12:09 AM
@fredsbend I'm not asking you to believe what I believe, as nice as that would be. Rather, I'm suggesting that you broaden your thinking beyond the literalism and materialism of your previous Christian beliefs when it comes to reading and interpreting the Bible, and considering and evaluating Christian theology, eschatology, and so on.
1:00 AM
1 hour later…
2:07 AM
2 hours later…
4:43 AM
5:11 AM
12 hours later…
5:38 PM
6:30 PM
> You incorrectly state that we take the Bible literally, which we don’t, although we understand that the events recorded in Genesis are literal history. Let me explain in more detail to avoid confusion. (Source)
> Reading the Bible “plainly” means understanding that literal history is literal history, metaphors are metaphors, poetry is poetry, etc. The Bible is written in many different literary styles and should be read accordingly. This is why we understand that Genesis records actual historical events. It was written as historical narrative.
> Reading the Bible plainly/straightforwardly (taking into account literary style, context, authorship, etc.) is the basis for what is called the historical-grammatical method of interpretation which has been used by theologians since the church fathers. This method helps to eliminate improper interpretations of the Bible. (emp. mine)
I have a guess based on the plain meaning of those words (pun intended), but I suspect there's a grammatical element I'm missing (intended again).
The Biblical Literalism Wikipedia article says that the term is synonymous with "historical-grammatical method". Unfortunately, I find that wikipedia articles on theology subjects are lacking and not as exact as they should be.
My perception of today's use of the term "literalist" is that it is a general short/alternative phrase for Young Earth Creationist Christians.
1 hour later…
7:59 PM
@fredsbend They reject the label "literalism," but then go on to say that reading the Bible "plainly" means "understanding that literal history is literal history." I think they're just playing with words to try to avoid the conclusion that is obvious to general readers, using the ordinary meaning of the word "literal," that they are reading key parts of the Bible literally.
The CARM statement is at least honest and straightforward in stating that its preference is to read literally everything that can be read literally. I have more respect for that than I do for all the AiG verbiage that seeks to avoid stating plainly what it is doing, as is clearly seen by most outsiders looking in.
@fredsbend The fact that there is a spectrum within generally literalistic interpretation of the Bible does not contradict the fact that there is a range of Christians on the conservative end of Christianity that prefer to read the Bible literally wherever they feel they can reasonably do so. It is the preference for a literal reading of Scripture, not how doggedly and thoroughly it is practiced, that marks particular groups of Christians as literalists.
3 hours later…
10:37 PM
@LeeWoofenden I'm not sure that's the case. Many Christians read parts of the Bible literally based on their prior ideological beliefs. For example, regarding the Syrian refugee crisis, we see a number of "religious left" groups advocating a literal approach to the Bible's teachings on foreigners, on the poor, on widows and orphans.
On the other hand, many Bible "literalists" and other conservatives argue that those verses should be understood within the culture they were originally written for.
@BruceAlderman I think we'll always be able to find examples of people bending and breaking their own interpretative approaches just to reach the conclusion they wanted from the start.
@BruceAlderman Maybe another example of bending their own rules. But it's not a stretch or even odd to suggest that the author of the Gilgamesh epic did believe it to be historically true.
But @LeeWoofenden I think you are being overly critical of the motives of those at AiG. I don't think they are intentionally weaseling out of calling themselves literalists.
That particular article is just trying to make clear that their approach is to try to read it as they believe the authors intended it to be read.
Can you really ask for more than that? Maybe they're wrong on calling some part history and other metaphor, but that's not actually what we're talking about right now. Every individual part is up for debate. Some are more clearly one thing than another, but others we will probably always wonder.
Regarding creation, specifically Genesis', I think if you are willing to admit that there is apparent age, as I believe @curiousdannii did recently in this room, then perceiving it as meant to be history is all that easier because of some of the theological connections to Adam et. al.
If your current theological understanding requires a literal Adam and Eve with a literal Fall, then it's hard to imagine that authors of certain parts of the NT did not believe Genesis to be factual history.
They may even concede that it looks like an epic myth from chapters 1-11, and even that there's similarities and other reasons to believe that it was inspired by Babylonian myths, and perhaps that it was never even part of Genesis until 700BC during the captivity (as some argue), but their faith is hung on how they understand the NT, which leads to YEC, not the other way around.
So with all this in mind, they might be taking it on faith, and I can probably point to a number of articles that say as much, on AiG and elsewhere, but it is a spiritually respectable position. They are working from their current understanding, not making it up as they go or intentionally breaking their own interpretative rules.
11:01 PM
@BruceAlderman True enough. I'm not saying their approach to the Bible is sensible or self-consistent. But in their own minds they have a strong preference for a literal reading of the Bible. And they generally read sections of the Bible that look like history and look like science to the modern mind as actual history and actual science.
@BruceAlderman The difference, as I see it, is that moral teachings about how to treat one's neighbor are well within the purview of religion and religious teachings. Science and history, however, though they may relate to religion in some ways, are not really the purview of religion.
@BruceAlderman Agreed. But that doesn't stop Biblical literalists from reading it as if it were history.
@fredsbend It's even less of a stretch to suggest that the author of the Gilgamesh epic didn't give two hoots about whether it was historically true, because his mind was operating in an entirely different framework and perspective than than of a historian.
@fredsbend I think that the AiG people are in an unsupportable position—unsupportable because it is, in fact, false—and they must engage in many mental gymnastics to try to convince themselves (primarily, because others aren't listening) that their position is true. It's not so much that they're intentionally misrepresenting themselves, as that they're in a position in which they can't help it because their views are inherently unstable and unsupportable.
People who feel compelled to believe certain things will go to amazing lengths to support those beliefs regardless of whether there really is any actual support for them in the Bible itself or in the scientific and historical knowledge of the present day.
This requires blinding themselves to many clear and solidly supported areas of knowledge in the scientific and historical realm, and misinterpreting those parts of science and history that they do take up in an effort to support their faulty beliefs.
@fredsbend If you mean that its hard for the literalists to believe this, then I agree with you. They commonly read the New Testament as taking the Old Testament literally. But that also is, I believe, an anachronistic and faulty reading of the New Testament, and a misunderstanding of how the minds of its writers worked.
@LeeWoofenden And how do you know that? You sign off literature as definitively not history via your wholesale perspective that there is one homogenous "ancient man" and he is indifferent and even ignorant to keeping records. Surely you think some must have been aware of record keeping. Some must have been concerned with writing what has happened. After all, most of our ancient writings are one of two things: religious or historical.
11:25 PM
@fredsbend Yes, the ancients were capable of writing historical records. But most of them are rather flat and dry compared to their religious writings. Royal court records were probably the most common form of "history" in the ancient world, and they were generally focused on singing the praises of the king for all his great and wonderful works. God is at best a supporting character.
« first day (1539 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (316 days later) »