The Myth of Scriptural Literalism

[Jipsah]

Are there those who are allegorists, so long as it meets their purposes?

Of course. And they're the same people. It's a game we all play to some extent.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or rather "clarifying" Scripture so that it agrees with your doctrinal presuppositions.

We call that a "win-win situation."

When our test answers agree with the test questions, we pass the test, don't we?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a game we all play to some extent.

As long as we follow the rules, eh?

 

[BobRyan]

Including the ones you so pointedly ignore in 1 Cor 11 because they don't jibe with your doctrine!

1 Cor 11 fits perfectly.
1. IT states that the Lord's supper is not a sacrifice - it is "a MEMORIAL" - the very thing that Protestants claim
2. It states that it is proclaiming "The Lord's DEATH" until He comes (meaning it should probably be on Friday or Saturday not Sunday if one were to be rather strict about it)

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

Which makes many people happy when they think of the virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, His bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven.
But the moment this act of taking the Bible literally is used consistently across the board - and it gets to the first 9 chapters of Genesis -- well then, that's another thing altogether for 'some'.

Which makes my point that it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Everyone is a literalist when it serves their purposes, and everything is a metaphor when a literal meaning runs counter to your own beliefs.

Only if you choose to skim over all the inconvenient details in the text that dictate the correct view and may show your view to be in error.

Your post entirely ignores those "details" on that topic I mention above - and that you also bring up in your OP.

Why keep doing that? as if we won't notice?

I.E posturing about literalism is just that - posturing.

If you ignore enough details... it is . I choose not to do that.

If you don't believe in the Real Presence? No.

Your a priori bias does not change the text - Christ is the one who is NOT bread in John 6, and is NOT bread falling out of the sky in John 6.
This is not just "my interpretation of John 6" -- every Bible scholar on the planet admits to it.
Not nearly as unknowable and mysterious as you seem to want to have it.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

You're telling me why you take some things literally

And its always for the same reason.. I pay attention to the details in the text.

Our doctrines determine our exegesis

No they don't -- your doctrines determine your eisegesis. Context determines exegesis.
You keep conflating the two.

If we were both Baptists or some such, we'd almost certainly agree on what is literal and what isn't

We would be a lot happier with 'the Bible details" in Genesis 1-9 and John 6 than you appear to be at the moment.

(FWIW, I never believed that Genesis 1 was literal, though, although most of my fellow Charismatics did.)

Because you were comfortable ignoring Bible details from the start?

And some feel the need to duct-tape unrelated Scriptures together with knight-jump exegesis

funny false accusations is not a form of Bible study or "proof" of any doctrine. I guess we all know that.

If you want to believe that Creation took 6 days down to the nanosecond it suits me fine, because in the end I don't think it matters. If I'm wrong on that then I'm sure I'll be squared away after I leave here.

I suggest you do a mental exercise and explore that scenario a bit.
What IF the Ten Commandments are right in the law that dictates a literal 7 day week in Ex 20:11
What if God is correct in Gen 1-2 about that literal 7 day week.

What are the implications of that scenario in your POV? Do ever take the time to objectively evaluate the alternative or are you not allowing yourself to stop and think about it for a minute?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

IN John 6 Jesus explains those figures of speech

And so say all SDAs

The details IN the text demand that we notice them even when you find them inconvenient.

The easy and obvious ability to read the text and see details so obvious that all sides admit to them - is a good starting point. Yet you claim this is too difficult for you since you claim you are so incredibly biased as dictated by the dogma of your group.

My argument is that this statement of yours is not accurate.

1. All scholars agree that nobody in John 6 thinks Christ "is bread" he is standing there talking to them - no matter what he says to the contrary in his use of figures of speech and symbols.
2. All scholars agree that nobody in John 6 sees bread falling down out of the sky -- - no matter what he says to the contrary in his use of figures of speech and symbols.
3. All scholars agree that nobody in John 6 bites Christ - not the faithful disciples nor the faithless ones -- - no matter what he says to the contrary in his use of figures of speech and symbols.
... the list goes on.

The easy and obvious details themselves direct the reader to conclude against what you admit is your a priori bias to the contrary.

 

[ozso]

BobRyan said:

Which makes many people happy when they think of the virgin birth, the miracles of Christ, His bodily resurrection and ascension to heaven.
But the moment this act of taking the Bible literally is used consistently across the board - and it gets to the first 9 chapters of Genesis -- well then, that's another thing altogether for 'some'.

Only if you choose to skim over all the inconvenient details in the text that dictate the correct view and may show your view to be in error.

Your post entirely ignores those "details" on that topic I mention above - and that you also bring up in your OP.

Why keep doing that? as if we won't notice?

If you ignore enough details... it is . I choose not to do that.

Your a priori bias does not change the text - Christ is the one who is NOT bread in John 6, and is NOT bread falling out of the sky in John 6.
This is not just "my interpretation of John 6" -- every Bible scholar on the planet admits to it.
Not nearly as unknowable and mysterious as you seem to want to have it.

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

And its always for the same reason.. I pay attention to the details in the text.

No they don't -- your doctrines determine your eisegesis. Context determines exegesis.
You keep conflating the two.

We would be a lot happier with 'the Bible details" in Genesis 1-9 and John 6 than you appear to be at the moment.

Because you were comfortable ignoring Bible details from the start?

funny false accusations is not a form of Bible study or "proof" of any doctrine. I guess we all know that.


I suggest you do a mental exercise and explore that scenario a bit.
What IF the Ten Commandments are right in the law that dictates a literal 7 day week in Ex 20:11
What if God is correct in Gen 1-2 about that literal 7 day week.

What are the implications of that scenario in your POV? Do ever take the time to objectively evaluate the alternative or are you not allowing yourself to stop and think about it for a minute?

You write "details" in almost every post you make. This seems to be claiming to see what most others miss. And it's typical of doctrine based on bits and pieces. What's usually called connecting the dots. Rather than seeing what the overall pessage as a whole says. If the passage is taken as a whole, then there's all those "details" bits and pieces used to connect the dots that are missed.

And of course bits and pieces ("details") can be stitched together to make the Bible say all kinds of things.

 

[ozso]

I was raised as a Christian. But fortunately while growing up I paid less attention to what I was being taught and more attention to what the bible says. So I never become dedicated to any particular dogma. Especially dogma that has to be strung together from bits and pieces, because there's no direct teaching of it in scripture.

Usually those who subscribe to bits and pieces dogma, point out the doctrine of the Trinity. That the word "trinity" isn't in scripture. That there's nothing in scripture that outright says the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God. But that's pretty much the exception, rather than the rule. Which is why it's virtually universally accepted throughout Christianity.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Of course. And they're the same people. It's a game we all play to some extent.

I am curious. What do you suggest people do? The answer should be the same as "what do you do?"

 

[IoanC]

An interpretation of The Bible is possible only through The Holy Spirit. Literalism comes from satan who is not in The Grace of The Holy Spirit and, so, he does not know God's actual thoughts about anything, including The Bible.

 

[d taylor]

-​

Common sense is easy to distinguish. Common sense tell the rational person that Jesus is not an actual vine or an actual door. It also tells that when God states He created two great lights, God is not actually saying. He created a great light and a reflector of the great light. But that God actually created two great lights one to rule the day and a lesser great light to rule the night.

It is common sense to see most everyday the sun moving above the earth, as God has stated that the sun moves over the earth in The Bible.

It is also common sense, to see that God offer His free gift of Eternal Life salvation by belief in Jesus The Messiah. As God repeats this simple truth several times in many verses in The Gospel of John. The only book of The Bible whose stated purpose for being written is to tell people how to have life (eternal).

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Scripture, it is so many things, so many genres of literature and so many purposes. It kind of amazes me that people assume any of it should be taken literally. But, yes, some of it should be. So what criteria d we use to determine this? As OP stated "one's doctrinal viewpoint or sectarian presuppositions". That is unavoidable. Any snake handlers here?

 

[AV1611VET]

So what criteria d we use to determine this?

As stated in the OP:

“When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.”

 

[Valletta]

IN John 6 Jesus explains those figures of speech as being a reference to accepting His WORDS of LIFE and believing His teaching. So all the while using the same figures of speech in John 6 - neither the faithless nor the faithful disciples attempt to bite Christ nor do they see him as literal bread falling out of the sky. The faithful ones see that He is using a figure of speech- symbolism of the same form seen in Deut 8 with Manna

In John 6:50-53 the Koine Greek word used for "eat" are forms of "phago." The Jews find the words of Jesus hard to believe, in John 6:54 forms of the word "trogein" or "trogo" begin to be used for "eat." "Trogein" means to chew, or gnaw, or masticate--when challenged Jesus, instead of telling them it is symbolic, does the opposite and makes it clear that He is speaking literally about eating His flesh. There were a number of disciples who just could not believe Jesus and such a new concept for them, it was shocking and new enough that many disciples of Jesus left him. The consequences spelled out in the last sentence of the following passage are hardly for something symbolic:

1 Cor 11:23-29 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Jesus could not be more clear:

John 6:53-56 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."

 

[Jipsah]

We call that a "win-win situation."

I call it intellectual dishonesty. "Oh, never mind what here's what says, here's what it needs to mean to keep my favorite doctrine intact.

When our test answers agree with the test questions, we pass the test, don't we?

So just change the questions to suit your answers. Right.

 

[Jipsah]

As long as we follow the rules, eh?

The "rules" being set by your doctrinal position.

 

[Jipsah]

1 Cor 11 fits perfectly.
1. IT states that the Lord's supper is not a sacrifice

Really? Funny, those words don't appear in my Bible. (Saying "my Bible" like that make me feel so very Baptist), and I very much doubt that it does in your's, either. But you feel free to act as though it says that because that's what your doctrine says it really means.

- the very thing that Protestants claim
2. It states that it is proclaiming "The Lord's DEATH" until He comes (meaning it should probably be on Friday or Saturday not Sunday if one were to be rather strict about it)

Gimme a citation on that as well unless you're simply trying to support my original contention.

 

[Jipsah]

BobRyan said:

IN John 6 Jesus explains those figures of speech

Really? Hmmm?

The details IN the text demand that we notice them even when you find them inconvenient.

Even when they're not there, apparently.

The easy and obvious ability to read the text and see details so obvious that all sides admit to them - is a good starting point.

Which is why most Christians are in complete agreement the Eucharist is simply Memorial Snack.

Oh, wait...

Yet you claim this is too difficult for you

Really? When did I say any such thing? I suspect you're doing a little violence to the truth there, mate.

since you claim you are so incredibly biased as dictated by the dogma of your group.

"My group", in this case, representing the vast majority of Christians in the world. The "Memorial Snack" is very much a minority view. That isn't why I happen to believe it, though. I belivee it because that's what our Lord said, and I take it literally, because I don't see the "but He can't have really meant that!" position at all persuasive.
My argument is that this statement of yours is not accurate.

1. All scholars agree that nobody in John 6 thinks Christ "is bread" he is standing there talking to them

I'd go so far as to say nobody at all thinks He was bread. But wait, you're probably leading up to some dramatic revelation....

- no matter what he says to the contrary in his use of figures of speech and symbols.
2. All scholars agree that nobody in John 6 sees bread falling down out of the sky -- - no matter what he says to the contrary in his use of figures of speech and symbols.
3. All scholars agree that nobody in John 6 bites Christ - not the faithful disciples nor the faithless ones -- - no matter what he says to the contrary in his use of figures of speech and symbols.
... the list goes on.

Wow, that's amazing! I mean, if He hadn't clarified what He really meant for those folks they'd have abandoned Him in droves. Good job that didn't happen, innit?

The easy and obvious details themselves direct the reader to conclude against what you admit is your a priori bias to the contrary.

Which is why almost all Christians accept the Zwinglian position as true, right? I mean, it' just intuitively obvious!
Except they don't. It's stiil pretty much a fringy doctrine.

But if the Pharisees were still around, they'd certainly be down with you on this one, yessirree!

 

[AV1611VET]

I call it intellectual dishonesty.

As per your Post 21, you say there is no difference between a literalist and an allegorist.

So how do you differentiate?

And if you can't differentiate, then I take it you're saying both literalists AND allegorists are being intellectually dishonest?

And if so, how do YOU escape being hoist by your own petard?

 

[AV1611VET]

The "rules" being set by your doctrinal position.

Just wondering ... how do you interpret your phone book? or the menu that is given you at a restaurant?

Literally or allegorically?

I'd venture to say that there are times when that book, menu, or other writing you're holding in your hands needs to be taken literally.

The Bible is one of them.