Something else that’s interesting about this fundamentalism, at least the stuff I knew, was that adding to God’s Word was a sin, unless you mean to prove that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together, or that the horde of locust demons represent helicopter cavalry. In a way, fundamentalists already realize that they can’t take everything at face value, but they don’t have the tools or the courage to understand The Text.
2 Likes
“In a way, fundamentalists already realize that they can’t take everything at face value, but they don’t have the tools or the courage to understand The Text.”
Frankly, I sometimes confuse “literalism” with “evangelicalism” and “fundamentalism”. The “literalism” of Luther + Calvin + European protestantism has produced MASSIVE unfaithful fallout.
My curiosity is about why “literalist YECists” almost exclusively ONLY come from within protestantism? Is it a major problem with their hermeneutics or something else? It almost seems like some protestants are bent on unorthodoxy due to their “literalism”.
“I just want to know generally how far “literalism” is taken.” - Russell2
Ok, me too. I’d like to know better about the edge of “literalism” within protestantism. Welcome your thoughts about the boundary of “literalism” among Protestants.
1 Like
I have no idea. I spent 44 years as an agnostic, until 6 months ago.
The church community I have become attached to is YEC, even though I cannot accept that.
One of the key planks to me opening my heart to God was CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity, so, accepting the moral authority (and spiritual supremacy) of God is important to me.
I understand my church members are rightly concerned that morally corrupt people can twist Scripture to mean anything they want, potentially in service of themselves or or evil. So to them it’s important to defend Scripture.
At the same time I look at champions of that cause, such as Kent Hovind…
1 Like
Thanks for your answer, Russell2. Let me encourage you to keep searching, as “knowledge” is available that you seek. Yet it will be in your heart, not in your mind, where the breakthrough is made.
Yes, I too read C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” some years ago at a turning point.
If you want to keep climbing, then you’ll discover that “protestantism” isn’t nearly as “deep” as either Roman Catholicism or the Orthodox Church.
Kent Hovind simply means NOTHING in Jerusalem, and never will. He’s not a “scientist” and is just a “fake scholar” whose antagonism with “Ceasar” landed him properly in jail for his “business ministry”. I’d be curious to hear if/how Hovind-supporters tell it differently from your experience, though probably don’t want to hear the stories.
“The church community I have become attached to is YEC, even though I cannot accept that.”
It’s probably wise not to accept local YECist protestant teachings as ideology. Jesus wasn’t a YECist; that’s just a late-modern invention.
It’s up to you to climb higher as you can on the mountain of Christian theology. This eventually will leave behind YECism. Is there an Orthodox Christian sanctuary in the city you live in? If so, I suggest going to inquire there. YECism won’t be highlighted, won’t be a problem, and will be put aside for more important issues and beliefs.
2 Likes
Not in Judaism. In Judaism, the serpent was a four-legged animal that the archangel Samael, rode around on, until God punished him by taking away his legs.
The sea monster is interpreted in a variety of ways, including a dinosaur, a mythological device borrowed from surrounding cultures to demonstrate that God is in control of everything, or in the case of Rahab, a nickname for Egypt.
The word in Hebrew is the same as “high hills”. If this was in a flat basin, then those hills could be as little as 10 m tall.
1 Like
That is likely due to Protestantism’s emphasis on the individual believer reading the scriptures for themselves.
4 Likes
I was an OEC, as the rocks can’t lie, but believed every word; made it work. Hadn’t thought about possession of a natural serpent. I was OK with angels and demons taking physical form. The trees were therefore real.
1 Like
I used to read the serpent like that too. The trouble is that whether Satan takes the physical form of a snake or possesses a snake, either way God seems to get fooled.
If Satan took the form of a snake, it would appear the disguise fooled God since God curses serpents to go on their belly and eat dust all their life and to be feared and attacked by humans. None of the curse addresses Satan, if read literally. If instead Satan possessed a snake, we’d expect God to follow the investigation one step further. Not just from the man to the woman who gave, to the serpent who deceived, but also further to Satan who possessed. But God stops at the serpent as if that’s the end of the chain.
The only way around this that I can see is recognizing that the serpent represents Satan or an evil power or whatever. It’s symbolic. Then, what God says about the serpent really applies to Satan. That’s also the direction Revelation 12:9 points, “that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan.” The serpent is the devil; it’s not just possessed by the devil or the form taken by the devil. If the serpent is symbolic, there’s good reason to apply the curse more figuratively rather than literally about snakes.
5 Likes
Friend,
I’m happy to hear that you have become Christian. 
I think most every Christian here would agree that it’s important to defend Scripture, including defending it from those who would insist on a traditionally modern fundamentalist reading of it.
In my experience, and when I was YEC, yes.
In my experience, yes, or that Satan took the form of a serpent.
Again, yes. It is believed to have been an actual tree, same as the Tree of Life.
Not an apple tree.
Sin, definitely.
And I’m a lot less interested in the actual eating of the fruit than I am the serpent’s (Satan) interactions with Eve and the fact that her hubby, Adam, was there with her. Everyone gives Eve a hard time, but Adam just stood there deaf and dumb like a doofus.
Again, I’m glad that you’re a Christian, my friend. Jesus is more valuable than anything and everything, and more wonderful, too.
-Joshua W.
5 Likes
I heard that too. I think it was reinforced by C. S. Lewis’s Narnia, which was basically another Bible story in our minds.
3 Likes
Yep… while mostly borrowing heavily from pagan mythology, and yet full of truth, as far as I’m concerned. It’s funny how that works sometimes.
5 Likes
And the snake is presented as the cleverest of the animals, not as an exceptional example due to it’s speech. Much as we expect the fox in our stories to be more clever and sneaky than the bunny rabbit or the bear, even though they all talk. Which is not far off, as fox are pretty clever, but I think raccoons have them beat.
3 Likes
The other problem with this surely is Jesus said a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).
2 Likes
Probably should be in the humor thread, but was too appropriate to this line of comments to put there:
8 Likes
The obligatory Farside cow. Love it!
1 Like
Oh absolutely! But that kind of nuance was regarded as unbiblical madness!
By a spirit He is interpreted twice to mean ghost. This culture had believed in them for a thousand years and then ten. Like all others. Angels don’t manifest ethereally. The death angels accompanying YHWH under the terebinth oak trees of Mamre had lunch. The ones whom Lot protected manifested physically. Some have entertained angels unawares. Angels were never mistaken for ghosts. Nor Satan and his demons.
I’m reminded of C S Lewis’ musings on the significance of Genesis and the Fall. I will have to look up the exact quote, but he said something to the effect that its being allegorical would lose noting of its significance–that the duty to God of doing the right thing, which seemed unrelated to our own moral code with others at our level, was so deep, and such a mystery, that he still didn’t think he could plumb the significance of that, or of all the passage. I’d be interested in your thoughts.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.