Why read the Bible literally?

Well, good, it's always nice to be loved for one's style. I should no doubt cultivate something of the sort but it often sounds mealymouthed and wimpy to me. This isn't racism. It is made very clear that God doesn't choose the Jews for any special qualifications of their own, but just because He chooses them, because He wants a people for Himself. This is the principle of Election that continues into the meaning of the Christian Elect, who are chosen "by grace alone through faith alone, and not of themselves lest anyone should boast." The choice of Abraham is God's separating out people by covenant with them, people He himself MAKES holy by instruction in His ways. The same concept is extended by God to believers in His Son as the Elect, again, those who make a covenant with God and learn His ways, and the Christian message is catholic (universal) in the true meaning of the word, the opposite of racist, and all are invited. That God "has mercy upon whom I will have mercy, and whom I will I harden." That God has mysterious plans for the salvation of those who love Him. It has nothing to do with race or any quality whatever of the people themselves, but it does have to do with primacy, blessing and authority, which God conferred on the Jews (but ultimately only those who were faithful, not all) and later the believers in His Son -- from His own sovereign will. So it also means that God IS sovereign, God is in charge, God is Lord of all, He does as He pleases. In sum, it's about GOD primarily, about God's authority, and about His justice, His love, His mercy, to humanity, not about ANY particular people. Except that Jesus, being God, who knows the heart, knew she would. {EDIT: His making reference to the Gentiles as "dogs" was a way of pointing up the self-righteous racism of the Jews of the day, and His praise of her faith was one of the many times He hints that He has "another sheepfold," in anticipation of His sending Paul to the Gentiles.} His kindness to her -- and to the Samaritan woman at the well, and to women in general, and to the Roman centurion, and many of His parables as well -- demonstrate His favor to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. Most pointedly He demonstrates this in the parable of the Good Samaritan, as it shows a member of a racial group that was despised by the Jews, to be more righteous than the Jewish priests who stepped around the wounded man, which was intended to skewer the Pharisees with their own self-righteousness.Jesus over and over shows the universal leveling intent of God's plan of salvation from the beginning. The Jews had special privileges, for the gospel was to go to them FIRST, but ALSO to all the peoples of the world. The Jews didn't grasp this, they misunderstood the heart of God (though hundreds of thousands did believe) as they misunderstood the mission of the Messiah. They did have a false sense of their own superiority, having misunderstood the calling to be the chosen, but Jesus over and over makes clear that they were wrong, and bit by bit as the gospel goes out to the Gentiles it is demonstrated that "God is no respecter of persons." (But the Jews do have an ultimate place in God's plan, as their inability to understand is a case of God's hardening THEIR hearts so that He can extend mercy to the Gentiles, but the Church is "no Jew nor Gentile but all are one in Christ.")The universal reach of God's mercy is SO fundamental to the heart of the God of the Bible that it is a terrible thing to accuse Him of the very opposite. A vile slander.However, concerning my style, I will take your criticism under advisement and try to address you with more consideration if you will kindly stop descending to character assassination of me and all Bible believers.Personally I do believe you, Admin Brian, should suspend you, member Brian, for 24 hours for the post I identified as predominantly a personal attack. Unless you would like to apologize, as I've also requested of Crashfrog.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-24-2005 06:18 AM

I haven't read all the church fathers, but a statement that the six days are to be taken literally should count for something on this topic, a great deal in fact given that the time period of Creation is a central element in disputes about evolution.Even Origen, in his weird statement, criticizing Celsus for believing in a shorter time period, still confines the age of the earth to a mere 10,000 years.

I'm occupied elsewhere GDR and don't mean to ignore you but your questions ARE going to take more thought than I can give them right now. Thanks.P.S. I've many times been assured here that there is no rush on these threads, only to find out that sometimes there seems to be. Going off and getting into a battle on another thread isn't a good excuse, nor is getting behind on my work, nor is losing a night's sleep and now having to take a long nap, but that's the situation. Please forgive me. AND the question DOES require thought, because it's all about context.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-24-2005 11:08 AM

OK, I did what I could with this: While I admit that the passage seems to lend itself to your interpretation, the fact is that traditional commentators do not read it that way. Paul is addressing the Jews who put themselves morally above the Gentiles because of their tradition in the Law, and pointing out that the Law is written on the hearts even of the Gentiles, so that the Jews are no better than they. There is no hint in any commentary I looked at that the Gentiles are said to be AS GOOD AS the Jews -- the idea is that the Jews are AS BAD AS the Gentiles.Here's how Luther puts it in his brief introduction to Romans Two in his Commentary on Romans:

quote:

---

The Apostle rebukes the sins of hte Jews and shows them that [they] are in the same guilt as the heathen; indeed, in a certain sense [he says that] the Jews are even worse than the Gentiles.

---

Specifically addressing verses 14 and 15 Luther says (basing this on Augustine):

quote:

---

...The Apostle here mentions the heathen because they have observed the Law as little as have the Jews. Hence both are sinners, no matter how much good they may have done: the Jews, because they fulfilled the Law only according to its letter; the heathen, because they fulfilled the Law only in part and not at all according to its spirit.

---

Where are you getting this idea? Romans was written to the CHURCH at Rome just as all Paul's letters were, to Christian believers, which is clearly shown in Romans 1:6-8: "Among whom are you also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints." He goes on to say he thanks God that their faith is spoken of throughout the world. He had no cause to write to any but believers.In any case, as I say above, at least according to Luther your way of taking it literally isn't the only way, and what it is teaching is that the Jews are no better than the Gentiles, not that the Gentiles have any claim to a right standing with God.And here are a couple of other commentators on this passage: Haven't I already answered this? He is addressing believers, those who HAVE God's revelation, HAVE the gospel, and warning us that even those are so privileged may be deceived, may yet fail by having a superficial understanding of the gospel and not doing the will of God. This is NOT about UNbelievers, those who do NOT have the revelation of God, the Gentiles who are outside the hearing of God's word. You are reading that into it. God wants His gospel to be preached to all human beings and His desire is that all be saved, but He doesn't save anyone apart from the gospel. To read these passages to mean that is to be in contradiction with all the REST of Paul's teaching. Yes of course I discount it because it doesn't agree with my theology. You are judging the passage by your theology too, and yours allows you to believe the passage means Gentiles can be saved, whereas mine takes into account all the ways the Bible says NOBODY can be saved except by belief in Christ, so that while this passage is hard to understand in its own wording, it isn't hard to understand in context. A theology is our understanding of what the Bible is saying overall. Yours and mine disagree. You keep using the idea of "literal" in a sense I don't. I've simply been using it to contrast with an allegorical or metaphorical understanding of some passages such as Genesis 1-11 and Jonah. That's why I don't think this discussion belongs in this thread but should be taken over to the thread started by Mr. Ex Nihilo. The contrast with metaphor doesn't apply to the words of Jesus or Paul where we're not talking about reading them metaphorically but simply having a different understanding of what they mean. ALL of it is "literally" true to MY mind using the word in the loosest sense.

I have never CLAIMED that the Bible is to be read "literally" (except possibly in a moment of weakness when cornered by a rabid evo). The term has too many ways of being misunderstood. The Bible is to be read INTELLIGENTLY and that means in context, comparing scripture with scripture etc. The only way the term "literal" comes in from my point of view is in the context of the arguments about the Creation, the Flood and Jonah and whatever else people like to claim shouldn't be read as historical fact but as parable or allegory etc.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-25-2005 07:47 PM

I realize I haven't answered most of your message. Mostly I'd rather just agree to disagree but if you'd like me to think about it more, possibly later, OK?

OK, I'm going to stick my neck out before this thread closes and risk answering this bullying thing you were doing. What you are doing is simply insisting that evolution is true despite the fact that that is supposedly exactly what is under dispute in the debate which is the whole point of EvC.You are insisting that evolution = 2+2=4 and you are trying to gag me with it in the rudest possible way. It doesn't belong on this thread where we are not debating that point. To answer it effectively would require me to enter the entire debate.The fact is that evos and creos adamantly disagree, and raising the whole debate again is out of order. You may not simply step in and demand that your opponents concede the entire debate, which is not going to happen.Since it is off topic, really you should warn yourself and upbraid yourself and then suspend yourself for wasting so much bandwidth on it.I can use "the word of God" against you in EXACTLY the same way you know. If Evolution = 2+2=4 I just come back and say Creationism = The Word of God. If it truly IS the Word of God then you have to go back to the drawing board and start to understand how Evolution is NOT 2+2=4, just as from your side your argument is that if Evolution truly IS 2+2=4 then Bible believers have to go back to the drawing board to understand how the Creation story is NOT the word of God.That is what in fact happens in reality as people on both sides come to question the claims of their own view and recognize the claims of the other side. We are in exactly the same position. We claim equally *absolute* grounds for our position. 2+2=4 is an absolute. So is the Word of God. Just as creationists try to prove that Evolution is not 2+2=4, evolutionists try to prove that the Biblical creation story is not the factual word of God. Etc. etc. etc. Now on this thread all you are doing is trying to FORCE your view on me, and out of context and off topic. It's rude and it's unfair.So now I've said my piece and there's nothing more to say. Please don't expect me to answer whatever you may say in response to this.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-25-2005 09:11 PM

My general statement was about the Bible as a whole you know, in context of distinguishing the meaning of "literal" that GDR was using from the one that applies to these particular books.AND it is not so easy to lay out the chain of reasoning that is involved, as I've already discovered on this thread. You must be born again with a quickened spirit and then you just know. As Paul said (1 Cor 2:14), the things of the spirit are foolishness to man. Nevertheless I will again stick my neck out and try, though it may not amount exactly to a chain, but more like a list of reasons.1) The whole fabric of the Bible, and especially the meaning of Jesus' salvation, makes no sense without Genesis, without the Creation and without the Fall (which is the explanation for our estrangement from God and the need for salvation.) If these things aren't real, neither is Jesus' sacrifice. A good statement about a true Genesis as foundational to the rest of scripture is in The Fundamentals on Genesis2) Concerning this essential interconnectedness, according to a favorite teacher of mine, the Creation and the New Creation in Christ share a pattern:
A.W. Pink intro to Genesis3) Other writers of the Bible refer to it as literal. Jesus refers to the Creation and the Flood as historical, and to Moses as the historical author of the Law given to the Jews. Peter refers to Noah as historical. So does the Letter to the Hebrews. Jesus refers to Jonah without a hint that it is not literal.4) It would make no sense to treat Jonah, who is listed as one of the minor prophets among the other prophets, differently from the other prophets. And a "parable" about a prophet's being sent to an Assyrian city wouldn't make any sense among the accounts of the other REAL prophets who preached to REAL people. Also, it makes real God's heart to the "Gentiles" as Jonah's balking was against seeing God's mercy extended to an enemy of his own people.5) The Flood and the pillar of salt give real meaning to God's judgment upon sin. If they are "metaphorical" that meaning is not exactly so urgent, and the expectation that the world will not again be destroyed by Flood but by fire becomes less than an expectation.6) Any true appreciation of the power of God ought to tell a person that none of these things is impossible. We believe them simply because God is God.7) Historically, the literal interpretation has been held by many greats, such as the great Jonathan Edwards (acknowledged as great as a naturalist and all-around genius too by some who reject his religion) and John Calvin, and affirmed in the Westminster Catechism among other authorities. Message 109 of this thread links to a list of church fathers at Religious Tolerance who interpreted the six days of creation literally, and also links to #99 of the Ham v Ross thread that spells out more authorities. Sorry it's beyond me to collect all those references in one place at the moment.I'm sure anyone with a mind to can simply discount all this and prefer to read it as fiction, which has already been demonstrated on this thread.If I think of more later I will add them.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-27-2005 12:39 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 06-27-2005 12:47 PM

If you don't have a real literal Fall from grace in God originating the death of the spirit that separated us from God, and originating the death of the body, then you don't have a real literal death that is the wages of sin, and you don't have a real literal salvation from it, and you don't have a real literal rekindling of the spirit that died at the Fall. Jesus didn't come to save us from a metaphor but from a real death brought about by a real original sin against God, provoked by a real devil who will get his real comeuppance at the end of time when we receive our real redemption.

POinting to authorities isn't just believing out of faith, it is a rational basis for taking the relevant scriptures literally, a very common method of arguing for any point as a matter of fact. Pointing to internal consistency of the Bible isn't just believing out of blind faith, it's a method of reasoning used in other contexts, such as reconstructing a crime.I've never understood what you are saying about faith, it just sounds dismissive. Yes I have faith in all this but I am giving reasons why that faith is not just blind faith yet you seem to insist from something like your OWN faith that that's "all" it is. I'm claiming my faith has good reasons for it and I believe I've gone a long way to showing that.YES you must be born again, but I didn't stop there, I went on to give REASONS for the literal interpretation. The spirit knows but it doesn't know in a vacuum, it confers understanding. I'm not justifying "faith" in some wild thing that has no rational processes to support it as the literal truth of Genesis does.

You have not proved that. Your entire argument rests on Origen alone, and Origen placed it all within 10,000 years and I believe my understanding of Augustine's catholicizing take on "symbol" is quite valid. Also the fact that they all believed in a literal six days is VERY important for the case for literalism, obviously so, considering how important it is in the creo-evo debates. In any case you haven't proved ONE thing about the rest of the Church Fathers so stop claiming you have.

No, it is not always a fallacy. There is a legitimate argument from authority.Argument from authority - WikipediaJesus is the revealer of Revelation and he says the serpent is the devil. He is God revealing these things, the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end of all Authority.Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,No, a metaphorical serpent would not serve the cause because a metaphorical devil would not serve the cause, just as metaphorical sin would not, and certainly an imaginary death would not.I guess you have your rules for intelligence, so I guess I'm a dope. End of discussion.