@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.

@LeeWoofenden Literalism is in fact such a minority position that it basically doesn't exist! Historical maximalism on the other hand...

Regardless of how overall hermeneutical approaches would be classified, I think it's probably a safe bet that the majority of global Christians still believe that Adam was a real historical person who was sinless and sinned bringing the curse upon himself.

@curiousdannii We've been through this before. I'm not using literalism in some technical definition, but in the ordinary way it is used in regard to Christians who generally take the Bible literally. Everyone here but you seems to understand what I mean by it, and to use it in a similar way.

@curiousdannii Perhaps. But the majority of global Christians probably don't think too carefully about whether that means the world must have been created in six days, and all the other stuff that YECs and other literalists insist upon.

There is no ordinary meaning of literalism that should be used.

@curiousdannii In your opinion. Unfortunately, the bulk of the English-speaking world doesn't agree with you. And English is the language that is spoken, not the language that we wish were spoken.

In any case most creationists deny they are literalists, so the polite thing to do would be to not use the word to describe them.

@curiousdannii The CARM Statement of Faith, which is now linked to in their tag wiki here, states:

> The Bible is to be taken as literally as possible except where obviously figurative. Genesis, for example, is literal, and Adam and Eve were actual people.

Apparently this group of literalists doesn't mind asserting that the Bible is to be taken as literally as possible. They may or may not use the word "literalism," but with statements like that, I don't see how they could claim not to be literalists.

@LeeWoofenden That's interesting. AiG on the other hand, I think would reject the label literalism:

> 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)

It continues:

> we are to read and understand the Bible in a plain or straightforward manner.

And further:

> 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.

And this is probably most inline with @curiousdannii words:

> 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)

@curiousD is that what you mean by "Historical maximalism"?

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.

And I have heard plenty of Christians call themselves literalists, when what they really mean is YEC.

I have found the ultimate test is how they interpret Revelation. If they think there's going to be actual horses and stars falling, then they just might be a literalist. If not, then they are more inline with what @curiousdannii have been saying.

@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.

(About CARM, I should add that I think it is wrong about almost everything. The whole website is a catalog of "Christian" fallacy and error. But at least it is honest in defining its principles, and doesn't try to weasel out of what it is obviously doing, as AiG does.)

@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.

(Examples: What the Bible Says about How to Treat Refugees | Rejecting Refugees, Rejecting Christ)

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.

So even when people do claim the label "literalist" for themselves, they don't take the whole Bible literally--just the parts they like.

And then there's the problematic issue of whether "literal" should be synonymous with "historical". If we look at the early chapters of Genesis in connection with other literature of the Ancient Near East, it's hard to make the case that Genesis 1-11 was ever intended as history.

@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.

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.

And if they are humble and imaginative enough, they can admit they may be wrong and ponder what they should believe if they were.

@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.

@fredsbend If only they were that humble . . . .

. . . . and that imaginative.

@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.

@LeeWoofenden Humility comes hard for most. Imagination only for a few. My point was leading up to suggesting that advice for all people.

There's no shortage of stubborn people and their beliefs outside of YEC.

@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.

Even the two books of Chronicles in the (Protestant and Catholic) Bible tend in that direction. And Swedenborg did view them as historical books, and not as part of the Word of God.