Why a literalist presumption?

[TwinCrier]

If I were to find out tomorrow that there is convincing scientific evidence that evolution were true and the literal 6 day creation account in Genesis did not happen, I would still believe that the Creation accounts were meant to be read literally. I accept the biblical principals because of my interpretation, not the other way around.

 

[Vance]

If I were to find out tomorrow that there is convincing scientific evidence that evolution were true and the literal 6 day creation account in Genesis did not happen, I would still believe that the Creation accounts were meant to be read literally. I accept the biblical principals because of my interpretation, not the other way around.

Why? Why is your literal interpretation more important than the biblical principals? Those who are not literalists hold all the same essential principals, so the literal interpretation is obviously not necessary for those principals. All that your literal intepretation gives you is a series of contradictions. Contradictions within the text, with the history, with the culture and literary genres and, yes, with the evidence from God's natural world. Is it the seeming simplicity that is appealing about clinging to a literal reading? Is it that changing a traditional interpretation smacks of "compromise"? Is it stubborn pride, or a "that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!"?

How about this. What if you found out tomorrow that the original human author who wrote down the story did not believe it to be literal, and that all those who first read it or heard it did not take it as strict literal history?

 

[Jon_]

If I were to find out tomorrow that there is convincing scientific evidence that evolution were true and the literal 6 day creation account in Genesis did not happen, I would still believe that the Creation accounts were meant to be read literally. I accept the biblical principals because of my interpretation, not the other way around.

Uh, oh! Another literalist.

How do we interpret this passage?

(Matt. 19:24 KJV) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
​

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[TwinCrier]

Why? Why is your literal interpretation more important than the biblical principals? Those who are not literalists hold all the same essential principals, so the literal interpretation is obviously not necessary for those principals. All that your literal intepretation gives you is a series of contradictions. Contradictions within the text, with the history, with the culture and literary genres and, yes, with the evidence from God's natural world. Is it the seeming simplicity that is appealing about clinging to a literal reading? Is it that changing a traditional interpretation smacks of "compromise"? Is it stubborn pride, or a "that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!"?

How about this. What if you found out tomorrow that the original human author who wrote down the story did not believe it to be literal, and that all those who first read it or heard it did not take it as strict literal history?

You do realize I just repeated exactly what you posted previously right?

Literal interpretation doesn't conflict with biblical principles, they inhance each other. I find no contradictions, to the contrary, the bible repeats the literal interpretation throughout. When Jesus refers to Adam or Noah, I don't have to try to figure out what that means, it means to me: people named Adam and Noah. As for the series of questions, I don't base my belief on what "those who first read it or heard it" thought so that would not effect my beliefs in any way. My faith in the truth of the bible is just too overpowering. It's not pride, I just cannot deny with my head what I know in my heart, my soul and my mind to be true.

Uh, oh! Another literalist.

How do we interpret this passage?
(Matt. 19:24 KJV) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

I don't know how "we" intrerpret it, but I can tell you how "I" interpret it. Ya ain't gonna buy your way to heaven. When I say heaven I mean a literal place that exists, not a different plain of consciousness. Now I'm sure you're going to share your take on it and I'm sure it will contain some phrases such as "bible scholars" and "the original Greek" so go at it.

 

[shernren]

If I were to find out tomorrow that there is convincing scientific evidence that evolution were true...

Why put off till tomorrow what you can do today? It's a click away ... www.talkorigins.org

(Matt. 19:24 KJV) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

By reading it in context.

[BIBLE]Matthew 19:24-26[/BIBLE]

 

[Jon_]

I don't know how "we" intrerpret it, but I can tell you how "I" interpret it. Ya ain't gonna buy your way to heaven. When I say heaven I mean a literal place that exists, not a different plain of consciousness. Now I'm sure you're going to share your take on it and I'm sure it will contain some phrases such as "bible scholars" and "the original Greek" so go at it.

Nope, I won't quote any bible scholars or any Greek.

I just wanted you that not all of the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally.

Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Now, we all know that it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle. That little hole is much too small for a big ol' camel to fit through. So, if we interpret this verse literally, we see that what Jesus is saying that it is impossible for rich men to go to heaven.

But that can't be what Jesus means because he says that he came to die for the sins of the whole world. God desires that all should be saved. God does not desire that rich men should not be saved.

So, we have to look at a different way of interpreting this verse. The most appropriate way is to interpret it figuratively. When Jesus gave the illustration of the camel going through the eye of the needle, he didn't mean it literally, he meant it figuratively. He was essentially saying that it is very difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

Or, we could interpret this to mean that God keeps us poor.

I really mean that, too. Jesus might be saying that it is literally impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, so God keeps Christians poor. I suppose this interpretation makes sense, but the context denies it.



We need to read on to the next verse:

(Matt. 19:25 KJV) When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?


​

Because of the disciples' response, we can see that this passage is talking about salvation and not about poor Christians. They asked Jesus who could be saved. They were dumbfounded at his statement that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.


There is one other possibility, I suppose. This verse could also mean that God will make people poor before they accept him. Christ coud literally mean that no rich man can enter the kingdom (Matt. 19:23). In that case, in order for them to accept Christ, God would first have to strip them of their wealth.



I think the figurative interpretation is the most accurate, though considering the context. Jesus responds to the disciples in this way:

(Matt. 19:26 KJV) But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


​

Soli Deo Gloria


Jon

 

[shernren]

On an aside: maybe, when I look past the material connotation of "rich", I do learn from the passage that when we are able and choose to rely on ourselves, we cannot be saved. In those days it was simple: if you were rich you lived and got to heaven because of what you had, if you were poor you starved and went to hell because of what you didn't have. Jesus meant by this to turn the popular view around and make us realise that we cannot trust anything we own, outside of God.

Which is, of course, quite a non-literal way to read it.

 

[TwinCrier]

Rich and poor are such relative terms.

 

[Vance]

Twincrier, do you believe the plainest meaning is always the correct meaning?

If so, what happens when the plainest meaning to us in our modern society is not what the plainest meaning was to an earlier society reading the same text? Who is right? They are both just taking the plain meaning in their own eyes. Would you really say that God wrote the text so that our MODERN plain reading is correct, but earlier plain readings were incorrect?

 

[Remus]

Why is it that when someone says something like this:

I would still believe that the Creation accounts were meant to be read literally.

that it is assumed that this means that the entire Bible is to be read literally? I don't think anyone here is arguing that.

 

[Vance]

Very true, no one actually reads the entire Scripture literally. So, the question for those who insist on literalism in the creation accounts is why here in particular? That is the question in the OP. Why insist, as a CONCLUSIVE presumption, that it must be written in that particular literary genre.

BTW, ChrisS over in my mirror thread to this one in the other forum almost immediately DID argue that the entire Scripture should be read literally. I don't think he even means it though, if he thought about it for two seconds before posting in that knee-jerk manner.

 

[Remus]

Very true, no one actually reads the entire Scripture literally. So, the question for those who insist on literalism in the creation accounts is why here in particular? That is the question in the OP. Why insist, as a CONCLUSIVE presumption, that it must be written in that particular literary genre.

You are playing word games. Like in your OP:
"Why would strict literal historical narrative be the conclusive presumption?"
You go from reading something literally, to "strict literal historical narrative". But we've been over this, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up again.

BTW, ChrisS over in my mirror thread to this one in the other forum almost immediately DID argue that the entire Scripture should be read literally. I don't think he even means it though, if he thought about it for two seconds before posting in that knee-jerk manner.

This sort of thing happens when you play word games.

 

[TwinCrier]

Twincrier, do you believe the plainest meaning is always the correct meaning?

If so, what happens when the plainest meaning to us in our modern society is not what the plainest meaning was to an earlier society reading the same text? Who is right? They are both just taking the plain meaning in their own eyes. Would you really say that God wrote the text so that our MODERN plain reading is correct, but earlier plain readings were incorrect?

Not always. Obviously when Jesus held up the bread at the last supper and said "This is my flesh" He was showing an example, though I know some still today believe that was literally His fleash He held in His hand and that Christ's flesh exists in the communion bread even to this day, but then some of those same people don't take creation literally. We have no way of knowing what "earlier society" believed and it truly makes no difference. Again I don't base my belief on what society, early or later, thinks or believes. I am telling you what I believe. I know you disagree with that. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my interpretation of scripture. I don't have to answer to you. You are just some stranger sitting at a computer miles away from me. I've looked at the evidence and made my decision as to what I believe, and I choose to believe God created Planet Earth in 6 days. 6 Earth days. Don't like it? Tough.

 

[Vance]

You are playing word games. Like in your OP:
"Why would strict literal historical narrative be the conclusive presumption?"
You go from reading something literally, to "strict literal historical narrative". But we've been over this, so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up again.

This sort of thing happens when you play word games.

No, it is not a word game. I am asking very specifically why there should be a presumption of a literal reading of the two Creation accounts, or either of them. I am not saying that those who do read these accounts literally read anything else literally (in fact, part of my point is that they do not). But most YEC's do read these texts as strict literal historical narrative, do they not?

My question is why start with literalism for these passages at all, whether strict literalism or not?

 

[Vance]

Not always. Obviously when Jesus held up the bread at the last supper and said "This is my flesh" He was showing an example, though I know some still today believe that was literally His fleash He held in His hand and that Christ's flesh exists in the communion bread even to this day, but then some of those same people don't take creation literally. We have no way of knowing what "earlier society" believed and it truly makes no difference. Again I don't base my belief on what society, early or later, thinks or believes. I am telling you what I believe. I know you disagree with that. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my interpretation of scripture. I don't have to answer to you. You are just some stranger sitting at a computer miles away from me. I've looked at the evidence and made my decision as to what I believe, and I choose to believe God created Planet Earth in 6 days. 6 Earth days. Don't like it? Tough.

But the problem is that it is not "just what you believe". You are telling others they should believe what you believe in this regard. You are telling others who believe differently that they are wrong. So, the question is valid: WHY do you believe what you believe? Why presume literalism in the case of these creation accounts?

And, yes, we have a very good idea of what they ancient near east cultures, including the ancient Israelites, would have believed about these texts.

 

[Remus]

No, it is not a word game. I am asking very specifically why there should be a presumption of a literal reading of the two Creation accounts, or either of them. I am not saying that those who do read these accounts literally read anything else literally (in fact, part of my point is that they do not).

Okay then, to answer your original question one has to understand what you mean by "presumption". This word has several meanings which can lead to misunderstanding what you are asking.

But most YEC's do read these texts as strict literal historical narrative, do they not?

Again, we must understand what you mean by this. To me, to take the Creation account as "strict literal [history]" would mean that God physically "breathed into [Adam's] nostrils" which I don't believe this to be the case and I would venture to say that most YEC's don't believe this either.

My question is why start with literalism for these passages at all, whether strict literalism or not?

Literalism is not a starting point; it is a conclusion based on Scriptural evidence.

 

[Remus]

And, yes, we have a very good idea of what they ancient near east cultures, including the ancient Israelites, would have believed about these texts.

Did you ever tell us what you mean by "ancient Israelites" and what they would believe about these texts? I could have missed it since I'm not following this closely.

 

[Vance]

Okay then, to answer your original question one has to understand what you mean by "presumption". This word has several meanings which can lead to misunderstanding what you are asking.

Again, we must understand what you mean by this. To me, to take the Creation account as "strict literal [history]" would mean that God physically "breathed into [Adam's] nostrils" which I don't believe this to be the case and I would venture to say that most YEC's don't believe this either.

Literalism is not a starting point; it is a conclusion based on Scriptural evidence.

Fair enough, but my next question would be why? Still, I much prefer to see someone arrive at literalism after having approached the subject without such a presumption. And by presumption, I mean a belief that an account of past events in Scripture should be read as literal narrative history unless there is a good reason NOT to read it that way. Thus, they start with a default of literal historical narrative until it is clearly shown to be otherwise, and this hermenuetical approach has been said to be at the core of the fundamentalist tradition.

My guess (based on comments from YEC's here on this forum, and from having grown up in a YEC environment, and currently attending a YEC church) would be that the vast majority of those who read the creation accounts as a literal historic narrative do so because they start with such a presumption, arising out of both their religious upbringing and, very simply, our modern mindset.

And, just to clarify, by "strict literalism", I do not mean a complete rejection of any symbolism or figurative language (although a number of YEC's insisted that the "breathing" must have been literal, physical breathing, which shows how strong this approach can become), but instead the idea that the literary genre as a whole is "literal/historical".

 

[Remus]

Fair enough, but my next question would be why?

I'm not sure what you are asking. Why what?

My guess (based on comments from YEC's here on this forum, and from having grown up in a YEC environment, and currently attending a YEC church) would be that the vast majority of those who read the creation accounts as a literal historic narrative do so because they start with such a presumption, arising out of both their religious upbringing and, very simply, our modern mindset.

This is probably true. In my experience, most people go by what they've been taught when it comes to everything dealing with God. As for myself, I had to go through the realization that much of what I had been taught was in error. Additionally, I can't recall the origin issue ever coming up. Needless to say, my "religious upbringing" left a lot to be desired.

 

[Vance]

Did you ever tell us what you mean by "ancient Israelites" and what they would believe about these texts? I could have missed it since I'm not following this closely.

The ancient Israelites would be that group descending from Abraham, as described in Scripture.

As for what they would have believed about the texts: I have explained this in more detail in the mirror thread in the other forum, but basically they would have considered it an account of past events that is real and true and believable in the general areas of who, why, etc., but not one which attempts to be historically accurate in the exact details. They would have thought that God created the universe and the planet, but would not necessarily have believed that it actually took place over six 24-hour periods, for example. The exact order of the events would not be deemed to be absolutely historical, and they would have accepted that much of the story was told using symbols and types representing essential truths and not actual history.