Why is bible literalism so important to YEC?

Ok, I have to ask. What is it that drives YECists to a literal interpretation of the bible? Parables seem to be a common approach in teaching morality. Jesus was said to have used them frequently himself. So why do creationists so ardently defend a literal interpretation of a text that was written without the benefits of modern science?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
Ok, I have to ask. What is it that drives YECists to a literal interpretation of the bible? Parables seem to be a common approach in teaching morality. Jesus was said to have used them frequently himself. So why do creationists so ardently defend a literal interpretation of a text that was written without the benefits of modern science?

​

---

I believe that this lies in the absolute need to believe in a perfect,flawless,infinite God. And if God is to be perfect and flawless,then his word has to be as well...and since the Bible has been voted as being the word of God in religious assemblies a few centuries after christ,then today's YECs have no choice but to assume that the Bible is flawless. Most YEC use the KJV Bible,saying that its the most complete. But the problem with their approach is that in so doing,they commit de sin of idolatry...because the Bible becomes effectively their God. Furthermore,much of the christian views stems from a misbegotten belief that Jesus came here to be king of the earth when in fact,Christ himself said that he was but a messenger. The YECs wanna believe that Jesus will come back to be crowned sovereign of the planet and that they will rule by his side(nothing self serving about that belief,right?..). If you really wanna understand where the YECs come from,i suggest you go to drdino.com and listen to the online forum of Kent "CrackPot" Hovind...you'll find it really quite enlightening...no to mention damn funny

Bumping, would like a creationist viewpoint on this topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
Ok, I have to ask. What is it that drives YECists to a literal interpretation of the bible?

---

You're getting it backwards. Fundamentalists are driven to YEC because of their literal interpretation of the Bible.Nobody has looked at the evidence and said, "Yup, it looks like the earth is 6,000 years old, and all the life forms arose in a week." But the Bible says that's what happened, so they have to believe it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brachinus:
You're getting it backwards. Fundamentalists are driven to YEC because of their literal interpretation of the Bible.

​

Nobody has looked at the evidence and said, "Yup, it looks like the earth is 6,000 years old, and all the life forms arose in a week." But the Bible says that's what happened, so they have to believe it.

---

YECs are Bible idolaters

One reason is where do you stop allegorizing? Creation, Noah, Abraham Moses, Joseph, David, Jesus? It is very easy to tell when Jesus is telling a parable. It is very easy to tell when Ezekiel or John are having a vision. The creation and flood accounts are clearly meant ot be literal. Jesus and he apostles spoke of them literally. The writer of Hebrews commends Noah's role in the ark event. We also really do think the data itself speaks of the flood. Lastly the overall quality and consistency of the scriptures is good evidence of its divine origin.------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
Ok, I have to ask. What is it that drives YECists to a literal interpretation of the bible? Parables seem to be a common approach in teaching morality. Jesus was said to have used them frequently himself. So why do creationists so ardently defend a literal interpretation of a text that was written without the benefits of modern science?

​

---

I have often wondered this myself. Just today I entered a rather heated argument on the respective merits of science and religion, the 2. thermodynamic law and evolution's supposed violation of this and Intelligent Design with some creationists on a Norwegian website. They argued with the very same and old arguments that I have seen so many times before, even if I have shown and told them countless times that their arguments are flawed and based on misconceptions and misunderstandings. Yet they return after some time with the same old arguments and lies.This makes me think that the belief in an infallable Bible is crucial to a large number of christians. Without that belief they just as might give up their religion and rather than facing that posibillity they use every trick in the boook to discredit evolution and any other scientific disipline that violates the Bible.It probably has something to to with the fear of hearing arguments like "If that is wrong, why not this...?".The Arachnophile

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
One reason is where do you stop allegorizing? Creation, Noah, Abraham Moses, Joseph, David, Jesus? It is very easy to tell when Jesus is telling a parable. It is very easy to tell when Ezekiel or John are having a vision. The creation and flood accounts are clearly meant ot be literal. Jesus and he apostles spoke of them literally. The writer of Hebrews commends Noah's role in the ark event. We also really do think the data itself speaks of the flood. Lastly the overall quality and consistency of the scriptures is good evidence of its divine origin.

---

The scriptures themselves are evidence of their own divine origin? That's like saying that the reason one should believe that Jesus was the son of God is because of all the miracles he performed as recounted in the Bible.Oh, and please do tell of this overwhelming evidence for a worldwide flood, and do tell why the only people who think that this evidence exists are Protestant Christian Biblical literalists?In specific, please explain why there are no flowering plants in the lower levels of the geologic column. Did they run for high ground?

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-15-2002]

^We're not saying we have a systematic quantitative model which totally reconstructs the properties of the geological column. Some work along those lines has been done, yes, with success. Even evoltuionists some times explain morphology changes up the column via biogeolgrpahy (which automatically really means hydrodynamic sorting and rapid burial).I'm sure you've read a lot of the stuff here. I'll post some mainstream quotes soon where rapid origin of layers, beds and cyclothems (coal beds etc) are admitted. All we're saying is that mainstream researchers actaully agree that most layering was rapid (hence we still see layers, they aren't mixed by marine organisms etc, hence polystrate fossils, hence constant paleocurrents fro millions of years etc) and the yassume that the geolgoical time is between the layers. We think the latter can't be true becasue there are not enough unevenly eroded interfaces (unconformities). The Grand Canyon strata themselves were laid in only a handful of episodes (and possiblty a single episode with a few surges).The flowering plants issue - we obviously believe it is due to biogeography and burial order. The column clearly displays marine organisms first. The details - we don't know for sure yet (although Woodmorappe may have looked at this), but it's our expectation based on the evidence of rapid formation of the column. I agree it would be an excellet test of any quantitative computer model. Don't get too excited about your challenges to us - it may backfire when/if we show a model where this feature of the geological column naturally emerges as a consequence of the global flood! The North American paleocurrent data (flow rate/direction) already matches detailed creationist computer simulations as an example.------------------
You are go for TLI

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-15-2002]

Please, let's not turn every thread into a geological discussion.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Please, let's not turn every thread into a geological discussion.

​

--Percy

---

Why Not? CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
Ok, I have to ask. What is it that drives YECists to a literal interpretation of the bible?

---

Thanks, Percy,
Geology being my greatest weakness on this post, I’d like to address Darwin StormThe Bible has been awe-inspiring to many creationists on all levels. The inspiration ‘blows them away’ into ‘otherworldliness’ if you will. It has filled them with so much amiableness and contentment that they cannot bear to go against the ‘perceived’ commandments. Being ‘human’ and prone to error, they may not ‘rightly divide the word of truth’. Yet, they will not believe the Word is false in any way, despite what any skeptic may say. Again, because they’ve been ‘born again’, thus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
Parables seem to be a common approach in teaching morality. Jesus was said to have used them frequently himself. So why do creationists so ardently defend a literal interpretation of a text that was written without the benefits of modern science?

---

Benefits of modern science (falsely so-called) is often misconstrued as ‘secular humanism’, which is diametrically opposed to the Bible (throughout). Many texts relate to other texts in different ways which science can not approach by observation.Science is abused by ‘mutant-life’ vocalists, without their even knowing it.Now when science proves Creation as Written, creationists become ecstatic, their faith becomes proven. When ‘science’ disproves Creation (which it never does), what biblical creationist in his right mind wants to delve into such sorrow?

However, the notion of biblical literalism is absurd. The bible is interpreted differently by creationists and yet they completely miss this fact. There is no single, correct version of the bible. I am reminded of Kent Hovind holding forth the KJV as the one true bible (decided by consensus of men). How odd?CheersJoe Meert

^I don't think we're going to drop the Bible becasue of a few undotted is and uncrossed ts Joe. There are very few issues in which I find Biblical ambiguities to cause insurmountable problems.------------------
You are go for TLI

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^I don't think we're going to drop the Bible becasue of a few undotted is and uncrossed ts Joe. There are very few issues in which I find Biblical ambiguities to cause insurmountable problems.

​

---

JM: Of course you don't! Yet you are willing to interpret verses willy-nilly to fit your views. The bible is not, never was, nor should it be a guidebook or textbook of science. Yet, this is exactly what you and other ye-creationists have decided it should be. You should learn from your conservative christian forefathers who realized the bible was about salvation and not science.CheersJoe MeertCheersJoe Meert