Beyond Biblical Literalism?

Faith & Science Conversation
13

As a fundamentalist (I’m not trying to disparage you - I don’t consider your position something evil or silly, just mistaken) you should not have any problem with accepting that God, being the first and the last (Revelation 1:8), encompasses the entire length of time. In other words, God creates, sustains, and knows all the ages - past, present, and future.

Moreover, while the doctrine of predestination has been hotly contested, divine omniscience enjoyed almost universal acceptance before the arrival of process theology, open theism, and the like. So I trust that you also accept the doctrine of omniscience. In this case, there is no contradiction between Romans 5:12 and evolution. The motive of a particular divine action may well postdate the action itself. God doesn’t need to wait for emergence of the first human beings in order to find out whether they will sin or not. Thus, human sin may be a reason (although not necessarily the only reason) of God temporally tolerating creatures’ mortality in the world shaped by evolution.

Certainly, you would reject this possibility citing the biblical writers who have ostensibly supported the six-day narrative. But to mention this narrative as authoritative is one thing, whereas to explain the exact meaning of these “days of creation” is quite another.

In this context, I’d like to repeat what I’ve recently wrote in the other thread.

The Epistle to the Hebrews interprets God’s rest on the seventh day as the abode of God that humans are still expected to approach unless they reject the divine invitation (4:3-11,16). Thus, the seventh day is clearly not the 24-hour day but rather the eternity of God, wherein the faithful hope to be accepted in the eschatological perspective. That’s how Wolfhart Pannenberg has summed up this exegesis: “Others set the final consummation under the sign of the seventh day of God’s sabbath rest. In this regard we may think of Hebrews and its description of the consummation of salvation for which Christians hope as an entry into the rest of God” (Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology, Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1994. P. 144-145).

Thus, understanding “days” in Genesis creation narratives as 24-hour periods of time is highly questionable, to say the least.

2 Likes
14

I beg your pardon for verbosity – but this thesis of yours deserves a lengthy discussion. This “foundational premise” idea is misleading and, in a sense, even dangerous. It implies the world where the generic notion of God the Creator was universally taken for granted. Like it or not, things have changed – at least throughout the Global North countries. Likewise, the authority of the Bible (or the authority of the church hierarchy) is no longer “properly basic”. Refusing to admit the reality does no good to apologetics and helps nobody to become a believer or to retain faith.

That’s not to say that the Bible is not foundational; it is foundational, but in a special sense: every Christian believer’s faith stems from hearing or reading the Gospel. No conversion is possible without a future Christian being fascinated by the image, words, and deeds of Jesus Christ. “Were not our hearts burning” (Luke 24:32) – this is how faith begins.

Nonetheless, one may be captivated by the story of the benevolent, courageous, and non-violent Jewish preacher and healer without acknowledging him as (the Son of) God. To accept him, according to the Bible and the ecumenical creeds, as the Son of God who has been creating and sustaining the entire world, means going much further. To make these steps, believers often need a rational theological discourse about the world. Instead of judging and rejecting the modern knowledge, Christian theology should rather understand and utilize it.

The religious fundamentalists and atheist intellectuals of our age share the foundational premise that modern sciences are incompatible with faith or, at least, with theology as a rational endeavor. But it’s possible to demonstrate that not only natural theology in general, but even the teleological argument, however denigrated and ridiculed it was, may be utilized without rejecting modern scientific knowledge about biological and cosmological evolution.

It’s even possible to start from the naturalist premise that only the physical Universe exists – and return to the notion of God the Creator.

The naturalist premise implies that the Universe doesn’t have any external causes. It exists, although nothing causes it to exist. Therefore, it is primordially active itself. It is the causa sui.

In fact, a materialist philosophy may be quite happy with the notion of primordially active matter (e.g., that was the case of classical Marxism). But grasping that the primordially active matter is also the primordially ordered matter is a game changer.

I’m not hinting at the claim that the Universe or multiverse must necessarily be “fine-tuned” to permit the emergence of complex structures, life, and so forth. The argument may follow the similar vein but be somewhat simpler. No evolutionary process, whether it results in emergence of life or not, could unfold in a world void of any kind of order. At the very least, there should be a certain regular interdependence of phenomena, events being contingent on some circumstances and bringing about their own effects. In short, having some kind of order is prerequisite for any further evolutionary development.

So, the primordial order can’t be established from the outside – there is nothing outside the world according to the naturalist premise; likewise, the primordial order can’t be an outcome of the evolution it precedes and enables. Its existence is the primary, spontaneous act of the primordially active reality – and this spontaneous act is ordering itself. The free self-ordering may be fittingly called an intentional and reflexive, self-relational act. The intentional and reflexive act as the ground of being – this notion is clearly beyond naturalism as philosophy.

At the same time, it corresponds with the Christian theism perfectly well: God is the primary actor who creates everything and, therefore, is not limited by any other power; the creative activity of God ad extra is premised on the intra-Trinitarian relation between the Father, who creates through his Word, the Word, or the Son, who is freely humiliating himself in order to accomplish the creation and hand it over to the Father, and the Spirit, who is common to the Father and the Son.

Certainly, this correspondence between the big theological picture emerging from the Bible and a rational discourse about the world is not a proof in the strict scientific sense of the word. Nonetheless, it helps to make the biblical faith comprehensible and plausible without making it less paradoxical: the self-humiliating God is the paradox incarnate. In the end, the authority of the Bible is reinforced without the doomed attempts to deprecate sciences.

3 Likes
15

One does not need to be a student of history to be competent in sound reading skills. Such skills have been taught from grade school forward. While some of the early “church fathers” followed the allegorical methods of the Greeks, going back to BC with Philo and subsequently with Origen and some of his contemporaries with the Alexandrian School and especially the Gnostics in the early 2nd century, they were a minority and departed from the biblical authors. Today, we see a similar occurence with deconstructionism, a postmodern rendition of Gnostic reading beginning with Derrida. He and some of his contemporaries decided to depart from author intent, taught in basic reading skills, and subscribed to their own rules of reading that simply ignored the author and sought meaning in the margins.

Besides, “literal” is not always literal in all respects as the word is used with many today who apply it as a pejorative, especially when one uses it in this sense without defining what the term means. Please define “biblical literalism” and who is applying it today.

Any literary work has both literal and figurative parts. The reader must learn how to determine the difference in the text, and the author is the place to start. Postmodernism has redefined “literal” to mean something altogether differently from what it meant 50-60 years ago and promotes illiteracy today not only in secular but also in biblical reading and study.

Besides, “literal” and “inerrancy” are not categoriclly the same. To conflate these terms is erroneous.

16

As just two examples. Some types of literature have neither of those.

1 Like
17

You seem to have forgotten Augustine and his understanding of “literalism”. Surely, you know that his De Genesi ad Litteram is a “literal” interpretation only in a peculiar sense. In this commentary, Augustine treats the Genesis creation narratives as the description of the world’s origin rather than some allegory of purely spiritual matters; hence, this interpretation is called “literal”. But this degree of literalism doesn’t imply understanding every verse or word according to its common usage.

Thus, Augustine notes that “hours, days, and years as we habitually understand them would not arise without the celestial bodies’ motion” (horae, et dies, et anni, quos usitate novimus, non fierent nisi motibus siderum – De Genesi ad Litteram. Liber II. Caput XIV. In Patrologia Latina 34: 275). He has also clarified that the day he is here speaking about is the 24-hour period – “the entire circuit of the sun from the east to the east" ( totos solis ab oriente usque ad orientem circuitus – Ibid .). Therefore, the sequence of these days could not start before the fourth day of creation.

Due to this and some other reasons, Augustin concedes eagerly that the days of creation are not the sun-dependent 24-hour periods. He concludes that “with regard to the days when everything was created, we understand “evening” as the termination of the [particular] creatures’ shaping, and “morning” – as the beginning of the other creation” (In illis enim diebus quibus omnia creabantur, vesperam terminum conditae creaturae; mane autem initium condendae alterius accipiebamus – Liber IV. Caput XVIII. PL 34: 308).

Certainly, these thoughts of Augustine are not infallible. But they are an important part of the church tradition that should not be downplayed or marginalized.

1 Like
18

No, I did not forget Augustine. While the Reformers and Conservative theologeons today praised him for his theology, they also critizied him for his allegorical approach he received from Abrose who in turn received it from Origen, all from the Alexandrian School. While many from the Alexandrian School went astray in the doctrines of redemption, also, Augustine did not, because God preserved his voice in his monumental writings. That does not mean he was right in all things.

The Reformers and Conservatives, especially in the Reformed movement, today after them were critical thinkers and were unafraid to distinguish right theology from error while refusing to follow the Pied Piper of Rome. They did not trust in the authority of men but the authority of God’s word alone as opposed to the Roman church and many today who held and hold to two authorities like their predecessors, the Pharisees, the traditions and authorities of men and secondarily the word of God.

I am not sure what you are concluding concerning this topic since you ignored my main point and salient reply but concentrated on what was not said.

19

Name one after you defined your terms. I am not sure of your point regarding the salient topic. It is off topic.

20

Ok, I was mistaken when supposed that you forgot Augustine. Sorry for that. As for your main point, unfortunately, I can’t agree that high school reading skills are sufficient to grasp the meaning of an ancient text.

One can’t even translate a foreign text without a profound knowledge not only of the language itself, but also of the historical and cultural context wherein the author belongs. In short, the translator must be aware of the realities the author mentions or just slightly hints at. And to master such knowledge, one has to study a lot longer and harder than you seem to assume.

P. S. I understand and even share your position with regard to the fathers: they are not infallible; we should check them by reading and comprehending the Bible ourselves.

But I’ve already written (several posts above in this very thread) that the Bible itself - namely, Hebrews 4 - implies that the days of creation in Genesis 1-2 are not the 24-hour periods. Therefore, Augustine’s interpretation is quite biblical in this regard.

3 Likes
21

The breadth of your experience is too limited to accurately make such a sweeping statement. I have spent my life in many churches filled with Christians who are biblical literalists, convinced of inerrancy.

While my views on inerrancy and literalism are in flux, these are the churches, where I learned the Gospel and the love of God. Whatever I think of their views on scripture, the Gospel is preached regularly.

2 Likes
22

One of the genres that the opening Creation accounts in Genesis is what I learned to call “royal chronicle”. In terms of the individual statements made in such an account none are meant to be taken literally; in other words while a specific statement in such an account may be literally true, from the point of view of the account that is not relevant, nor can its inclusion in such an account be taken to mean it is literally true.

This does not make any statement within such an account figurative.

1 Like
23

Why anyone should think that such meager skills could be sufficient baffles me.

I knew a guy who got a master’s degree in French. He was amazed at the huge amounts of history and culture readings were required, until it finally clicked that without the history and culture it isn’t possible to really understand the language.

And Augustine stands in a large group of interpreters down the ages who have insisted that the days of Genesis 1 cannot be taken literally. Their reasons were varied but almost always rested on the text itself.

2 Likes
24

That doesn’t actually address what I said, which was that I have never seen literalism or inerrancy lead anyone to Christ. Those in churches which hold to literalism and inerrancy didn’t become Christians because of literalism or inerrancy, they were almost invariably raised in such a church and stayed, or came to Christ out of brokenness.

But literalism and inerrancy have driven many away from the Gospel.

25

Nicholas, I was not referring to reading the ancient text relative to reading skills. I responded directly to the opening statement cosmicscotus made about the origins of “Biblical Literalism and literal inerrancy” and the assumption of it being “such a strong aspect of Christian theologies.” My entire response addressed that supposition. By rereading my post, you will see that it had nothing to do with reading ancient texts but rather the issue of the literal reading of any literary text whether the Bible or any other literary work.

26

Roymond, I suggest you return to my reply to you. Prior to replying, I asked you to define your terms so that both of us would engage from the same understanding of the terms of “literal” and “figurative.” You did not do that. Rather, you engaged in an unrelated topic about Genesis. Without knowing your definition of the two terms, further engagement cannot occur.

27

You misread my reply through a secondary source (Nicolas) and created a strawman. Please return to what I said as a reply to the original message. You reply is nowhere near to addressing my intent in citing a secondary quote.

28

literally /lĭt′ər-ə-lē/
adverb

In a literal manner; word for word.
"translated the Greek passage literally."

figurative /fĭg′yər-ə-tĭv/
adjective

Based on or making use of figures of speech; metaphorical.
"figurative language."

No, I answered your actual question.

I generally don’t bother giving definitions when anyone can use a dictionary.

29

Your approach is rather unfortunate especially in relying on a dictionary. Do you realize that a dictionary can have as many as 2-3 dozen definitions for a word? Since you do not bother to identify which definition you use in communications, it shows your lack of interest in clearly communicating and in defending your positions in discussions. Presuming that I should consult a dictionary for the true meaning of a word you use assumes dictionaries are prescriptive instruments. That flies in the face of linguistics that informs that dictionaries record descriptively words aready in use for a length of time. You might wish to sudy linguistics.

Suffice to say, continued discussions with you serves no useful purpose since clear communications does not serve you well. So don’t bother replying back.

30

You have replied to the post about Biblical literalism. Therefore, it was natural to understand your reply as related to reading and comprehending the books of the Bible.
To comprehend the books of the Bible, one should study the languages and the cultures of their human writers.
Where did I fail to understand your idea? Were you speaking about some other, non-biblical texts? In this case, how is your point related to the topic of Biblical literalism?
Perhaps, you could have meant reading some modern translations of the Bible. But, obviously, no translation is sufficient to solve any contended exegetical issue.

1 Like
31

Context, context, context. You failed to read my reply to the original message and to consider how I addressed it.

Read the original posted message, then read my reply. Your responses to me do not reflect that you understand the context. It’s really simple, but you are making it difficult on yourself.

HINT: #1 cosmicscotus says nothing about original languages.
#2 cosmicscotus discusses the contemporary scene of “Biblical Literalism” and “literal inerrancy.”

Did you even read his post before your first reply to my first comment? It is not apparent that you did. You simply took a snippet from my inital post and replied to it without regard for context. That is not sound critical reading. Rather than direct your comments to my primary idea, you went on a tangent about Augustine, tertiary to my primary message. Then you went off on a tangent about translations and reading the ancient languages. cosmicscotus never even discussed these things, and neither did I in my reply to him. You did not read my reply critically prior to responding to what I said. That’s where you “failed to understand.” Critical reading and thinking are the first engagements of understanding others.

32

Surely I did. So, let’s go into detail.

  1. Cosmicscotus has written a few words in support of the allegorical methods of interpretation widespread in the ancient and medieval Church.

  2. In your first reply, you’ve called the proponents of this tradition the “minority” who have “departed from the biblical authors”. You’ve also likened allegorical interpretation to “deconstructionism, a postmodern rendition of Gnostic reading beginning with Derrida”

  3. As far as I understand, this comparison demonstrates the main point of your criticism: both the medieval allegorical interpretation and the postmodern deconstructionism fail to address the original meaning of a text. In other words, they either underestimate the importance of what an author intended to say or assume it’s impossible to figure out this original meaning; whereas you believe that finding out the original meaning is what any sound exegesis is about.

Having thus comprehended your main point, I returned to the first phrase of your post: “one does not need to be a student of history to be competent in sound reading skills”.

Now that we are discussing the interpretation of the Bible, this phrase of yours is naturally read as follows: “one does not need to be a student of history to be capable of finding out the biblical writers’ original intent”. That’s what I contest. As for me, it seems rather obvious that a reader can’t comprehend the author’s original intent without reconstructing the cultural environment of the latter.

But, of course, it doesn’t mean that I disapprove of the method as such. On the contrary, I do agree that looking for the original intent is of paramount importance - as long as we are not overlooking the crucial difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Christian Church, an Old Testament text must be understood according to the New Testament interpretation of it (if there is any). But the New Testament books must be understood in line with the authors’ original intent as far as we can figure it out.

1 Like