Misplaced Pages

Biblical literalism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:44, 27 October 2006 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,473 edits poor writing style← Previous edit Revision as of 12:45, 27 October 2006 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,473 edits clearer, more thoughtful writing. References cleaned up.Next edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
{{expert}} {{expert}}


'''Biblical literalism''' is the supposed adherence to the explicit and literal sense of the ].<ref>''The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language'' Houghton Mifflin; 4 edition (September 14, 2000) defines literalism as "1. Adherence to the explicit sense of a given text or doctrine. 2. Literal portrayal; realism."</ref> Some have remarked that in its most extreme form such a belief would deny the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible.<ref>Gerald T. Sheppard "Future of the Bible: Beyond Liberalism and Literalism", United Church Pub House (June 1990)</ref><ref>George Regas "Take Another Look At Your Good Book".
Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2000 </ref><ref>Smith, Rev. R. A. "The Covenantal Kingdom" ''Christian Liberty Press'' (January 1996) ISBN: 1930092237 </ref> Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative religion at Gustavus Adolphus college in St. Peter, Minnesota criticized this as "a mentality manifests itself only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material; one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies... is easily obscured by burning ] of biblical literalism."<ref>Hyers, Conrad "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance" Christian Century August 4-11, 1982, p. 823 </ref>


The term has been applied in reference to the ] practices of ].<ref>Bartkowski, John "Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture'". ''Sociology of Religion'', '''57''', 1996. </ref> According to the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, the term ''literalism'' describes a practice that "seeks to discover the author's intent by focusing upon his words in their plain, most obvious sense". <ref name=elwell>Elwell, Walter A. "Elwell Evangelical Dictionary" Baker Publishing Group (May 1996) ISBN: 0801020492 </ref> In this sense, a "literalist" reading of scripture would accept the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible as seen for example in ] or the ].<ref name=elwell />
'''Biblical literalism''' is the belief that Scriptures are to be taken literaly, denying the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor.
<ref>Gerald T. Sheppard "Future of the Bible: Beyond Liberalism and Literalism", United Church Pub House (June 1990)</ref>
<ref>George Regas "Take Another Look At Your Good Book".
Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2000 </ref>
<ref>http://www.astronomynotes.com/science-religion/truth-metaphor.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.berith.org/essays/esch/esch23.html</ref>
This use of the term Biblical Literalist is applied while presenting critial analysis of protestants and conservatives. <ref>"http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=97803346</ref>
No major religious groups profess this doctrine<ref>http://www.newreformation.org/literalism.htm</ref>.


⚫ Biblical literalism is not synonymous with ]. <ref>Vanhoozer, Kevin "The Inerrancy of Scripture" ''Latimer House'' (1992) </ref> Whereas inerrancy doctrine deals with the truthfulness of the author's intended message <ref name=chicago>The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1997) </ref>, biblical literalism deals with the interpretation of certain messages being literal.
The term '''Biblical literalism''' is often used as a ] argument and a ] term to refer to the Contextual Method used by proponents of Biblical inerrency. <ref>Elwell, Walter A. ''Elwell Evangelical Dictionary'' Baker Pub Group (May 1996) ISBN: 0801020492 </ref> This is the position in which the obvious intended message of the author is to be taken as truthful. The contextual method approach is differentiated from literalism as it accepts the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible <ref>Elwell, Walter A. ''Elwell Evangelical Dictionary'' Baker Pub Group (May 1996) ISBN: 0801020492 </ref> <ref>http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2216_23_ruse_1989_they39re__10_26_2004.asp</ref><ref> http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332 </ref>


⚫ However Biblical Literalism is not synonymous with the contextual method of ]. <ref>http://www.episcopalian.org/efac/articles/inerncy.htm</ref> Whereas inerrancy doctrine deals with the truthfulness of the author's intended message <ref>http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm</ref>, biblical literalism deals with the interpretation of certain messages being literal. (see also ])
==History== ==History==


Biblical interpretations that were considered literalist have changed through history. For example: ], (4th century), claimed that the entire Bible should be interpreted in an as literal as possible way, but his own interpretation of the ] was made in such a way that would be considered "allegorical" by some modern readers<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html</ref> (see ]). Biblical interpretations that were considered literalist have changed through history. For example: ], (4th century), claimed that the entire Bible should be interpreted in an as literal as possible way, but his own interpretation of the ] was made in such a way that would be considered "allegorical" by some modern readers<ref>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html</ref> (see ]).


==Literalism and inerrancy==
==Incompatibillity of the contextual method with literalism==

It is commonly taught in the most ] seminaries<ref>http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/</ref> that certain sections of the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements of the author and are not intended as parable. These include ], the ], the lifespans as enumerated by ], the historicity of the narrative accounts of ], the ] intervention of ] in history, and ] <ref>http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdf#search=%22miracles%20C.S.Lewis%22</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-395.pdf#search=%22Genesis%20Flood%20Whitcomb%22</ref> It is commonly taught in the most ] seminaries<ref>http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/</ref> that certain sections of the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements of the author and are not intended as parable. These include ], the ], the lifespans as enumerated by ], the historicity of the narrative accounts of ], the ] intervention of ] in history, and ] <ref>http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdf#search=%22miracles%20C.S.Lewis%22</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-395.pdf#search=%22Genesis%20Flood%20Whitcomb%22</ref>
These views however do not contend the literalistic values that parables, metaphores and allegory are not existent in the Bible <ref>http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/</ref><ref>Henry A Virkler (1981) Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation </ref> but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention. <ref>http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html</ref> These views however do not contend the literalistic values that parables, metaphores and allegory are not existent in the Bible <ref>http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/</ref><ref>Henry A Virkler (1981) Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation </ref> but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention. <ref>http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html</ref>


⚫ As a part of Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy<ref name=chicago /> conservative christian scholarship affirms the following:

⚫ As a part of Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics conservative christian scholarship propenents affirm the following:


"WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. "WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.

Revision as of 12:45, 27 October 2006

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|October 2006|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.
 Template:Totally disputed

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.
When placing this tag, consider associating this request with a WikiProject.

Biblical literalism is the supposed adherence to the explicit and literal sense of the Bible. Some have remarked that in its most extreme form such a belief would deny the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible. Conrad Hyers, professor of comparative religion at Gustavus Adolphus college in St. Peter, Minnesota criticized this as "a mentality manifests itself only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material; one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies... is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism."

The term has been applied in reference to the hermeneutical practices of conservative Christians. According to the Elwell Evangelical Dictionary, the term literalism describes a practice that "seeks to discover the author's intent by focusing upon his words in their plain, most obvious sense". In this sense, a "literalist" reading of scripture would accept the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible as seen for example in biblical poetry or the parables of Jesus.

Biblical literalism is not synonymous with biblical inerrancy. Whereas inerrancy doctrine deals with the truthfulness of the author's intended message , biblical literalism deals with the interpretation of certain messages being literal.

History

Biblical interpretations that were considered literalist have changed through history. For example: Saint Augustine, (4th century), claimed that the entire Bible should be interpreted in an as literal as possible way, but his own interpretation of the book of Genesis was made in such a way that would be considered "allegorical" by some modern readers (see Augustine's interpretation of Genesis).

Literalism and inerrancy

It is commonly taught in the most conservative Christian seminaries that certain sections of the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements of the author and are not intended as parable. These include creation in Genesis, the flooding of the entire world in Genesis, the lifespans as enumerated by geneologies of Genesis, the historicity of the narrative accounts of Ancient Israel, the supernatural intervention of God in history, and Jesus' miracles These views however do not contend the literalistic values that parables, metaphores and allegory are not existent in the Bible but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention.

As a part of Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy conservative christian scholarship affirms the following:

"WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support."

Noted inerrentists Normal Geisler in his commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics states: "The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed."

Arguments against Biblical literalism

  • Bible scholars, even those who are theologically conservative, agree that parables should not be taken literally.
  • "Biblical literalism contributes to a lot of mental illness"
  • "Biblical literalism commits a seductive form of idolatry."
  • Biblical Literlists are heretics
  • Biblical literalism conflicts with the cultural context of scriptures.
  • Biblical Literalism is akin to sexism.
  • Taking a literalist stance on biblial violence promotes violence.

References

  1. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Houghton Mifflin; 4 edition (September 14, 2000) defines literalism as "1. Adherence to the explicit sense of a given text or doctrine. 2. Literal portrayal; realism."
  2. Gerald T. Sheppard "Future of the Bible: Beyond Liberalism and Literalism", United Church Pub House (June 1990)
  3. George Regas "Take Another Look At Your Good Book". Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2000
  4. Smith, Rev. R. A. "The Covenantal Kingdom" Christian Liberty Press (January 1996) ISBN: 1930092237
  5. Hyers, Conrad "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance" Christian Century August 4-11, 1982, p. 823
  6. Bartkowski, John "Beyond Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Conservative Protestants and the Hermeneutic Interpretation of Scripture'". Sociology of Religion, 57, 1996.
  7. ^ Elwell, Walter A. "Elwell Evangelical Dictionary" Baker Publishing Group (May 1996) ISBN: 0801020492
  8. Vanhoozer, Kevin "The Inerrancy of Scripture" Latimer House (1992)
  9. ^ The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1997)
  10. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html
  11. http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/
  12. http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdf#search=%22miracles%20C.S.Lewis%22
  13. http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-395.pdf#search=%22Genesis%20Flood%20Whitcomb%22
  14. http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/
  15. Henry A Virkler (1981) Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation
  16. http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
  17. http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
  18. http://www.episcopalian.org/efac/articles/inerncy.htm
  19. http://www.whosoever.org/editorial/literal.html
  20. http://people.cas.sc.edu/lewiske/heresy.html
  21. http://people.cas.sc.edu/lewiske/heresy.html
  22. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332
  23. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00241.x
  24. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=847

See also

Literalists reported views on sex

Further reading

Categories: