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.
One of the genres that the opening Creation accounts in Genesis is what I learned to call âroyal chronicleâ. 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.
Why anyone should think that such meager skills could be sufficient baffles me.
I knew a guy who got a masterâs 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 isnât 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.
That doesnât 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 didnât 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.
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 âBiblical Literalism and literal inerrancyâ and the assumption of it being âsuch a strong aspect of Christian theologies.â 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.
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 âliteralâ and âfigurative.â 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.
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.
literally /lÄtâ˛Ér-É-lÄ/
adverb
In a literal manner; word for word.
"translated the Greek passage literally."
figurative /fÄgâ˛yÉr-É-tÄv/
adjective
Based on or making use of figures of speech; metaphorical.
"figurative language."
No, I answered your actual question.
I generally donât bother giving definitions when anyone can use a dictionary.
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 donât bother replying back.
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.
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. Itâs 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 âBiblical Literalismâ and âliteral inerrancy.â
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. Thatâs where you âfailed to understand.â Critical reading and thinking are the first engagements of understanding others.
Surely I did. So, letâs go into detail.
Cosmicscotus has written a few words in support of the allegorical methods of interpretation widespread in the ancient and medieval Church.
In your first reply, youâve called the proponents of this tradition the âminorityâ who have âdeparted from the biblical authorsâ. Youâve also likened allegorical interpretation to âdeconstructionism, a postmodern rendition of Gnostic reading beginning with Derridaâ
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 itâs 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: âone does not need to be a student of history to be competent in sound reading skillsâ.
Now that we are discussing the interpretation of the Bible, this phrase of yours is naturally read as follows: âone does not need to be a student of history to be capable of finding out the biblical writersâ original intentâ. Thatâs what I contest. As for me, it seems rather obvious that a reader canât comprehend the authorâs original intent without reconstructing the cultural environment of the latter.
But, of course, it doesnât 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 authorsâ original intent as far as we can figure it out.
Well of course not. A posture toward reading Scripture has no content in itself.
Again oneâs posture toward reading Scripture have no Scriptural content in itself. The conclusions drawn from Scripture read in this way may drive some from the Gospel. But a solid understanding of the Gospel has been coming from this type of reading for a long time. Conclusions drawn from some non-literal readings of Scripture do not include the Gospel at all.
I donât think that literalism or inerrancy in themselves are the problem. The context (which is complex) in which any hermeneutical method occurs is also an active ingredient.
The early Church Fathers often used anaolgy, parable, and allegorical methods of interpretation, yes, while simultaneously convinced of Scriptureâs inerrancyâŚ
Irenaeus (fl. c.175-c.195): â[We are] most properly assured that the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit ⌠all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent âŚâ (Against Heresies, II, xxviii).
Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329-388): âWe trace the accuracy of the Spirit in detail to each separate stroke and letter; for it is blasphemous to suppose that exact pains were bestowed by the compilers of the Books, or even the smallest letters, without design.â
Basil the Great (330-379): âNo single syllable of the sacred writings is to be neglected.â âEvery word or action must be accepted on the testimony of inspired Scripture.â
Chrysostom (c.344/354-407): âThere is divergence in the historical narratives of the Gospels ⌠but there is no contradiction.â
Augustine (354-430):
âLord, surely your scripture is true, for you, being truthful and Truth itself, have produced it ⌠âO man, what my scripture says, I sayââ (Confessions, XIII, xxix).
âI believe most firmly that no one of those authors has erred in any respect in writingâ (Epistle LXXXII).
âI have learned to hold the Scriptures alone inerrant.â
âThe Faith will totter if the authority of the Holy Scriptures loses its hold on men. We must surrender ourselves to the authority of Holy Scripture, for it can neither mislead nor be misled.â
âFreely do I admit to you, my friend, that I have learnt to ascribe to those Books which are of Canonical rank, and only to them, such reverence and honour, that I firmly believe that no single error due to the author is found in any one of them.â
â⌠the evangelists are free from all falsehood, both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit, and that which is the result of forgetfulness.â
(borrowed from The Inerrancy of Scripture â CPRC)
You are getting close to author intent but still read into MY intent through redefining what I wrote in places. In your #3, you said deconstructionism âunderestimated the importanceâŚâ and âassume itâs impossible to figure out this original meaning.â Do you see how you read into my comments? I did not say either of those nor intended them. I never said deconstructionism âunderestimated the importanceâŚâ Nor did I say anything about the impossibility of finding out the biblical writerâs original intent." Then you digressed with the latter one with your argument about knowing the original languages and history. Your claim of impossibility raises the spectre of Gnosticism. I will address this later. That is, only the scholastic elite are in the know with their learned knowledge.
The deconstructionists never considered it impossible to figure out the meaning of the text, and I never made mention of their application of history and original languages. Derrida, the father of deconstructionism, was Jewish and knew the original languages, but he applied deconstructionism in his intentional means of IGNORING author intent. He knew what author intent was but decided it to be philosophical privilege and deconstructed the text to serve his own purposes. Thatâs deception!! The deconstructionists were highly educated and many knew the Bible well, especilaly the OT. They were intentionally misinterpreting it, because of their ideology of privilege they thought the philosopher possessed. However, in accusing others of privilege, Derrida and other deconstructionists also claimed privilege.
You simply misread what I wrote and read into it with your own meaning. That is quintissential deconstructionism you engaged and affirmed what I wrote about postmodern approach to texts (biblical or otherwise). A large number of Bible colleges and seminaries, especially the liberals ones but also those who allege to be evangelical, have latched on deconstructionism in their hermeneutical approach to Scriptures by claiming privilege as biblical interpreters.
Then you wrote, âAs for me, it seems rather obvious that a reader canât comprehend the authorâs original intent without reconstructing the cultural environment of the latter.â
Obvious? To whom? Your statement denies the perspecuity of Scriptures held from the Reformation and the Holy Spiritâs guiding into all truth Jesus taught. Readers can indeed comprehend words on a page for deriving author intent, perhaps not to the extent as degreed theologians, some who consider themselves privileged. Words and sentence structure clearly inform about an authorâs intentions even in a sound translation unless, of course, one assumes translators have an agenda in their biblical translations. Currently, so many interpretive resources are available that makes the readerâs task so much easier in coming to terms with the biblical text
Additionally, God has not left us without the ability to read the biblical text and to gain from it regardless of education level. To make an absolute statement that âa reader canât comprehend the authorâs original intent without reconstructing the cultural environment of the latterâ is simply wrong and undercuts and denies Godâs guidance and providence. It also surfaces a similar type of privilege the Gnostics claimed. Your comment appears to place more authority in scholars than in the Holy Spirit and bases reading skills on somebody elseâs interpretation so that our primary approach to Scriptures is significantly hindered. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is how the Roman Church rose to prominance by claiming that its alone interpreted Scripture, a Gnostic principle of secret knowledge. Eventually, the Roman Church forbade the reading of Scriptures altogether, because it rested with a privileged group. Now where do you think they got that act from? Gnosticism. The perspecuity of Scriptures refutes this claim. That is why the Reformers claimed Scriptures alone (You need to read how they treated this in refutation against the Roman church and todayâs privilege of science as a means of biblical interpretation).
While history and language certainly shed light on the Scriptural interpretation, the less educated person can still read and interpret the Scriptures and know the meaning of savation in its many facets with little reliance on original languages and historical cultural analysis. This does not discount them but upholdâs Godâs enlightenment and guidance as the premium. God is sovereign in spite of the severe limitations of individuals in coming to the knowledge of the truth. He alone enlightens the mind and spirit toward the knowledge of the truth.
Do you believe God would bring salvation to the world and then announce, âIâm going to leave the interpretation of the gospel up to elitist scholars to make their discoveries through language and cultural studies prior to them weeding out the gospel and delivering it to the masses. I will make the gospel turn on secret knowledge that can only be known through the scholastic eliteâ? Thatâs what the Gnostics taught, and they derived fanciful heresies.
You still did not rightly interpret my intent as stated. Otherwise, you would not have disgressed so much and rendered another reading than what I wrote.
What is metaphor or metaphorical speech and how does it differ from literal speech? There is no easy answer. Philosophers, rhetoricians, literary critics, and linguists have long discussed and debated the matter. The question becomes more difficult when we address text from other cultures/language, and also derived from antiquity, relevant to discussions on biblical text(s).
In literal speech we mean what our words say according to their dictionary meaning. Linguistic meaning and speaker meaning coincide; literal speech is accustomed or ordinary speech. As long as we understand both the dictionary meanings of the words and the context of the speakerâs utterance, we normally have no trouble understanding what the speaker is saying. Of course, most words have multiple standard meanings, typically listed under the wordâs heading in the dictionary; but if we know the context, we usually have no trouble determining which meaning of the words the speaker intends.
Metaphor, on the other hand, involves the transference of a word or expression from its typical context to a different context. Linguistic meaning and speaker meaning thus diverge. The problem of metaphor concerns the relations between word and sentence meaning, on the one hand, and speakerâs meaning or utterance meaning, on the other. Many writers on the subject try to locate the metaphorical element of a metaphorical utterance in the sentence or expressions uttered. They think there are two kinds of sentence meaning, literal and metaphorical. However, sentences and words have only the meanings that they have. Strictly speaking, whenever we talk about the metaphorical meaning of a word, expression, or sentence, we are talking about what a speaker might utter it to mean, in a way that departs from what the word, expression, or sentence actually means. We are, therefore, talking about possible speakerâs intentions.
In the current discussion, I make a clear distinction between a scientific treatise and biblical text.
Why should I need to when itâs obvious which definition applies to the subject at hand?
As far as I can see youâre just being petty to avoid having to deal with truth you donât want to acknowledge. That shouldnât surprise me given that you couldnât see the relevance of the fact that the Bible contains literature in which there is neither literal nor figurative elements to the topic of biblical literalism.
LOL
The topic of biblical literalism canât be discussed without reference to the original languages because those are what constitute the Bible!
Besides which, he most certainly did â he referred to the âearly Church Fathersâ, and they read the Bible in the original languages.
Sure it does â literalism ignores the fact that the scriptures are ancient literature, and that attitude drives people away from the Gospel; inerrancy insists that most of science is wrong, and that attitude drives people away from the Gospel.
It doesnât even take conclusions âdrawn from scriptureâ, the two dogmas drive people away before even looking at scripture because on the face of them they require people to be stupid in order to be Christians. Most students when I was at university wouldnât even talk to someone about the Gospel if they held to inerrancy or literalism because the above was so obvious. Iâve seen people just get up and walk away when they found someone read the Bible literally and/or consider it inerrant.
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.