Is a Literal Reading of the Bible a Relatively New Gimmick?

Hey, Brian...C.A..how are you doing this fine day! These questions on literal scriptural interpretation are fascinating and quite articulate! I am no scholar, and I don't have time to dig around, but your question is very valid. Here is my comments regarding this discussion:
1) On the progression of thinking and critique throughout History, we know that the people in early Western Civilization were influenced by many differing academic disciplines. To start with, 95% of the population was excluded before 1500, due to inability to read. Of the ones who were left, we could ask ourselves what cultural zeitguist was the most influential on their individual thought processes. Some were influenced by the Greek culture.(all, in fact.) Some studied the early scriptural manuscripts. One factor which I personally would introduce, yet cannot prove, is the value of Spiritual impartation through a unique and personal way of reading the early scriptures.
We can ask ourselves, If by literalist, we mean it says what it says and thats what it means, we are talking on a shallow level that, unfortunately, many American Christians have fallen in to. If, on the other hand, we mean literal in the sense of then we have another subject to verify. I always ask myself this question about the early church: Of all of the people throughout history who have defined themselves as biblical believers, how many can cut the mustard? You will find, of course, that there is a division into two camps of 1)This is what I interpret the words to mean.
and, 2) We all just know and feel that a common Spiritual meaning is agreed upon.
To a Christian, the second group is "saved" or "enlightened" or perhaps communally imparted with wisdom, whereas the first group is not so easily swayed. My question then, to the first group is this: One final point. Brian, you asked the following question: To answer this question, based on my opinion and belief, I would assert that Christian scriptural interpretation, by definition and within a small range of dissent, has always been very similar. For some, the belief which they express was merely gleaned off of another mans interpretation. For others, however...reading the basic manuscripts directly they all came to similar interpretations of meaning. To me, this suggests a sort of divine impartation. After the death, burial and ressurrection of Jesus, I would estimate that many if not most of the people characterized as believers at that time had direct and communally divine impartation. This fervor and zeal diminished steadily over time, yet there always was a remnant of men who had this same divine impartation. Most of them were not Popes and Cardinals. Most of them were probably Monks. It all boils down to common sense and an inner awareness that I have come to trust within myself about reading other people. I can usually tell if someone has a special gift of wisdom which is not mere knowledge and education but which goes deeper and "feels right". Today, as back then, it is not always the big honchos within the church that have this impartation. It is the little lady with blue hair who has a heart of gold and goes to minister at the hospital every Friday night. It is the Christian parent who allows their children to grow up without undue discipline or restriction, yet who falls on his face and prays for their sfety and edification nightly. It is the committed believers...who seek truth by actually reading the Bible with their heart as well as their mind.[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-09-2004]

It has some basis. "Christian scriptural interpretation, by definition means interpreting the meaning of the Bible. In the core issue of what the Gospels and the New Testament books mean't, there is a broad agreement between numerous evangelicals. You are correct that there is no uniform consensus, but within the "pail of orthodoxy" there is more of a common thread.

Here is a test. Give me a scripture from the New Testament and I will give you my perception of the basic interpretation. Everyone else reading my interpretation tell us two things. 1) Are you a believer. And 2) Do you basically agree or disagree with my interpretation. OK?

Context: Who wrote Hebrews? Some have assigned it to Clemens of Rome; other to Luke; and many to Barnabas, thinking that the style and manner of expression is very agreeable to the zealous, authoritative, affectionate temper that Barnabas appears to be of, in the account we have of him in the acts of the Apostles; and one ancient father quotes an expression out of this epistle as the words of Barnabas. But it is generally assigned to the apostle Paul; and some later copies and translations have put Paul's name in the title.I got this from gleaning basic commentaries. I agree with the uncertainty of the author, yet I believe that the scrip is written to believing Jews at that time. Basically, the passage means that once a person has received the Holy Spirit...the impartation of God as the true leading Spirit within them, if they choose to continue to do things the way that they want to do them in opposition to this Spirit, they cannot be helped since they have chosen self will over Christ will. A black and white issue. Either listen to God, or listen to your own desires, but be prepared to pay the price.
Respondants, all I need for this poll is a basic agree/disagree vote, followed by announcing whether you are a believer in Christ or not.

Consequent, the point that I am making is that the earthly author does not matter. We could be intellectual and go check out twenty different opinions on "who wrote Hebrews." To a believer, God wrote Hebrews through__________(fill in the blank) THAT IS MY POINT> Your source that you recommend as a more recent commentary states this bit of "wisdom"(?) Can I chalk you in the category of non believer or would you prefer unbeliever. If you refuse to categorize yourself, I shall put you in the category of "anonymous." For the sake of my test, however, let us assume that this book of Hebrews is just another piece of literature. Now, I give you this scripture, Consequent. What does it mean? Do you basically agree with my meaning? If not, tell us what you THINK it means> [This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-11-2004][This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-11-2004]

Gentleman: I am starting a new topic with this title. I will repost the original scripture there. The point is to stick to the topic. I am sorry if I threadjacked my subtitle into your post. Atheists can be logical. OK? There. Which author? The anonymous one? The unknown one? Or Phatboy?