Shadowy Man

Whichever ones that use the words "literal truth" in regards to the Bible. Are you saying that no Christian believes that the Bible is "literal" truth? I thought there were, and that is why some believe the Earth is 6000 years old, that the Grand Canyon was created by the Great Flood, etc.

I could certainly be wrong. I don't really encounter too many die-hard Christians on a regular basis.

GakuseiDon

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy may be useful in this context:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

... in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

Note that the Statement doesn't talk about 'literal' vs 'non-literal' at all. I think the key here is "history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth". This implies that an understanding of Scriptures and the culture of their authors is a requirement to determining meaning. (I've always wondered why "myth must be treated as myth" could not be part of this statement).

andrewcriddle

Very few conservative Christians are flat-earthers, even though there are passages in the Bible that taken in a crudely literal sense might support a flat earth.

When very conservative Christian groups claim that the earth is 6000 years old they usually argue why, for example, the days in Genesis 1 should be interpreted as literal days, rather than simply taking the literal meaning for granted.

Andrew Criddle

Petergdi

Myth is a loaded word outside of a few academic contexts where it is a neutral description. I think it was a good idea to avoid the word. Also, the Chicago Statement, like all position statements produced at conferences (both religious and secular), is written so that a large group of people will agree to sign it.

The Chicago Statement is very clearly based on B. B. Warfield's position. Warfield held that there was no conflict between the theory of evolution and Genesis. But it is worded in such a way that a modern fundamentalist might be excused for not recognising it as something close to a Nonoverlapping Magisteria position. (Warfield was certainly regarded as a leading fundamentalist teacher in the early 20th century, but the meaning of "fundamentalist" has changed since then.).

I'm not at all happy with this sort of ambiguity being used to create a consensus document. I recognise that using wording so that people who hold different views will be satisfied is a normal part of the process of getting a group of people to sign a position statement, but I don't really like it.

Peter.

Doug Shaver

I'm not sure they ever do. That's something that their adversaries accuse them of saying.

rhutchin

There is probably no strict definition of "literal." If anything, it means that every word in the Bible is "literally" from God (in the sense that ...the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21) or All scripture is given by inspiration of God... (2 Timothy 3:16))

This does not resolve the interpretation of specific passages where one person might disagree with another on their meaning. Most would agree that the interpretation of any one passage in the Bible must agree with all other passages in the Bible. Most disagreements on the interpretation of a passage can generally be traced to claims of lack of agreement of the disputed interpretation with other passages.

GakuseiDon

I think that the term "Literalist Christian" was popularized by Freke and Gandy, if not created by them. But I don't think they have ever existed as an identifiable group. Even inerrantists don't necessarily take the Bible literally per se, as Petergdi pointed out with regards to Warfield.

Warfield was an inerrantist who didn't see that evolution necessarily conflicted with Genesis. Interestingly, if the following website is correct, he seemed to have believed that Darwin was overly 'literalist' (my bolding):
http://www.xenos.org/essays/evolution.htm

Warfield carefully analyzed Darwin and concluded that his departure from a biblical world view was born out of a literalistic reading of Genesis and that "Darwin displayed a 'total misapprehension of divine providence, and…a very crude notion of final cause.'"

Johnny Skeptic

Do you believe that the Bible teaches that a global flood literally occurred? do you believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is literally less than 15,000 years old?

NoMansLand

I attended Christian churches from the early 1960's into the late 1990's. During the early years, an absolute literal translation of the Flood was taught. There was no debate, no possibility of alternate enterpretation. Then, in the 1970's scientific research---mostly in the field of geology---discovered that no world wide flood had ever occurred,as Genesis clearly states. Over time, the Church shifted it's view to a mostly non-literal stance.

The question begs. Were the leaders of the Christian churches, who taught millions of believers over nearly two millenia, teaching falsehood, whether they knew it or not? The answer is 'yes'. But why? The literal Flood teaching I recieved was absolutely wrong. So, why was it ever taught that way?

rhutchin

You were taught that there was a physical flood that covered the world in the time of Noah because that is what the Bible tells us. I am not aware that scientific research has ever "discovered that no world wide flood had ever occurred."

If some in the church are not now teaching a literal, physical world-wide flood, what are they teaching in its place?