The Progression of literalism in origins

[Vance]

"It is true that flat Earthism was never a majority or official position of the early church." Is that what you wanted me to read?

Or this, "Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severianus of Gabala." I didn't see one bit of evidence that any of these men believed in a flat Earth. But, so what if they did. See the first quote. There are always nuts, like those who think humans are children of apes.

On geocentrism, it was very much a Church belief.[/quote]
No, geocentrism was a government belief, like Evolution. Just because the government had the official church, don't go blaming the church for what existed before the church and what was imposed on the church by the government.[/QUOTE]

You know Philip, you are amazing.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church in the 1500's through about 1900 developed it's theological positions at the whim of some secular government? Which one?

Geocentrism was a doctrine of the Church. It not only believed it, the Church insisted upon it. True, just like YEC'ism, it got it's scientific basis from scientists who were members of the Church, but the point is that they believed it because they believed the Bible required it. They came right out and said so. In fact, they refused to let go of geocentrism until some time around 1900, IIRC. Growing up in a fundamentalist household and church, I even saw church tracts espousing geocentrism as late as the 70's! True, now they are in the minority, but there was a time when it was not a minority, but official Church doctrine.

The Church now wants to say "we were just going along with what science was telling us." But this is not the truth. They went much farther than that because they made it doctrine. And, they did so because a plain, literal reading of Scripture would seem to imply that. It also had theological implications. If the Earth was in orbit around the sun, which was just one of many stars in our galaxy, then how does that jive with the Creation story, they thought. Just like YEC's now, they believed that there were dire consequences for accepting new scientific discoveries which seemed to contradict their interpretations of Scripture.

 

[Saint Philip]

On geocentrism... Are you saying that the Catholic Church in the 1500's through about 1900 developed it's theological positions at the whim of some secular government? Which one?

The Catholic Church, like Evolutionists, has a problem with making dogma out of non-biblical teachings. This was especially true when the Roman government controlled the church and geocentrism first became a Catholic doctrine. BTW, are you calling Ptolemy a Christian?

This is why I think people like Hugh Ross are so dangerous when they try to make the Big bang doctrine.

I even saw church tracts espousing geocentrism as late as the 70's!

How do you know geocentrism isn't true? In the 70s, the number of people espousing geocentrism must have been much smaller than the number of Evolutionists who thought ET had visited them.

If the Earth was in orbit around the sun, which was just one of many stars in our galaxy, then how does that jive with the Creation story,

No relation.

 

[Vance]

Phil:

You try to pin geocentrism on the Catholic Church, and even the Roman Government (which is odd since the Church insisted on geocentrism as a Biblical doctrine all the way into the 19th century), but the bottom line is that many Christian groups, including many fundamentalists, believed that geocentrism was required by a literal reading of Scripture. Yes, it was a minority toward the end, just as YEC'ism is a minority now, but both views are based on an insistence upon a traditional reading of Scripture even when the evidence of God's creation has long since shown that traditional reading to be incorrect.

I would agree with you one point. There is a great problem with making dogma out of non-Biblical principals. Even when you completely believe they *are* Biblical.

 

[Logical Challenger]

I should add that I *do* believe that the Bible is the complete and inerrant Word of God to Mankind. It is inspired by God and can not be contradicted. It is wholly true and just as relevant for us today as the day it is written. My bibles are my prize possessions and I believe a grounding in the Word is essential to a strong Christian walk.

Having said all that, I challenge anyone to state that they read *every* phrase in the Bible literally.

I do not believe the bible is inerrant in terms of contradiciton free. A single contradiction voids the inerrancy of the Bible:

Numbers 23:19 KJV
God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Deuteronomy 32:36 KJV
For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that [their] power is gone, and [there is] none shut up, or left.

Psalms 135:14 KJV
For the LORD will judge his people, and he will repent himself concerning his servants.

For further refernces to God on the subject of repent in KJV, go to blueletterbible.org and search for "repent".

Anyhow, there are references that LORD God repents and references that states LORD God never repents.

From this we can see that the Bible (KVJ) cannot be read literal.

__________________

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in
itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritative regime.

 

[Supreme_Arbiter]

hmm

 

[Supreme_Arbiter]

well....no opinion

 

[Jaywalk]

This is the progression of thought by those who insist that their literal, "plain reading" interpretation of Scripture is correct.

The "Literalist" is a straw man argument. The gimmick is to claim that there is some person who believes every word of the Bible is the "literal truth" and then to prove it is not by some obvious argument. For example, Jesus said he is the door, but he didn't have a knob and hinges, therefore the "literalists" are wrong.

The argument is specious because nobody is a literalist on those terms. Getting someone to accept that there are "non-literal" passages in the Bible is just a pointless rhetorical trick. If you want the debate to mean anything you need to point out specific passages which you wish to debate. Otherwise the argument is pointless and will generate more heat than light.

 

[lucaspa]

The "Literalist" is a straw man argument. The gimmick is to claim that there is some person who believes every word of the Bible is the "literal truth" and then to prove it is not by some obvious argument.

With all respect, that isn't what is happening. We have faced, again and again, people who claim the Bible is accurate in everything -- science, theology, history, etc. and that the Bible is 100% accurate in all these areas. Gander is the latest example.

The argument is specious because nobody is a literalist on those terms. Getting someone to accept that there are "non-literal" passages in the Bible is just a pointless rhetorical trick. If you want the debate to mean anything you need to point out specific passages which you wish to debate. Otherwise the argument is pointless and will generate more heat than light.

What we are doing is pointing out that, indeed, the literalist argument is ridiculous and that they are inconsistent internally -- taking some passages literally and rejecting others. The ones rejected as literal are often rejected based on extrabiblical evidence. Such as Luke 2:1. Yet the literalist often claims that you can only use the Biblical text to decide if a passage is non-literal.

So, literalists use extrabiblical evidence to decide passages are non-literal - such as you did above when you applied the extrabiblical knowledge of human anatomy to decide that Jesus did not "have a knob and hinges". There's nothing in the text to tell you that. You applied extrabiblical knowledge and viewed that as superior to the text. Yet literalists turn around and won't allow the application of extrabiblical knowledge to Genesis 1-3 to know that a literal interpretation is wrong for them.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Quite simply, there's enough evidence that Genesis is poetic from the text: The water above the earth, the night and day repetition (meant for poetic form), the contradictions, etc. This means that there's no particular objection to taking the text non-literally. As a simple example, the Song of Solomon, which is poetic, says:

7 "Tell me, O you whom my soul loves, Where do you pasture {your flock,} Where do you make {it} lie down at noon? For why should I be like one who veils F7 herself Beside the flocks of your companions?" R8 "If you yourself do not know, Most beautiful among women, Go forth on the trail of the flock And pasture your young goats By the tents of the shepherds.

Taken from:http://bible.crosswalk.com/

Now is the bible actually talking about pasturing goats? I really doubt it. Poetic sections do not need to be taken literally.

And the evidence against a 6000 year old earth is overwhelming. Geologically continental formation, the strata, radioactive dating, and many geological formations argue against it. Stellarly the observance of supernovas, galactic formation, and star formation argues against it. There's just no way the earth is 6000 years old without the grand majority of geology, astronomy, a large section of physics, and all of our understanding of radioactivity being wrong. And not just wrong, completely, utterly, totally wrong by, usually, orders of magnitude. That's a big problem.

 

[gluadys]

Vance,

In 50 words or less (and I will count them)... tell me why the evening and the morning were the first day... cannot be accepted as a literal 24- hour day. Don't you believe in a supernatural God that can created that much in a literal day?


No, remember 50 words or less.


~malaka~

When did the evening of the 7th day occur?

 

[nephilimiyr]

Hey whatever happend to vance? Does anybody know? I see that he made his last post back in December and then nothing...