Magus55

Yes I am a literalist.

I see it as important to be a literalist because If we can't trust God's word completely, how can we trust any of it? ( no sarcasm from the peanut gallery please). There was also no reason to go into such detail and specifics in Genesis if it was a giant metaphor. The aspects of Genesis are reiterated many times throughout the Bible, including by Jesus.

You're right that Jesus spoke parables. But He told the disciples when He was going to speak a parable or metaphor. He always made it clear that what He was about to say wasn't intended to be literal. Genesis says absolutely nothing about being a parable or metaphor, and when Jesus speaks of aspects of Genesis, He never says its a parable either.

cjack

I'm also interested in why someone would be a literalist, so I'll throw in a few more...this is certainly salient to the discussion of the Flood, to be sure.


It seems, to me, that literalism borders on idolatry, as you worship the words themselves as infallible and perfect. I also see this as a dangerous position to take because you're not just putting "trust" in the word of God, but also putting a considerable amount of trust in fallible humans.

You need to trust that the person or persons who wrote the translation you're reading didn't make some error. Humans do make mistakes and translate things differently. If you say the hand of God guides the people who do the translating, then we'd only have ONE version of the bible. Instead there's the KJV, NSRV, etc.

Second, you need to trust yourself that you're getting the message! As we know all too well, people use religious texts to justify some horrible things.

In 17th century Salem, people got the "message" from the Bible that it was not only acceptable, but necessary to kill "witches." Why? Because they took the (incorrectly translated, from what I've been told) phrase "thou shalt not permit a witch to live" literally.

For many years, advocates of slavery defended their position with Bible verse, taken literally.

And let's not forget Mr. Atta and company. I'm guessing these guys were literalists regarding the Koran, and look where that got us!


I realize, of course, that these are the result of (to paraphrase an evolutionary term) micro-literalism. Taking one tiny phrase usually out of context and using it to justify evil.

However, when we talk about Genesis and whether or not there was a global flood, we get into what I guess we could call macro-literalism.

The problem with macro-literalism when applied to the OT becomes apparent if you spend any time talking to Jews. It IS their book, remember? Most of what I get from them is that it really isn't about whether or not the stories are literally true in every sense of the word. As I mentioned before, they don't argue about whether the Flood really happened, but they do argue about what it means.

I've also heard the argument made that if they didn't mean for Genesis to be taken literally, the Bible would say that at some point.

Really?

I can't imagine that happening. I can see Jesus saying "okay, this is a parable here," but I can't see the authors of the Pentateuch admitting that the stories that had been handed down through the generations aren't necessarily true!

As I mentioned before, the Jewish people I've had contact with would likely say "yeah, we've kinda known all along that those were just stories, but we're still trying to figure out what God was trying to tell us with them."

In other words, they trust the word of God, but they (and more liberal Christians, I suppose) make a distinction between the actual words and the message of God that is conveyed through the words.

It is an important distinction, and one which, IMHO, literalists don't spend enough time exploring.

Biff the unclean

Nor did he say, in any of the dozen places it's repeated, that his second coming during the lifetimes of those standing in front of him is a metaphor or a parable. Yet you carried on at great length claiming it was metaphor because, were it to be taken literally, it would be false. Noah's flood, were it taken literally, has been shown to be false...but that doesn't seem to bother you. Why do you have two standards? Why do you ignore both scientific fact and the word of Jesus when it suits you and site them both as authority when it doesn't?

rlogan

OK, Thank you Magus. That was a good step for everyone here.

Literalist. You've given the reason.

Very good.

Magus55

Wrong. I never claimed His second coming was a metaphor. I just showed that it was an error in your interpretation, because in context, as well as in comparison with other book of the Bible, it shows that some of those who were standing in front of Jesus saw His second coming. It isn't a metahpor, it is literal. You just assume that its implying Jesus returning to set foot on the mount of Olives and usher in the Millenium Kingdom, which when compared with the rest of the Bible, isn't the case.

Oolon Colluphid

Okay then Magus old chap... I see you preferred to tackle a bit of Bible rather than the important part, for this thread, of Biff's post, to wit:
So, where do you now stand ref the flood?

It did really happen, yeah? As literally described?

How?

Cheers, Oolon

openeyes

Isn't it because to explain why Jesus died you have to believe in the Adam and Eve story? (He atoned for their sin or something, wasn't it? I quit paying attention so long ago.) If you literally believe in Adam and Eve and the creation story, then you need "The Flood" to explain fossils and the Grand Canyon and such. If one goes, then the rest go. Most people just don't think about too much about the consequences to their "faith" and go with the evidence. Others lap up everything spoken from people like Kent Hovind (who realizes how the whole thing would collapse). Saves you from too much thinking and cognitive dissonance. Keeps you on the same level as those "think-they-know-it-all" scientists.

(Just had a shudder of horror in memory of sitting in the same building as "Dr" Hovind and 2000 YECS. )

(Sorry--this wasn't on topic.)

MrDarwin

The Christian bible is a collection of books written by various unknown men at different unknown times who were describing events second-hand, assembled by a committee of other men decades or even centuries after those books were written. The committee chose the ones they liked from an enormous number of religious manuscripts that were floating around at the time (often existing in conflicting copies), deemed the rest apocrypha, and did their best to destroy, or at best ignore, them.

Why anybody would consider that the words of such a motley conglomeration must be understood to be literally true, much less to be the "word of God", is utterly beyond me. These books seem pretty self-evidently (to me, at least) to be the word of Men.

(Not sarcasm from the peanus gallery, just incredulity.)

Stephen T-B

I just so LURVE Ark theads, and would like to thank Magus for his hilarious contribitions.to this last one , which I think is one of the best I've seen since Ed took part in these E/C discussions

Magus55

What do you mean where do I stand? Are you new here? Someone saying science has disproven the flood doesn't change my position since that isn't actually the case. Science may not agree with it, but science changes on a daily basis. We don't have a clue as to how the Earth was before the flood, and what actual effects the flood would have on the Earth. There is only one place in the whole world where you can even see the complete geological column, so how how does analyzing a small portion of it automatically disprove the flood? How do scientists even know what to look for to determine if that flood could have caused it or not? Knowing the effects of a local flood has absolutely nothing to do with a flood that destroys the entire world.

And as I understand it, science can only disprove a hypothesis. It can never prove one. The flood isn't a hypothesis. It isn't a scientific concept that we can experiment and test. It's either true or it isn't, regardless of what science claims to have come up with against it.