The Problem with Literalism: Introduction

@beaglelady - #28041

That’s a real shame, because we can’t get clam chowder over here. I can send you some vegan pork sausages if you like - they’re kosher ones.

Jon Garvey (28033) “Sorry. But we don’t have a common ancestor for apes and man, either, yet the fossil evidence gives us confidence as to its existence and what it would be like.”

Yes, the real irony is that the same kind of techniques which are used to decide on common ancestry in DNA are used on Biblical manuscripts.  Scientists ascribe meaning and intelligent authorship to one, while denying it in the other.

I agree with Barth. The Bible is not the Word of God. Christ is the Word of God. The Bible is simply a helpful collection of books written by men that a small minority of mankind has been given in order to understand Christ better.

To say otherwise is, ironically enough, to maintain a position that the Bible itself does not support.

Literalism is a problem to be sure, but any religion that focuses on venerating the Bible rather than Christ as divine is going to run into difficulties.

To Roger A. Sawtelle - #27713

I have heard such views before and understand and respect your view (on the inerrancy of the Bible). That said, I tend to view the Bible as inerrant, as in as God intended us to recevied His Word. And Cal’s stand on Biblical inerrancy is similar to mine.

To defensedefumer #27987

I am sure that you read John 1:1-18 often, but maybe you do not understand it.  As for Cal I am sure that he is able to speak for himself.

Now if you are saying that God intends everyone to understand the Bible in the very same way, you have much explaining to do.  God has been speaking to His People for a long time.  We can go back to Abraham, 4000 years ago, Moses, some 3500 years ago, David, some 3000 years ago, the Prophets, some 2700 years ago.  Did they all understand God’s word the same way?

Jesus some 2000 years ago argued with the Pharisees because they insisted that He not work on the Sabbath according to the Torah.  Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Wesley all understood the God and the Bible differently.  The point is that God speaks through the Bible to different people in different ways.  We live by faith & not by sight or clear knowledge. 

Can you truly read God’s Mind?

Roger, Cal:

“The word of God” can have many senses, so it’s both true and untrue that the Bible is “the word of God”, depending on what sense you mean.  The incarnate Word, the Logos?  No.  Words sent from God, or inspired by God?  Yes.

What “word” ought Christians to worship (in the strong sense of the word “worship”, not the weaker sense of honor or respect)?  Obviously, the divine Word, the Logos, Christ.  The Creeds of the Church focus on God and Christ, not on the Bible.  In fact, they don’t mention the Bible at all, except for one passing reference to prophecies found in “the Scriptures”.  The idea that Christianity is a Bible-centered and especially Bible-defending religion is a Protestant invention.  Prior to the Reformation, Christian theologians certainly spent much time interpreting the Bible, but for the masses the focus of Christian life was not on battles over the Bible, or even Bible study, but on creed, sacrament, liturgy, charity, morality, and other aspects of community life.  The Anglo-American Protestant conception of “Christianity” as almost identical with “Bible” is, historically speaking, an aberration, and one which often produces quarrels over the letter rather than growth in the spirit.

Yes, the real irony is that the same kind of techniques which are used to decide on common ancestry in DNA are used on Biblical manuscripts.  Scientists ascribe meaning and intelligent authorship to one, while denying it in the other.

Really?  They used the same techniques for different purposes and came to different conclusions?  Horrors!  That would be like if someone used the same lathe to make a chair and a chess set and then blatantly sat on one and played games with the other!

@nedbrek - #28052

You’ve completely misunderstood me, and so drawn an untrue, conclusion. I was talking about textual criticism, for which Evangelicals ought to be grateful because it confirms the essential reliability of our text.

We have no autograph of any New Testament book. We do have some 20,000 varying mss, which clearly fall into families showing evolutionary change according to their date, geographical origin, scribal bias etc. The discipline has been able to project backwards and to narrow textual uncertainties down to some tiny percentage of variants, none of which alters the nature of the message.

I merely used the common ancestor of apes and man as an illustration, but if you deny the validity of such methods for geneticists and palaeontologists, you’re also knocking away any historical certainty about the text of the New Testament. You’re left in Dan Brown’s capable hands, or in the hands of those who say God miraculously inspired the KJV translators to make a perfect translation of original manuscripts they never saw and in which you have to put your faith.

You too should read FF Bruce’s “The Books and the Parchments”, as well as Beaglelady. She might even let you taste some of my kosher pork sausages.

To Roger A. Sawtelle #28121

I apologise for sounding arrogant. I was not speaking for Cal, but I observed that Cal has a similar position as me.

I’m sorry for giving an impression that I can read God’s mind. Abraham, Moses and the other Bibical authors did not understand God the same way because they rececived part of the revelation (the Old Testament has not been completely complied).

That said, I agree that different Christian theologians have interpret Scripture differently, but it does not mean that the Bible is not inerrant. There were some issues theologians got wrong (like the Antipodes issue with Augustine), but it does not mean it is the fault of the Bible.

I hope this clarifies my stand a bit more.

To defensedefumer,

Thank you for clearing the air.  Your apology is accepted.

The problem is that you did not address the basic issue that Cal & I have been discussing and is best found in John 1.  Which is superior Jesus or the Bible?  Does Jesus the Logos define what the Bible means or does the inerrant Bible define Who Jesus is? 

There are definitely places in the NT where Jesus claims to be superior to the Bible, such as Mt 5:11-48,  Mk 10:2-9, & Jn 8:2-11. 

If Jesus is God and thus perfect, and is superior to the Bible, then how can the Bible be perfect, that is inerrant?  If Jesus is God and perfect then the Bible is subject to interpretation by Jesus Christ the Logos of God. 

The Bible does not specifically condemn slavery, but the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ reveal that slavery is wrong.  The Bible does not teach Christians to worship on the first day of the week, but His Resurrection consecrates that day. 

Thus the best standard for interpreting the Bible is Jesus Christ.  If some aspects of the Biblical narrative do not seem to agree with the world as we know it, such as the six day creation, then we must ask ourselves if that text is needed to affirm Who Christ is?

To Roger A. Sawtelle - #28383,

I must admit, concerning the superiority Jesus and the Bible and John 1, I heistate to answer, because I am still thinking about it, and I do not want to give you a rushed and false reply.

Currently, I tend to side with the view that Jesus is perfect and superior to the Bible (your view), but that does not disputes the Bible’s inerrancy. It may sound weird, but you see, I consider inerrancy as God’s word as intended by God. However, I still understand and respect your view.

Concerning Roman slavery, Jesus did not tell the people to release their slaves, so I disagree that Christ showed Roman slavery was wrong. That said, Roman slavery is very different from the slavery of colonial times (Roman slaves were allowed to own property etc), so I agree with you that colonial slavery is wrong (as far as Christ goes).

Thanks for enlightening me!

@defensedefumer - #28397

I’m mystified by Roger’s position too. I learn from 1 Timothy that slave traders are in a list of sinners. I learn from Revelation that one of the cargoes of the great prostitute is bodies and souls of men. I learn from Paul generally that freedom from slavery is to be gained if possible.

But Jesus says nothing to the subject at all, and I cannot see how his life, death and resurrection teach that slavery is wrong any more or less than they teach that it is to be borne in imitation of Christ (which is the predominant NT message).

So is the Jesus who is independent of the Bible a mystical Jesus who witnesses directly to us apart from the Bible? And if so how is he different from the Jesus of the Zwickau prophets, or the Fifth Monarchy men, or the Televangelists - or indeed of the Gnostics, Manicheans and other Patristic Heretics who forced the Fathers to codify the Canon and insist on the Apostolic tradition?

Defensedefumer:

Please read Paul’s Letter to Philemon.  Philemon was a Christian friend of Paul’s who lived in Ephesus.  It happened that a slave owned by Philemon ran away using money that his master had intrusted to him.  He ran to Rome where he met Paul and was converted and became an assistant to while he was in prison.

Paul sent the runaway, Onesimus, back to his master with this note suggesting that Philemon free him.  Paul did not order or even ask Philemon to do so because he knew that Philemon would then feel obligated to do so, and he wants Philemon to free Onesimus on his own volition, not because he must.

Jesus did not tell us what to do, as did the Law.  He told us How to live, and more importantly Showed us how live, for God, for others, and even for ourselves.  I think in the same way God opened the door to understanding the Creation, but does not tell us exactly how it works, because it is our task is to discover these details.

In my opinion the Bible and science need to work hand in hand.  The problem today is that they do not.  The problem in large part lies with Darwin who miscontrued how evolution works, but Christians have also contributed to this problem.

To Roger A. Sawtelle- #28424

I have read Philemon. I agree that Paul only encouraged Philemon to release Onesimus, and not force him to. He wrote that to Philemon, and not to the Roman Christians. Acts is silent on whether Paul made releasing slaves an issue. Furthermore, during the Roman period, it was possible for slaves to purchase their freedom, so Paul was abding by the Roman laws in that sense (in other words, releasing slaves was not exclusively Christian).

I agree with you that theology and science need to work together. I saw your website on Darwin’s Myth and I find myself incline to disagree with your views on evolution. I have yet to read your book, but I will look out for it in the future.

Thanks for educating me in many issues! It was a pleasure have a discussion with you.

To defensedefumer,

I enjoyed the discussion also. Thank you for being a good partner.

I am sure that you will enjoy my book.

The problem of “literalism” in biblical interpretation I guess is not a problem for everyone.  The struggle is how to “reconcile” or “interpret” those parts of the bible that don’t line up with current understanding.  This first in a series focuses on history.  The thing is that the very concept of history was different 6000 years ago. Oral tradition which was later transcribed plays a significant role. 
Hebrew words do not necessarily have the same denotation that the word does in contemporary vulgates, not to mention connotation. It is not unusual for a single hebrew word to be rendered by several in english (or french, german, etc.) and several hebrew words to be used for the same vernacular translation.
There are more than a few “historical” references in the Old Testament that are not actual history.  And the New Testament has all kinds of “historical problems”

Then one has to deal with the concept of “who is the literal meaning addressed to?” How much variation can there be between my literal understanding and yours?  In one sense there should be only minor differences, but we know that is always the case.
I am looking forward to seeing how you address some of the more challenging biblical genres.

oops my bad
“, but we know that is always the case. ” 
should have read”
“, but we know that is NOT always the case. “

My fingers move faster than my mind sometimes!!!

Pete,
Do you actually think that the writer of Chronicles did not intent to write real history? In other words, do you think that he never intended for us to take his narrative at face value? This seems to be the implication of your post.

But if this is the case, then why is the writer constantly “footnoting” himself by saying “Is it not written in the annals of Samuel, Nathan and Gad” (1 Chr 29:29; see also other references to sources in 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 20:34)? Why make references to sources if you’re not concerned with (historical) accuracy?

Benj,

No. I am simply pointing out that the Chronicler intended to write some sort of history, and we should note how much it diverges from Samuel/Kings. The Chronicler’s references to source material make the problem of historicity more acute. As you say “Why make references to sources if you’re not concerned with (historical) accuracy?” That is a question one needs to ask of the Chronicler, which is what biblical historians do and the answer they land on is “he is writing for theological purposes” or something similar.

The Bible is to be taken as literally true.  If the Bible says that Israel is the apple of God’s eye or that God rides on the clouds or that Christ is the lamb of God, then these statements are literally true.  The question is whether a verse refers to physical objects (like an apple, clouds, or a lamb) or is the verse to be read metaphorically.  Regardless how one reads it, it is literally true that Jesus is the lamb of God.

One may take Genesis any way they want.  However, it is still literally true that God brought forth grass and herbs on the third day and the lights in the firmament on the forth day.  Rather than taking any of the events of Genesis 1 as metaphor, most people try to make it consistent with evolutionary teaching and they take the metaphorical approach only to the extent that they can justify the conclusion they want.  If you want to read Genesis 1 as metaphor, then do so.  However, the goal is not to conform that which we read in Genesis with what men proclaim but with that which God has proclaimed.