Why read the Bible literally?

Hi FaithTo start with I noticed on your quote of mine, I missed out the word "not" in the first line of the quote from Romans.It should have been --"It is NOT those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous". -- Let's just say that we have a different view on what traditional commentators say. It's not about who is as good or bad as anyone else. It is about righteousness and how it is judged at the end of this life. The last line says clearly "This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ as my Gospel declares."Here is what one traditional commentary says. I agree with Luther in the quote that you used. He is confirming that the Jews have the written law but that the Gentiles have the same law even though they don't have it in written form. In the last line he says that the Heathen only partly fulfilled the law. They couldn't partly fulfil a law they didn't have. Luther's statements are completely congruent with what I have been saying. I did some more reading on that. The truth probably lies between our two positions, although probably closer to yours in fact, although I think my point is still true. Paul wrote the letter in Corinth prior to ever having been in Rome. It was a letter written to the Roman church but to be handed around to all to prepare Rome for Paul's visit. It was a letter, unlike his other letters that laid bare his whole theology and it was written to a comparatively educated people. It is certainly the epistle that would most applicable in the western world today as far as outlining Christian theology. My point exactly. As they have God's word on their heart they have no excuse for living a life in sin, and cannot plead ignorance, and are LIKELY to perish.I agree that you can interpret the reading from Matthew the way you did but I contend that when taken along side Paul’s statement in Romans Paul had a different interoperation than you do. OK fair enough. You are saying that the passage from Romans doesn't agree with other passages from scripture. Doesn't that make it a little difficult to argue that the Bible is intended to be read literally? I certainly agree that the Bible has to read in context, which has been my view all along.This message has been edited by GDR, 06-25-2005 01:27 PMThis message has been edited by GDR, 06-25-2005 01:28 PMThis message has been edited by GDR, 06-25-2005 01:29 PMThis message has been edited by GDR, 06-25-2005 01:31 PM

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

Does your post have anything to do with this thread?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If I catch your meaning, you're saying that an intelligent and in-context interpretation of Genesis is literal. But most people trying to get an intelligent and in-context take on Genesis would read about talking serpents and floods and wives turning into pillars of salt and conclude myth or fairy tale, just as most people hearing about a man who travels the entire world in his sleigh in a single night delivering gifts to all the children would conclude myth or fairy tale.Given that you believe a literal interpretation is the intelligent choice, the question of this thread then becomes, can you take us through the chain of intelligent and rational argument that arrives at the conclusion that Genesis should be interpreted literally?--Percy

I think this reply is disingenuous. Please try to move the discussion constructively forward, especially since there are few posts left till witching hour.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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

I completely agree with this. Where I disagree is that it is important that it be literal. Truth is just a true whether the truth is told literally or metaphorically. I would go further and say that it has more meaning if it is truth as told metaphorically.I go back to the story of the "Good Samaritan". If this were just a story about something that really did happen it would be, as I said earlier, a nice story about a good guy. However, as the story is obviously allegorical it takes on a much greater depth of meaning.In Genesis, I believe that by reading the story metaphorically the truth is far more compelling than it is by taking it as literal truth.A metaphorical tree of knowledge of good and evil and a metaphorical serpent have real meaning, but a talking snake although impressive is a story about a talking snake. If taken literally the thing that is perceived as primary is the miracle of a talking snake as opposed to incredible truth of God's introduction of free will and how Christ fits into the picture right from the beginning.

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.

Now I'm confused. This seems contradictory. I thought you were saying intelligence was involved in deciding which passages should be interpreted literally. You say that it isn't easy to lay out the chain of reasoning, but you go on to describe a process that does not involve any chain of reasoning at all, saying, "You must be born again with a quickened spirit and then you just know."If by intelligence we mean the application of rational analysis, then let's turn it to the OT. You say the Bible must be taken as a whole. You say that others before us thought it was literally true, like Jesus and Peter, and like Jonathan Edwards. But you've still got a talking serpent, a global flood, a wife turned to salt, and a man living in a fish for three days.At one point you say, "We believe them simply because God is God." That makes sense to me. Claiming to believe them from rational analysis must be just the way it feels from you, because when asked to explain it you always reply with expressions of faith.There's nothing wrong with believing something out of faith.--Percy

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.

Hi Faith, I think we need ot be clear about this statement.Although the Church Fathers listed at Religious Tolerance did believe that creation literally took six days, there is no Church Father (at least that you have presented) who took Genesis chapters 1 and 2 literally. For example, we know for a fact that Origen didn't take all of Genesis 1 and 2 literally, and neither did Augustine.There is a difference that needs to be remembered.Brian.

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.

You're right, it's very common. It's the fallacy of argument from authority.Taking Jesus as our authority, a rational analysis of the talking serpent might take into account these issues:

1. What is the evidence from the NT that Jesus accepted the talking serpent as literally true?
   ​
2. Assuming Jesus did accept the reality of the serpent, what rational basis did he have? In other words, what evidence did he consider, and could he be considered a reliable authority on this matter?
   ​
3. What evidence for talking serpents exists today?
   ​
4. Would a metaphorical serpent serve Christian theological requirements as well as a real one?

Going through an examination process like this is what I think of as the application of intelligence.--Percy