Do Genesis literalists also take the rest of the Bible literally?

[CabVet]

THIS THREAD QUESTION IS FOR EVERYBODY, anybody can answer and participate in the discussion.

Do those who literally interpret the passages in Genesis 1-9 also literally interpret these passages:

1 - Women should not teach or have authority over men.
2 - Nobody should work on the Sabbath.
3 - Pork and shellfish are unclean and should not be eaten.
4 - Women should not wear pants.
5 - Nobody should wear clothes woven with different fabrics.
6 - Nobody should sit in the same place a woman during her period has sat.

And so on...

 

[keith99]

Scripture did not say pants, it said women should not wear men's clothes.

Pants where the zipper is in the back or even the side should be fine.

A shirt with the buttons the wrong way might not be OK though.

I know the magic verse for all food being clean. I'm not giving up any of my bacon, shrimp or cheeseburgers.

 

[juvenissun]

THIS THREAD QUESTION IS FOR EVERYBODY, anybody can answer and participate in the discussion.

Do those who literally interpret the passages in Genesis 1-9 also literally interpret these passages:

1 - Women should not teach or have authority over men.
2 - Nobody should work on the Sabbath.
3 - Pork and shellfish are unclean and should not be eaten.
4 - Women should not wear pants.
5 - Nobody should wear clothes woven with different fabrics.
6 - Nobody should sit in the same place a woman during her period has sat.

And so on...

I bet you do not know what does the word "literal" mean.

For example, what is the "literal" meaning of "water"?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I'm not a Biblical literalist but I'll answer anyway.

Several of these points were addressed in the New Testament: laws on diet were often based on hygiene, as shellfish and pigs are notorious carriers of disease and parasites. Jesus himself said it was what comes out of a person's mouth (i.e. what they say) which makes them good or bad - not what they put in.

Jesus also pointed out that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Pharisees blamed him for working on the Sabbath even though he was doing good (picking corn, healing the sick) because they were under the wrong impression that doing anything on the Sabbath was sinful.

Even some of the more ridiculous laws (such as not wearing clothes made of more than one material) make sense in historical context: the Canaanites, one of the Israelis most hated enemies, used to wear mixed clothing, and they were told not to imitate them. Today it would be a bit like asking the British army not to goose-step.

In fact many of the laws you see in the Old Testament applied exclusively to Jews, rather than gentiles.

You wouldn't need Christians to answer these questions for you if you actually read the bible and looked at the passages in context, rather than repeating everything you've read on evilbible.com. You're not bringing up anything that hasn't been brought up several times before.

 

[CabVet]

I bet you do not know what does the word "literal" mean.

For example, what is the "literal" meaning of "water"?

In other words, you only take literally those things that are convenient, got it.

To answer your question, the literal meaning of water depends on the sentence where it is used.

 

[CabVet]

I'm not a Biblical literalist but I'll answer anyway.

Several of these points were addressed in the New Testament: laws on diet were often based on hygiene, as shellfish and pigs are notorious carriers of disease and parasites. Jesus himself said it was what comes out of a person's mouth (i.e. what they say) which makes them good or bad - not what they put in.

Jesus also pointed out that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Pharisees blamed him for working on the Sabbath even though he was doing good (picking corn, healing the sick) because they were under the wrong impression that doing anything on the Sabbath was sinful.

Even some of the more ridiculous laws (such as not wearing clothes made of more than one material) make sense in historical context: the Canaanites, one of the Israelis most hated enemies, used to wear mixed clothing, and they were told not to imitate them. Today it would be a bit like asking the British army not to goose-step.

In fact many of the laws you see in the Old Testament applied exclusively to Jews, rather than gentiles.

You wouldn't need Christians to answer these questions for you if you actually read the bible and looked at the passages in context, rather than repeating everything you've read on evilbible.com. You're not bringing up anything that hasn't been brought up several times before.

Yeah, and I got all of that, but I have met many Christians that interpret those exactly like you do, yet take Leviticus 20:13 (and Genesis 1) literally.

And what do you think of 1 Timothy 2:12? That is in the New Testament.

By the way, I had no idea "evlibible.com" even existed. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Yeah, and I got all of that, but I have met many Christians that interpret those exactly like you do, yet take Leviticus 20:13 (and Genesis 1) literally.

So you've asked this before, and not you're asking again because ... ?

And what do you think of 1 Timothy 2:12? That is in the New Testament.

I'd be lying if I said everything which was taught 2,000 years ago reflected the way we think today. Some versions (the original Greek translation for example) say that a woman or wife should not "dominate" men or their husbands - and I'd point out that even the Old Testament had female prophets.

By the way, I had no idea "evlibible.com" even existed. Thanks for pointing it out.

Meh, after searching "contradictions in the Bible" and "evil Bible passages" often enough you would have found it anyway.

 

[CabVet]

So you've asked this before, and not you're asking again because ... ?

Because I didn't get an answer.

I'd be lying if I said everything which was taught 2,000 years ago reflected the way we think today. Some versions (the original Greek translation for example) say that a woman or wife should not "dominate" men or their husbands - and I'd point out that even the Old Testament had female prophets.

And why doesn't that apply to Genesis? Do you think society 2,000 years ago was ready to hear an explanation of evolution?

Meh, after searching "contradictions in the Bible" and "evil Bible passages" often enough you would have found it anyway.

I've read the Bible, no need to google those.

 

[Radagast]

2 - Nobody should work on the Sabbath.
3 - Pork and shellfish are unclean and should not be eaten.
4 - Women should not wear pants.
5 - Nobody should wear clothes woven with different fabrics.
6 - Nobody should sit in the same place a woman during her period has sat.

These Old Testaments were literal commands (bearing in mind the misinterpretations already mentioned), and were taken as literal commands by the people to whom they were addressed. Nobody ever believed they were metaphorical.

My understanding is that Orthodox Jews still follow these rules.

1 - Women should not teach or have authority over men

Nobody believes this New Testament command was metaphorical. Everyone believes it was a literal command too. Christians differ on whether it applies universally or only to a specific time and place.

It is possible that you don't understand what the word "literal" means.

 

[Radagast]

the original Greek translation for example

The original Greek was not a translation, obviously.

And FWIW, the original Greek says διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Yeah, and I got all of that, but I have met many Christians that interpret those exactly like you do, yet take Leviticus 20:13 (and Genesis 1) literally.

So you've asked this before, and not you're asking again because ... ?

Because I didn't get an answer.

(My emphasis) If you've heard my interpretation before then it sound like you got an answer before.

I've read the Bible, no need to google those.

I suspect you've read bits of it. If you'd read the whole thing (not easy, I know) you'd already know most of the answers to the points you listed in your OP.

And why doesn't that apply to Genesis? Do you think society 2,000 years ago was ready to hear an explanation of evolution?

Why doesn't what apply to Genesis? Also, evolution has nothing to do with our salvation - no more than understanding how volcanos works does. Contrary to popular belief, evolution is not some magic key which unlocks the door to enlightenment.

 

[ErminlindaRika]

Of course. Who wouldn't interpret that literally? Those were the ancient Mosaic laws the Jews obeyed. You need to reference where in Leviticus you got those from though so that people can verify them.

 

[CabVet]

These Old Testaments were literal commands (bearing in mind the misinterpretations already mentioned), and were taken as literal commands by the people to whom they were addressed. Nobody ever believed they were metaphorical.

My understanding is that Orthodox Jews still follow these rules.

Nobody believes this New Testament command was metaphorical. Everyone believes it was a literal command too. Christians differ on whether it applies universally or only to a specific time and place.

It is possible that you don't understand what the word "literal" means.

Yeah, so all of that applies "only" to the people to whom they were addressed, but not Genesis, right? I do know what "literal" means, it is the inconsistency that I do not like. If you think Genesis was written for people living today you should also think everything else was written for people living today.

 

[CabVet]

(My emphasis) If you've heard my interpretation before then it sound like you got an answer before.

No, I did not say I didn't know what your point was. What I said is this: even though I know there are many interpretations (see the "not written for us" above), what I don't get is why you can interpret some portions of the Bible like that, yet others are as they are written.

I suspect you've read bits of it. If you'd read the whole thing (not easy, I know) you'd already know most of the answers to the points you listed in your OP.

You suspect wrong, I read all of it. I do know some of the answers, but not others. The one in 1 Timothy for example I have no answer for. Why isn't that taken literally today? It is in the NT.

Why doesn't what apply to Genesis? Also, evolution has nothing to do with our salvation - no more than understanding how volcanos works does. Contrary to popular belief, evolution is not some magic key which unlocks the door to enlightenment.

I will try to make it very clear for you, why when the Bible says: "do not eat pork", people explain it away by saying "well, that was cultural", but when we talk about Genesis, that is not cultural and everyone has to take it literally even against all scientific evidence.

 

[CabVet]

Of course. Who wouldn't interpret that literally? Those were the ancient Mosaic laws the Jews obeyed. You need to reference where in Leviticus you got those from though so that people can verify them.

No need to give Bible verses for those, they are the most well-known ones, and even if you have not read the Bible, a quick Google search will tell you where they are.

Question: if those are "ancient Mosaic laws the Jews obeyed" why isn't Genesis an "ancient Mosaic creation story the Jews propagated"?

By the way, not all those are in Leviticus, you should read 1 Timothy when you have a chance.

 

[juvenissun]

In other words, you only take literally those things that are convenient, got it.

To answer your question, the literal meaning of water depends on the sentence where it is used.

So there could be, say, 5 "literal" meanings of the word "water".
If so, a literal understanding of the Bible is neither difficult nor surprising.

 

[verysincere]

The passages in Genesis 1-9 also literally interpret these passages:

3 - Pork and shellfish are unclean and should not be eaten.

OF COURSE I DO.

Why?

Because the Hebrew text clearly says:

A) That all citizens of the Tribes of Israel are to observe the laws, duties, and rituals that identify one as a COVENANT MEMBER OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.

B) "Covenant" simply means a CONTRACT between those citizens and YHWH.

C) A violation of any of those COVENANT OBLIGATIONS is a rejection of the community and a violation of membership in the nation.

D) Kosher food regulations are among those COVENANT OBLIGATIONS. To disobey them is to say (a) I reject and renounce my contract with YHWH, and (b) I defy my community and my obligations to the community. [I could have dealt with all of the items listed but I wanted to keep the principle simple, so I chose the dietary law example.]


1) Now if someone can show me how my LITERAL interpretation is contrary to the Torah scriptures, I will be fascinated to read what is wrong with my literal interpretation.

2) How can there be ANY OTHER literal interpretation????


[No doubt people will come up with various PERSONAL APPLICATIONS of the text. But are you certain that there is more than ONE "literal interpretation"?]

 

[verysincere]

I will try to make it very clear for you, why when the Bible says: "do not eat pork", people explain it away by saying "well, that was cultural", but when we talk about Genesis, that is not cultural and everyone has to take it literally even against all scientific evidence.

I'm finding this entire thread very interesting---in part because what for many is a passing interest and controversial question was for me many years of graduate school and a lifetime of scholarship and teaching on Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. Needless to say, I "process" the various comments being posted here much like an evolutionary biologist would critique popular-level debates about creation-evolution controversies. (In other words, I'm often equally flabbergasted by the confident but errant claims on BOTH sides----because the factual errors and myopic missing-the-point commentaries are so striking. That is not condescension; it is simply what happens when professionals observe amateurs doing what the professionals do for an entire career, some eight to 14 hours per day, years on end.)

So I am mainly curious about these aspects of the thread topic:

1) Are these "literal interpretations" OR are they simply differences about APPLICATION of the Biblical text? (Indeed, I doubt that the OP really meant "literal interpretation" at all---because the way the OP was worded and the way most people read "interpreting" the "literal interpretation" tells me that APPLICATION is the issue.

2) After all, with any ancient text there is:

(a) what the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek text was meant to BE as a text. [The field of Textual criticism, which determines the best manuscripts and reconstructing what was the likely original text.]

(b) what the original Hebrew or Greek text was meant to STATE to its intended audience,

(c) How should the text be TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH so the average person can read that Biblical text? [Translation & exegesis; various linguistic fields.]

(d) For those who consider that Biblical text a sacred scripture, how should it be APPLIED within their religious tradition, group, or lifestyle?

Is (d) what the OP intended for this?


2) Do readers of a given Biblical text believe that the text can be "literally interpreted" more than one way----or APPLIED more than one way?

3) Do readers believe that a Bible of 66 (or 80) books might each have different genres and therefore intended interpretations? (Why should a compendium of 66 books---in two major collections which are intended for very different groups of people---be read and understood as if a single genre? Why would Genesis 1 have to read and understood in the same manner as a Gospel narrative in the New Testament? Should a Shakespeare sonnet be read and interpreted in the same way as a Shakespeare play?)

I'm not trying to criticize anyone. I'm just very curious how you see these various aspects of the text.

 

[verysincere]

THIS WAS FUNNY:

Did anybody else see this Smorg-T (??) ad on your screen while viewing this "literal interpretation" thread? The model was wearing a T-shirt with the imprint:

"Misuse of 'literally' makes me figuratively insane!"


.

 

[CabVet]

So there could be, say, 5 "literal" meanings of the word "water".
If so, a literal understanding of the Bible is neither difficult nor surprising.

But of course, only your literal interpretation is the "true" one, correct?