Why read the Bible literally: take two

From Here The reason is simple, there really has been no good reason given for reading the Bible literally in the first 300+ messages.Brian.

Well, there are far too many loose ends for a start.The question was 'Why read the Bible literally', we haven't had a good answer yet.Essentially, what the reasons that we have is:1. Why do we read it literally, well it is just a 'feeling' that we know what should be taken literally.2. It is obvious which parts are allegorical, but we haven't had an explanation of what makes this so obvious.3. We have the appeal to authority, Jesus took it literally (which hasn't even been established yet), thus we shoudl all take it literally.4. We get appeals to authority to read the Bible literally when these authoritities themselves didn't take the Bible literally.5. We have had the constant dismissal of very important points from areas such as literary criticism, source criticism, archaeological and historical sources, with nothing more than a hand wave.To get anywhere near answering the question, at least one of these points, needs ot be adquately answered.For example, the taking some parts literally and other parts figuratively needs to be explained a lot better than simply saying "it's just a feeling, I can't really put it into words."I cannot speak for everyone else, but I cannot see any explanation that comes anywhere near satifactory.We haven't had a good reason for reading the Bible literally.Brian.PS, I am going off line in ten minutes, so if this doesnt pass inspection, someone else can feel free to take it forward.

Let us imagine for a second that Origen is the only person on that list that deosn’t take the Bible literally, why is he on the list at all?Surely you can admit that Origen didn’t take Genesis 1 and 2 literally when he wrote these references?Whenever we meet with such useless, nay impossible, incidents and precepts as these, we must discard a literal interpretation and consider of what moral interpretation they are capable of, Origen explicitly states that we must discard a literal interpretation, how can you harmonise that with a literal approach, he is saying the exact opposite! with what higher and mysterious meaning they are fraught, what deeper truths they were intended symbolically and in allegory to shadow forth.You can hardly get any more explicit than this Faith, Origen undoubtedly states that the certain parts of the Bible were intended to be read symbolically and allegorically. Yet, you still claim that I haven’t shown that Origen didn’t take all of the Bible literally?What about when Origen states:The Holy Spirit so waylays us in order that we may be driven by passages which, taken in the prima facie sense cannot be true or useful, to search for the ulterior truth, and seek in the Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by God a meaning worthy of him Faith, please read this: prima facie sense cannot be true or useful, to search for the ulterior truth It is extremely obvious that Origen did not take the entire Bible literally.When Origen specifically talks of Genesis, what is it he says? Who will be found idiot enough to believe that God planted trees in Paradise like any husbandman;Is Origen saying here that God did plant a tree, or didn’t plant a tree? that he set up in it visible and palpable tree-trunks, labelled the one ‘Tree of Life’ and the other ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ both bearing real fruit that might be masticated with corporeal teeth;Is he here saying that the Tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil are literal trees? that he went and walked about that gardenDid Origen believe that God literally walked about the Garden of Eden? that Adam hid under a tree Did Origen believe that Adam hid under a tree? that Cain fled from the face of God?Did Origen believe that Cain literally fled from the face of God?At least be honest with yourself Faith, Origen, one of the greatest of the Church Fathers did not take the entire Bible literally, this is a fact. Which is contrary to YEC and the scriptures. I think it is a lot deeper than just symbolising, but even if it is symbolising, this is not taking the texts at face value. Just as important for the case against it is the fact that none of them took all of Genesis literally. I don’t see how this is important at all, maybe you could expand a little when you have time? I asked you if you would like me to check out the rest of the Church Fathers on that list when I was at uni last Saturday, but, although you replied to the post that I asked you that question in you didn’t mention my request at all.Anyway, you are the one making the claim, it isn’t up to me to provide the contrary evidence, you say they took it literally surely it is up to you to support your claim?Brian.

I think that the mention of 'fairy tale' highlights an excellent point.Think about this, if someone adopted a similar stance to one of Grimm's Fairy Tales as literalists adopt in their approach to the Bible, then they would also argue that the fairy tale can be taken as literal through a rational and intelligent approach. However, they would also similarly struggle to put into words how they arrive at their conclusions, but it is easy to claim that anything at all should be taken literally, but, as we have witnesses, no literalist seems able to put the reasons why an intelligent and rational approach suggests that the Bible should be taken literally, the Bible it self certainly doesn't demand it.If is was a literalist, the alarming thing for me would be how easily a non-literalist can argue the case for not taking the Bible literally.Brian.

This would actually make me more determined to continue the dialogue!Put it this way, I certainly can argue rationally and intelligently for not taking the Bible literally, and you have shown that you can do exactly the same. We have yet to experience a literalist exhibiting the same skill. This getting all upset because someone calls a core belief a fairy tale is really nothing other than an excuse to avoid answering difficult questions.People need to stop being so sensitive on public forums. I can honestly say that if a theist called me a clown for not believing in God I would just laugh it off, what difference does it actually make to what I think is true?The truth is, many Bible stories do contain the same elements as many fairytales do. In fact, some Bible scholars (e.g Ben Isserlin)actually refer to a "Cinderella theme" when analysing the early books fo the OT. This is essentially the victory of the underdog, the person who wins against all the odds, the snatching of victory from the jaws of defeat. We can easily see this very theme in the stories of Abraham, Joseph, David, and even the nation of Israel itself.The Bible has a talking serpent, talking trees, and a talking donkey. It is quite interesting that Aesop was plying his trade exactly the same time as the Bible was being written.Anyway, people need to develop a thicker skin because if you are secure in your faith nothing that anyone says about it would bother you at all, you would feel pity rather than anger and thus feel compelled to continue the dialogue.Brian.

I think it is fine and dandy to say that a being who can create the universe could quite easily do everything in the Bible. The problem here though is that no one has proven that this entity exists in the first pace to create anything.It is a bit like Paley's design argument, which falls apart when we ask who designed the designer.

Perhaps at face value he did, but on closer inspection it really isn’t even an argument, it is an analogy. He did make some very basic errors. Paley was well refuted long before Dawkins was even born. The logic of there being a designer is not wrong, Paley’s argument though is terminally flawed. It is also the best way of persuading an open minded person. I accept that there is a great deal of evidence for the existence of gods, but that evidence is extremely poor and does not necessarily lead to there being gods.I have no problem with philosophical arguments for the existence of gods, but there is no way to prove what the philosophical arguments suggest is actually real. There is a fundamental difference though, evolution has been proven to occur beyond any reasonable doubt. With the wealth of evidence available it is perverse to deny that evolution happens.All I really see from the creationists are arguments against evolution, they never seem to realise that even if evolution wasn’t true then that doesn’t automatically mean that creation is true. Creationists should concentrate on providing evidence to support the creation theory instead of trying to undermine the most authenticated fact in the history of the world.Also, evolution can be falsified, so how come on one has been able to falsify it?Creationism cannot be falsified as no models for creation are presented, we are all asked to take it on faith, we are all asked to accept circular reasoning as being an acceptable approach. I agree. Some people are happy to accept things on faith and reasoning, but it is the understanding of what reasoning is that causes the problem. Many people think it is unreasonable to ask anyone to believe that the universe is 6000 years old without providing hard evidence for that. Some people think it is unreasonable to ask someone to believe in being that we have no way of knowing whether that being exists or not. You are assuming that there has to be a’ why’. This could just be the limited human intelligence imposing a reason onto something that doesn’t need it. I began my higher education by studying religion and history, then on to theology, but I am now drifting towards a more empirically based discipline. Philosophers and theologians can provide answers to the ‘whys’, and this is fine for many people, but I need a bit more than that.Brian.

What makes you think that this is 'quite possible'?Have you considered the logistics of such a venture?You do know that the Bible also states that Noah took 7 of every clean beast on to the Ark?The Flood and the Ark are both non-starters, they read better when they are accepted as folk tales.People need to stop trying to make the Bible into a gimmick, it gets embarrassing after a while. Apart from god only existing in fairytale books you mean?Brian.

I know that you are new to the forum and don't yet know how it all works.Simply posting links is not really the way to carry on a discussion, I could essentially reply to your message with another link and no discussion would take place.If you ar going to use links you should really say what you find usefull about the info on the link.I keep urgung people to avoid using AiG as the quality of scholarship there is extremely poor, although it isnt the worst site on the Net.As far as 'fairytale', I was being lazy, I meant myths and folk tales. The Bible contains quite a few myths that have been borrowed from other cultures, which doesn't detract from its value, but it should give some clues into its compilation.Brian.

I personally do not discuss the creation/evolution debate, I have probably made about 10 replies on science threads in the 2000 plus posts I have made here.I am not scientist, but if you wish to pick any essay on AiG that relates to the Old Testament, Ancient Near Eastern history, or Near Eastern archaeology then we can start a new thread to discuss its merits.I will give one example just to demonstrate why I have such a low opinion of AiG.From here Little is known about the Pharaoh Neferhotep I. Some biblical historians believe he may be the king who persecuted the Hebrews and under whose anti-Jewish reign the exodus occurred.The quality of writing in this essay is rank amateur. Who would write an essay without giving any references to support everything that they claim? The author states that 'some biblical historians believe....' but the author doesn't say who any of the 'some' historians are! How do we know that any historian claimed this if the author doesn't tell us where to check the validity of the information given. To leave out a reference like this is quite a serious flaw, and it is something that anyone writing at High School would be marked down for.This lack of referencing runs right through the essay: Critics use the pyramids to claim the Bible can’t be right.Do they? How do we know this as the essay does not name a single one of these 'critics'? They say the pyramids were built long before Noah’s Flood, so the Flood must have only been a local affair,Who says this? How do we know anyone has made this claim?Not global like the Bible says. Does the Bible say it was a global flood? Otherwise, the pyramids would be buried under lots of sediment.Why would they? Why don't we have a reference here to support this?Some have even wondered if the technology was supplied by aliens.Have they? Any chance of a name to go on?I hope you get what I mean, it is not a good standard of scholarship to write in this way, the author has hardly supported a thing that he has written. If this was a high school essay it would barely pass assessing. The one I gave you the other day was a reply to a request about the mutilation of the Old Testament by Christians, you asked for a few examples and the link I gave you was to another discussion on this forum that addressed this issue. When a link to another thread on this site is given, normally you would be expected to discuss any objections on the thread that you were linked to. This helps to keep each thread on topic.Linking to an off-site page and not providing any real input of your own does not really instigate any discussion. For example, I could refute your AiG link with a link to another website, but where is the discussion?Normally, you would use a link to support an argument that you have constructed yourself.Brian.

Hi, Could it be that they don't have technical details, and perhaps they depend on the gullibiity of the audience?To provide a reference to support a claim only takes a few seconds and has nothing to do with the target audience. I have no idea why I should believe that there are people who said that aliens built the pyramids, as far as I know no one has said this. Yes, I know, but both are academically very poor.But even writing for families surely it is the done thing to support what you are asking them to believe? Even saying "some scholars, such as William Albright, claim that...." would be far better than nothing at all. But this is completely irrelevant if you are writing an arcticle! Do you think that a Uni prof. would think that way? Of course they wouldn't, authors need to reference their sources because without them they could essentially just say anything that they wanted to. You will find that the majority of people here would expect to be refuted by a decent quality of rebuttal, and not a children's brainwashing site. Perhaps you should abandon AiG and look for a better quality academic site.Brian.PS, you still haven't said why the Ark scenario is possible.This message has been edited by Brian, 09-07-2005 02:25 PM

Hi Steve, On which topic? This topic is why read the Bible literally, do you mean unsourced claims about evolution?It is immaterial whether or not anyone else has sourced their arguments or not, my point was that AiG is a very poor site academically, evolutionists not sourcing claims changes nothing about AiG it is still a very poor site (IMO). I already stated that I am not a scientist, I don't follow the evo-creo debate so you are wasting your time mentioning it to me. Just because I am an atheist doesn't mean that I am automatically an evolutionist. I don't know enough about the subject, and frankly, bores me to tears. I take my position because I know that AiG deliberately spreads misinformation about the Old Testament, Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology, the example of not referencing is only one problem with the site. Again, immaterial, I commented on AiG website. Im not a scientist, there is no point in discussing science with me.You will see that I moderate the Bible based topics, there's a good reason for that! I gave one reason why it is academically poor, and I never mentioned evolution. Depends what you mean. If it about creation 'science' then I cannot because I dont follow the evo-creo debate. If you mean pro-creation as in a Christian based website then I can recommend quite a few. There is no 'if' about it, I am an admin. I can recommend quite a few Christian websites, but my subjects are arts based, not science. Why do you believe it?Cheers.Brian.

No probs, I was just saving you a lot of time for future discussions, I really do not discuss science. I will discuss anything to do with the OT and/or archaeology, so I hope we can have some profitable chats regarding these topics. If Jesus said the world was flat would you believe that? I haven’t found any reason to view it as an historical event at all, leaving science aside, the basic chronology of the event essentially proves that it didn’t happen as the Bible describes it. Do you include in this the fact that Christianity led us into the Dark Ages and therefore we must learn a lesson from that? So, you really do not wish to know the Truth?Brian