This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AntiVandalBot (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 26 October 2006 (BOT - rv Killmeplease (talk) to last version by ScienceApologist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:18, 26 October 2006 by AntiVandalBot (talk | contribs) (BOT - rv Killmeplease (talk) to last version by ScienceApologist)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 may refer to a type of biblical hermeneutics used by proponents of biblical inerrency. Such people believe that obvious intended message of the narrative and expository portions of the Bible is rightly interpreted as literally as possible. This approach accepts the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the Bible as, for example, in biblical poetry or the parables of Jesus. Biblical literalism is different from inerrancy doctrine which deals with the truthfulness of the author's intended message rather than the interpretation of certain messages being literal.
The use of the term biblical literalist is often applied while presenting critial analysis of protestants and conservatives. Christain conservatives believe that the criticism leveled against them is a type of straw man argument and therefore consider literalist to be a pejorative term.
Christian conservatives believe that in the commonly used fashion in modern media biblical literalism refers to a hypothetical belief that the entire Bible is suppoed to be interpeted literally. They point out that this belief would imply denying the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor in the bible, a position which nobody holds.
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).
In modern times the use of the term biblical literalist has been applied while presenting critial analysis of protestants and conservatives.
Incompatibillity of the contextual method with literalism
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 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 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
- Elwell, Walter A. Elwell Evangelical Dictionary Baker Pub Group (May 1996) ISBN: 0801020492
- Elwell, Walter A. Elwell Evangelical Dictionary Baker Pub Group (May 1996) ISBN: 0801020492
- http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2216_23_ruse_1989_they39re__10_26_2004.asp
- http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332
- http://www.episcopalian.org/efac/articles/inerncy.htm
- http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm
- http://www.newreformation.org/literalism.htm
- E.g. George Regas "Take Another Look At Your Good Book". Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2000
- http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html
- http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/
- http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdf#search=%22miracles%20C.S.Lewis%22
- http://www.icr.org/pdf/imp/imp-395.pdf#search=%22Genesis%20Flood%20Whitcomb%22
- http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/
- Henry A Virkler (1981) Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation
- http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
- http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
- http://www.episcopalian.org/efac/articles/inerncy.htm
- http://www.whosoever.org/editorial/literal.html
- http://people.cas.sc.edu/lewiske/heresy.html
- http://people.cas.sc.edu/lewiske/heresy.html
- http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332
- http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00241.x
- http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=847
See also
Further reading
- Bullinger, E., W.. "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible". Baker Book House. 1970.