older. Sin ‘entered the world’ through Adam, the bible says, through the choice, spurred by an external influence, to know more than was strictly necessary for life in whatever the paradise of Eden represents - perhaps a state of non-awareness of any choice beyond the simple fulfilling of biologically imposed obligations. To me awareness, sentience and the ability to choose one thing over the other within a context of moral understanding and the realities of ethical choices any kind of communal living entail makes what the bible calls sin inevitable, at least where knowledge of possible ramifications is limited. So it would make sense to interpret ‘knowledge of good and evil’ as the development of sufficient awareness to weigh actions and consequences in terms of ethical or moral considerations, within either a framework or at least a commonly held acceptance of things that are life promoting as good and things that curtail or harm life as bad. The potential spanner in the works is that the story depicts Adam and Eve already being able to consider options in a limited way, i.e. without any knowledge of what good or evil might mean in relation to behaviour, but the source of the consideration is external. This could relate to the development of abstract and imaginative thought David Lewis-Williams, in his book ‘the mind in the cave’, writes about. He compares what he thinks the evidence suggests to be a difference between the brains of Neanderthals and Sapiens; Neanderthals (according to Lewis-Williams) were able to make practical, concrete connections between things, as in learning the skills required to fashion tools, but lacked the ability for abstract or imaginative thinking, hence their limited burial practices, as compared with the more complex rites of our ancestors, driven by a belief in an afterlife/spirit world, among other examples. Perhaps the Genesis narrative marks some passage into a much wider world of awareness, which would indicate that the original order was not intended to contain such complex challenges as choices between immediate concerns like competition over resources and the wellbeing of strangers (or members of the group). The serpent in that case would represent some inevitable feature of the natural world that started humans on the path to self-awareness.

 

[Jamsie]

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?

One need only peruse the many threads on CF related to scripture to find differing views, whether taken literally or not. The first few chapters of Genesis may be one of the prime examples, as interpretation is quite an open. Perhaps the important point is that such differences are secondary and peripheral to salvation. Spending time studying the various views is a worthwhile endeavor understanding that such perspectives vary... I can only believe that God did not intend for us to know him at present from "beginning to end".

 

[Bruce Leiter]

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?

It depends on the kind of literature it is. The Bible contains history, wisdom, gospel-history, letters, and symbolic (Revelation) literature--all pointing to Jesus' first coming. The Old Testament's history and wisdom literature point us forward to the first coming, the gospels describe for us Jesus' first coming leading to his death and resurrection from four different viewpoints for four audiences, and the letters and Revelation explain the meaning of his ministry and promise us his second coming, yet future.

Genesis is completely history, as you can see in the later chapters. However, it is compressed history, especially in chapters 1-11, that Moses wrote for Israel to point out the uniqueness of our Creator-and-Covenant-Making God. The question is how we are to interpret the history of Genesis.

With any attempt to interpret any biblical passage, we need to interpret it in terms of the whole chapter, book, and Bible. We also need to determine the meanings of the words according to how the rest of the Bible uses them. For example, the word "day" (which we might assume is 24 hours as some do) in Genesis 1 is used to describe a complete period of time, not necessarily 24 hours. An example in both Old and New Testaments is the "day" of the Lord, which is more than likely a longer period of time than our day, sometimes used for the period of time between Jesus' first and second comings.

Another indication that the day might have been a much longer time is that God didn't create the sun until the fourth "day." Furthermore, God said that the earth should produce plants and animals. He could have done those actions in two 24-hour days, but the language suggests that it took a lot longer. That's what I mean by "compressed" history. In other words, the history probably isn't 6,000 years since the beginning but much longer. For example, in the geneological lists of names, generations are skipped, so more time had to have elapsed. Historical writing in those days wasn't exactly like our modern histories, but it is reliable history because God inspired it.

 

[Jamsie]

Furthermore, God said that the earth should produce plants and animals. He could have done those actions in two 24-hour days, but the language suggests that it took a lot longer. That's what I mean by "compressed" history. In other words, the history probably isn't 6,000 years since the beginning but much longer. For example, in the geneological lists of names, generations are skipped, so more time had to have elapsed. Historical writing in those days wasn't exactly like our modern histories, but it is reliable history because God inspired it.

Good points, often neglected is the "Let the land/water produce/bring forth..." Also, the passage avoids “let there be living creatures...” but again the command itself is the sole operative so then it is quite plain what God is commanding...the land.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

Basically we can divide opinion on this between more literal interpretations and less literal interpretations. For example we have Origen and St. Augustine clearly in the non-literal camp; for Augustine he believed in a specifically allegorical interpretation of the creation story. Whereas, on the other hand, we have St. Basil who argues against an allegorical interpretation in favor of a more literal one.

So, the truth is is that differences of opinion on this go back right to the earliest centuries of Christianity. If one wants to find Christian authorities who interpreted it non-literally, they're certainly there; and if one wants to find Christian authorities who interpreted it literally, they're certainly there too.

Luther seems to have been more literally minded, in fact he was deeply opposed to Copernicanism (the belief that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than the sun revolved around the earth) on generally the grounds that his literal reading of the Bible suggested a geocentric, rather than heliocentric view.

I don't know about Calvin.

As far as Thomas Aquinas, I seem to recall him taking a somewhat less than literal take, based upon sources like Augustine, seeing as how important and influential Augustine was in the Western Church.

Which of course, only really reiterates the point that Christian opinion has never been unified on the subject, and so, of course, one can find literalists and non-literalists when it comes to how to read the creation account(s).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

This is the Omphalos Argument, and it's a really bad argument. Because not only does the argument effectively say that we can't trust our observations of nature, but also that we can't trust God to be truthful.

The Omphalos Argument turns God into a liar. That makes it a very troubling argument.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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'm not sure about the others but Augustine thought that Genesis was allegorical.

'Literally' is a misused word. Paul says, 'all scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness...' So even the parts we don't think of as literally true are still true.

For the most part it should be obvious what genre a passage is in - proverbs and psalms are wisdom literature. Parables are stories and not literally true and so on.

For other passages where it is not clear, I'd suggest a multiplicity of commentaries to see how it is generally understood

As for Genesis - I refer you to John Walton's excellent books: The Lost World of Genesis and the The Lost World of Adam and Eve, where he looks at how Israelites would have read and understood these stories. The latter book in particular is a an eye-opener as it reads Genesis 1-3 as a chronology and does not follow the modern pattern of reading Adam & Even back into Genesis 1.

 

[BobRyan]

I see no problem with believing that the Earth was created in six literal days, personally

And given that God put that into legal code - Ex 20:11... it does make reading the Bible a lot easier.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not sure about the others but Augustine thought that Genesis was allegorical.

Augustine was ok with "making stuff up" - so given that starting point he speculated that God would not do what He said He did (Make all life on Earth in a real 7 day week) - if He COULD make the world faster. And since God most certainly COULD do it faster than that, well then by-all-that-is-Augustine He DID make the world and all life on it - much faster than in 7 days.. but God said 7 days "anyway" because He was waiting for someone as bright as Augustine to come along and guess what He really did.

Even so it is still a valid demonstration that Augustine was one of the first to put man-made-guessing ahead of what the Bible says and then declare that the guessing done is more reliable than scripture itself.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Yes - just like that beverage made by Christ.

The text does not say Adam was a "zygote" on day 6 of creation week but was made as a fully functioning adult human... from day1 of his life

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Yes - just like that beverage made by Christ.

The text does not say Adam was a "zygote" on day 6 of creation week but was made as a fully functioning adult human... from day1 of his life

This is the Omphalos Argument, and it's a really bad argument. Because not only does the argument effectively say that we can't trust our observations of nature, but also that we can't trust God to be truthful.

in fact.. the exact opposite.

We can trust our observations in nature that humans start off as zygotes. And we can see that the Bible does not spin a ridiculous story about 2 zygotes made on day 6 and left here to "get along well and name the animals".

Turns out infinite power "matters" and God can create two adults on day 6 of creation, just as he said he did . He is not limited to Dawkin's mantra of "no-god-needed-for-that".

 

[Scott Husted]

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?

Hands down ... by the spirit of truth residing in you ...