smokester

Is a sentence "literal" when it means what it affirms on the face of it, and nothing else? And then we assume some sentences are not literal when it is possible, by recognized linguistic usage, to affirm or express one thing and to mean another thing, either instead of or as well as the first?

I'm bringing this up in the context of an earlier post of mine considering what I called two different accounts of the genealogies of Jesus. It's clear, at least to me, that some skeptics---me---are looking at the whole account literally. Some say they are but then in their response give the indication that the second non-literal way is being indicated. Some indicate, by their response that all the bible is accepted in a non-literal way.

Also, when the Church Fathers and earlier theologians used the word literal did they mean the same thing as my definition of literal above? Meanings of words change. Some changed meanings are easily recognizable---gay---others may not be so easily recognizable, especially if subtle.

I have virtually no expertise or ax to grind in this matter but appreciate any comments regarding literalism and interpretation of the bible. Also, has the meaning of literal changed? Thanks

exapologist

Fundamentalists have been associated with "interpreting the Bible literally" in the sense that they view lots of passages -- even poetic ones! at their literal meaning. For example, they take passages in the book of Revelation about golden streets in heaven as literally teaching that there will, as a matter of fact, be golden streets there.

On the other hand, evangelicals try to first determine the *genre* of a specific book or passage, and then take its words in the sense appropriate to that genre. So, for example, if the genre is poetry, then they'll typically take the passage metaphorically.