• 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.

Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Amora

Regular Member
Mar 30, 2006
142
18
Israel
✟23,073.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
A Jewish orthodox scientist whom grappled with these questions many years ago when I was starting my career, I eventually landed more or less on the theistic evolution understanding of Things.

My current beliefs are a bit more complicated, but one of the things that I do not understand is the utter insistence of a simple literal reading of the text, with no exegeses at all.

As with many texts, one needs to interpret what exactly it's trying to say in the context in which it was said. Espechialy when we are reading it some 3000 years after it was codified.

One of the most obvious things in the Bible, is that many stories and imagery cannot be understood in the simple literal way. For example, there are many instances where the Bible talks about the Hand of God, or the Nose of God. Clearly this is allegory. It HAS to be. Any other understanding negates the principle of an invisible, non corporeal god. (So here of course I am referring to the Hebrew bible and not to any corporeal manifestations described in later publications).

Furthermore, classic Jewish exegesis, relying on age old sources, at the very least over 2300 years old, explained many instances of the Bible as coming to define principles and ideas, rather than actual-law-to-be-followed. For example the Wayward Son (I think that's what he is called).

Additionally, the Bible itself is telling us that you cannot take certain parts literally, by the fact that the first 2 chapters of Genesis themselves are in disagreement!

What _I_ learn from the clear differences between the two chapters is 1. God is telling us that the stories he wants to teach us are complicated and need more than one angle, even more than one storyteller, to tell them. 2. You cannot take them both literally - that would be simply impossible.

That said, the main rejoinder to this is where do I draw the line between what I call allegory and what I determine to be a literal reading. I cannot, of course, say that the commandment "though shall not kill" is simply allegory and that it's really OK and God just wanted to convey his discomfort with the idea.

The answer is, again, to read what the bible is telling us. By the fact of the two disagreeing Genesis chapters, I learn that they cannot both be littoral. By the fact that an actual, planet-wide flood is impossible without jumping through some pretty high flying hoops, AND, that again, in the story of Noah there are also internal inconsistencies, I can also learn that the flood was probably not a description of an actual single event.

OTOH, when it comes to Laws and directives, these are usually more straightforward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Etheri

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,726
52,530
Guam
✟5,133,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That said, the main rejoinder to this is where do I draw the line between what I call allegory and what I determine to be a literal reading. I cannot, of course, say that the commandment "though shall not kill" is simply allegory and that it's really OK and God just wanted to convey his discomfort with the idea.
This is where Bible maturity comes in.

In Moses' time, all God had to say was:

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

... and they knew exactly what He meant.

Two thousand years later, Jesus had to be more specific:

Matthew 19:18 Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder,

Today, two thousand years later, scientists have no clue what God meant by either passage; compliments of remaining silent while one woman lobbied to have the Bible removed from academia.

She is dead now, but scientists have picked up her mantle ... as Elisha picked up Elijah's mantle ... and have continued her crusade with such things as having MERRY CHRISTMAS changed to HAPPY HOLIDAYS or SEASON'S GREETINGS; and having the Ten Commandments removed from public view.

They now mock and attack Christian beliefs openly and fervently on the Internet; and if it wasn't for Christian administration, we would probably have another Great-is-Diana-of-the-Ephesians mob against us.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
72
Chicago
✟131,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
A Jewish orthodox scientist whom grappled with these questions many years ago when I was starting my career, I eventually landed more or less on the theistic evolution understanding of Things.

My current beliefs are a bit more complicated, but one of the things that I do not understand is the utter insistence of a simple literal reading of the text, with no exegeses at all.

As with many texts, one needs to interpret what exactly it's trying to say in the context in which it was said. Espechialy when we are reading it some 3000 years after it was codified.

One of the most obvious things in the Bible, is that many stories and imagery cannot be understood in the simple literal way. For example, there are many instances where the Bible talks about the Hand of God, or the Nose of God. Clearly this is allegory. It HAS to be. Any other understanding negates the principle of an invisible, non corporeal god. (So here of course I am referring to the Hebrew bible and not to any corporeal manifestations described in later publications).

Furthermore, classic Jewish exegesis, relying on age old sources, at the very least over 2300 years old, explained many instances of the Bible as coming to define principles and ideas, rather than actual-law-to-be-followed. For example the Wayward Son (I think that's what he is called).

Additionally, the Bible itself is telling us that you cannot take certain parts literally, by the fact that the first 2 chapters of Genesis themselves are in disagreement!

What _I_ learn from the clear differences between the two chapters is 1. God is telling us that the stories he wants to teach us are complicated and need more than one angle, even more than one storyteller, to tell them. 2. You cannot take them both literally - that would be simply impossible.

That said, the main rejoinder to this is where do I draw the line between what I call allegory and what I determine to be a literal reading. I cannot, of course, say that the commandment "though shall not kill" is simply allegory and that it's really OK and God just wanted to convey his discomfort with the idea.

The answer is, again, to read what the bible is telling us. By the fact of the two disagreeing Genesis chapters, I learn that they cannot both be littoral. By the fact that an actual, planet-wide flood is impossible without jumping through some pretty high flying hoops, AND, that again, in the story of Noah there are also internal inconsistencies, I can also learn that the flood was probably not a description of an actual single event.

OTOH, when it comes to Laws and directives, these are usually more straightforward.

A literal understanding of the Bible is seemingly difficult in a few cases, but this way of reading can provide the best and the most consistent answers to more Biblical questions than any other ways of reading.

The creation account in the Genesis is not a stand alone theology. It is the foundation of the Judaism and Christianity. All questions in Christian theology would eventually trace back to the Genesis for the ultimate answer.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
A Jewish orthodox scientist whom grappled with these questions many years ago when I was starting my career, I eventually landed more or less on the theistic evolution understanding of Things.

My current beliefs are a bit more complicated, but one of the things that I do not understand is the utter insistence of a simple literal reading of the text, with no exegeses at all.

As with many texts, one needs to interpret what exactly it's trying to say in the context in which it was said. Espechialy when we are reading it some 3000 years after it was codified.

One of the most obvious things in the Bible, is that many stories and imagery cannot be understood in the simple literal way. For example, there are many instances where the Bible talks about the Hand of God, or the Nose of God. Clearly this is allegory. It HAS to be. Any other understanding negates the principle of an invisible, non corporeal god. (So here of course I am referring to the Hebrew bible and not to any corporeal manifestations described in later publications).

Furthermore, classic Jewish exegesis, relying on age old sources, at the very least over 2300 years old, explained many instances of the Bible as coming to define principles and ideas, rather than actual-law-to-be-followed. For example the Wayward Son (I think that's what he is called).

Additionally, the Bible itself is telling us that you cannot take certain parts literally, by the fact that the first 2 chapters of Genesis themselves are in disagreement!

What _I_ learn from the clear differences between the two chapters is 1. God is telling us that the stories he wants to teach us are complicated and need more than one angle, even more than one storyteller, to tell them. 2. You cannot take them both literally - that would be simply impossible.

That said, the main rejoinder to this is where do I draw the line between what I call allegory and what I determine to be a literal reading. I cannot, of course, say that the commandment "though shall not kill" is simply allegory and that it's really OK and God just wanted to convey his discomfort with the idea.

The answer is, again, to read what the bible is telling us. By the fact of the two disagreeing Genesis chapters, I learn that they cannot both be littoral. By the fact that an actual, planet-wide flood is impossible without jumping through some pretty high flying hoops, AND, that again, in the story of Noah there are also internal inconsistencies, I can also learn that the flood was probably not a description of an actual single event.

OTOH, when it comes to Laws and directives, these are usually more straightforward.

Not to worry. No two persons have the same interpretation of scripture. Even among creationists there is disagreement. In the end each is responsible for their own understanding.

There is allegory in literal events, but they are still considered actual happenings by many. The literal story (translation) of the flood still isn't fully understood, but is believed as a matter of faith. Without careful attention to the literal story the allegory can be elusive.

It was my continued focus on the creation of Eve from the 'rib' of Adam that I came to understand that the being known as Lucifer was created from the very substance of God himself (his spiritual rib) and that Eve's creation followed the same pattern.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It was my continued focus on the creation of Eve from the 'rib' of Adam that I came to understand that the being known as Lucifer was created from the very substance of God himself (his spiritual rib) and that Eve's creation followed the same pattern.

So, women are men's devil?
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It was my continued focus on the creation of Eve from the 'rib' of Adam that I came to understand that the being known as Lucifer was created from the very substance of God himself (his spiritual rib) and that Eve's creation followed the same pattern.

So, women are men's devil?

Or maybe he's saying that Satan is God's "helpmeet," His spouse. After all, that is why Eve was formed from Adam's rib (the sin came later).

It would make a very different theology than we normally see. Nothing like traditional Christianity. In the marriage of Adam and Eve, we are told that the two became one flesh, as do all later marriages of a man and a woman. But God is Spirit, as is Satan, so they would have to become one Spirit. Would this also be true of later marriages of male with male? According to 1Samuel 18:1-3, that describes the relationship between Jonathan and David.

Who would have suspected oldwiseguy to be advocating such a radical and dangerous reading of Genesis?
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Or maybe he's saying that Satan is God's "helpmeet," His spouse. After all, that is why Eve was formed from Adam's rib (the sin came later).

It would make a very different theology than we normally see. Nothing like traditional Christianity. In the marriage of Adam and Eve, we are told that the two became one flesh, as do all later marriages of a man and a woman. But God is Spirit, as is Satan, so they would have to become one Spirit. Would this also be true of later marriages of male with male? According to 1Samuel 18:1-3, that describes the relationship between Jonathan and David.

Who would have suspected oldwiseguy to be advocating such a radical and dangerous reading of Genesis?

And down the rabbit hole we go...
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My current beliefs are a bit more complicated, but one of the things that I do not understand is the utter insistence of a simple literal reading of the text, with no exegeses at all.
Not everything is literal. But Genesis 1 and 2 seem quite literal and consistent to me.
One of the most obvious things in the Bible, is that many stories and imagery cannot be understood in the simple literal way.
Most of us agree. DUH.
Additionally, the Bible itself is telling us that you cannot take certain parts literally, by the fact that the first 2 chapters of Genesis themselves are in disagreement!
The Bible is not telling us that. You are telling us that. And not all of us believe you.
What _I_ learn from the clear differences between the two chapters is 1. God is telling us that the stories he wants to teach us are complicated and need more than one angle, even more than one storyteller, to tell them.
We only need one "storyteller":

"The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to Him."
- (Deut 18:15).

"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life."
- (John 5:39-40).
2. You cannot take them both literally - that would be simply impossible.
Your interpretation is obviously different from billions of others who read the Bible daily, including the New Testament.

Here is where many of us stand on the subject:

Genesis 2 is simply a recap or brief summary of additional information not included in Genesis 1, information surrounding the creation of Adam.

It is not intended to be a day by day report of events in sequence as was already done in Genesis 1.

It is simply a brief summary of events surrounding Adam's creation, with no particular sequence.

Therefore, Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1, but rather, it complements Genesis 1
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Genesis 2 is simply a recap or brief summary of additional information not included in Genesis 1, information surrounding the creation of Adam.

It is not intended to be a day by day report of events in sequence as was already done in Genesis 1.

It is simply a brief summary of events surrounding Adam's creation, with no particular sequence.

Therefore, Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1, but rather, it complements Genesis 1

The order of creation is different between Genesis 1 and 2. As much as you want to deny this, both are given as sequences of events and they contradict one another, any person that reads the accounts can tell you that. End of story.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,726
52,530
Guam
✟5,133,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The order of creation is different between Genesis 1 and 2.

What's your favorite version of the Bible?

That seems to be missing from your profile, professor.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What's your favorite version of the Bible?

That seems to be missing from your profile, professor.

Personally, I think every version is just as inconsistent as the next one, so I have no favorite. But if forced to pick, I would probably go as close to the original Hebrew and Greek texts as possible.

But here is something I would never do: pick a favorite while saying that other versions out there are work of the devil, but then use the work of the devil's version whenever it is more consistent with the point I am trying to make.
 
Upvote 0

LBP

GONE
Apr 5, 2010
471
55
✟910.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The answer's in your question: "simplistic." Literalism leads to simplicity, and simplicity leads to security.

Yes, in some folks there is clearly a psychological need to have a simplistic "anchor of certainty" in the otherwise complex sea of uncertainty in which we all live. Of course, when this anchor of certainty is completely at odds with the scientific evidence which forms the basis of 99% of the rest of our lives, that can make the Young Earth believer appear a bit goofy. I think there is also a certain smug arrogance underlying this mindset: "We are the real Christians, because we believe the Word of God despite all evidence to the contrary," which brings to mind Mark Twain's quip that faith is "pretending to believe things you know ain't true." (Never mind that their understanding of the Word of God is by no means mandated by the text.) Trying to reason with this mindset is basically the equivalent of trying to deprogram a longtime Moonie; one can only observe it and wonder at the strangeness of the human mind. I remember 40+ years ago when a Campus Crusade staff member who was also a friend explained to me how the earth had been surrounded by a dense mist that completely threw off carbon dating and made items that were only 3500 years old appear to be millions or billions of years old. Even though I was only 20 and a newly minted Christian, I remember thinking "Holy cow, Frank is completely nuts."
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Christianity demands that at least some of the Bible be taken literally not matter how unlikely it may seem'

Anyone who claims to be a Christian must believe in Adam and Eve because without them Christianity means nothing,
if you can not bring yourself to believe in them then in my opinion you can not call yourself a Christian,
without them there would be no need for a crucifixion a resurrection or even the son of God Jesus Christ,
without Eve there would be no sin and Christianity would have no story to follow or reason to even exist.

Oh yes, without the evil women there would be no sin. It is impossible for the devil to have convinced men directly. This religious misogyny is just amazing.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Or maybe he's saying that Satan is God's "helpmeet," His spouse. After all, that is why Eve was formed from Adam's rib (the sin came later).

It would make a very different theology than we normally see. Nothing like traditional Christianity. In the marriage of Adam and Eve, we are told that the two became one flesh, as do all later marriages of a man and a woman. But God is Spirit, as is Satan, so they would have to become one Spirit. Would this also be true of later marriages of male with male? According to 1Samuel 18:1-3, that describes the relationship between Jonathan and David.

Who would have suspected oldwiseguy to be advocating such a radical and dangerous reading of Genesis?

Not exactly. The one known as Lucifer wasn't God's adversary until after the rebellion and God made that pronouncement. The casting down of Lucifer was the first 'divorce', and began an adversarial relationship between the two. Just as Lucifer assumed equality of authority with God, Eve, and many women since, have rather blithely assumed equality of authority with their husbands. However, this was God's intention from the start of mankind, part of his plan.

Those who believe God to be unfair to women should carefully consider the 'righteous woman' of Proverbs 31. Notable is that she had authority over every material thing mentioned in the story, but it is clear that she didn't assume the same authority and position that her husband held.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

LBP

GONE
Apr 5, 2010
471
55
✟910.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Christianity demands that at least some of the Bible be taken literally not matter how unlikely it may seem'

Anyone who claims to be a Christian must believe in Adam and Eve because without them Christianity means nothing,
if you can not bring yourself to believe in them then in my opinion you can not call yourself a Christian,
without them there would be no need for a crucifixion a resurrection or even the son of God Jesus Christ,
without Eve there would be no sin and Christianity would have no story to follow or reason to even exist.

Of all the things that I might have thought were essential for a Christian to take literally (such as the existence of Jesus and the historical reality of the resurrection), the myth of Adam and Eve would not even have been on the radar screen. One must certainly believe that one is in a state unworthy of entry into the kingdom of God's holiness without the forgiveness and salvation that God offers through Christ, but believing that one got that way thanks to Adam and Eve doesn't strike me as even vaguely being one of the essentials (or even plausible). The myth of Adam and Eve certainly could be an absolute historical truth, but the evidence is solidly against it and it strikes me as simply a long-after-the-fact attempt to explain why human nature does seem to be so weirdly, universally flawed and inclined toward evil. IMHO, it is a "theological truth," not an "historical truth."
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Not everything is literal. But Genesis 1 and 2 seem quite literal and consistent to me.
Most of us agree. DUH.
The Bible is not telling us that. You are telling us that. And not all of us believe you.
We only need one "storyteller":

"The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to Him." - (Deut 18:15).

"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about Me, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life." - (John 5:39-40).
Your interpretation is obviously different from billions of others who read the Bible daily, including the New Testament.


Here is where many of us stand on the subject:

Genesis 2 is simply a recap or brief summary of additional information not included in Genesis 1, information surrounding the creation of Adam.

It is not intended to be a day by day report of events in sequence as was already done in Genesis 1.

It is simply a brief summary of events surrounding Adam's creation, with no particular sequence.

Therefore, Genesis 2 does not contradict Genesis 1, but rather, it complements Genesis 1

True. Recapitulating events is a common device in the bible story.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,726
52,530
Guam
✟5,133,436.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
But here is something I would never do: pick a favorite while saying that other versions out there are work of the devil, but then use the work of the devil's version whenever it is more consistent with the point I am trying to make.
Yet, you'll do the inverse.

You'll claim they're all on an equal plane, yet make claims that some versions won't substantiate.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.