• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Progression of literalism in origins

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
V

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0
S

Saint Philip

Active Member
Sep 1, 2003
95
1
✟250.00
Vance said:
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?
Click to expand...

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!
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

No relation.
 
Upvote 0
V

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

Logical Challenger

Kruzkal, The Faithless
Jan 15, 2004
107
6
41
Void
Visit site
✟22,767.00
Faith
Atheist

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.
 
Upvote 0

Jaywalk

Regular Member
Feb 26, 2004
94
10
67
Boston, MA
✟15,392.00
Faith
Christian
Vance said:
This is the progression of thought by those who insist that their literal, "plain reading" interpretation of Scripture is correct.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Jaywalk said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 
Upvote 0
T

ThePhoenix

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2003
4,708
108
✟5,476.00
Faith
Christian
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:

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.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP


When did the evening of the 7th day occur?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

PROGRESS UPDATE ON RNJB LECTIONARY
Replies
0
Views
49
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
The Bible, Age of the Earth and Evolution
Replies
4
Views
930
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
FaithT
Shameless instrumentalization of Cardinal Newman as progressive poster boy
Replies
2
Views
110
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
RileyG
Progressive Covenentalism
Replies
21
Views
955
Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum
YeshuaFan
Y
K
Regarding the origin of the body of Jesus Christ
Replies
16
Views
680
Controversial Christian Theology
KolQoreBaMidbar
K
Menu
Log in
Register