Biblical literalism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Portillo (talk | contribs) at 10:15, 27 October 2006 (→See also). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:15, 27 October 2006 by Portillo (talk | contribs) (→See also)(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.

In modern media and theological debate biblical literalism would be the belief that Scriptures are to be taken literaly, denying the existence of allegory, parable and metaphor. This use of the term Biblical Literalist is applied while presenting critial analysis of protestants and conservatives. No major religious groups profess this doctrine.

The term Biblical literalism is often used as a Straw man argument and a Pejorative term to refer to the Contextual Method used by proponents of Biblical inerrency. 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

However Biblical Literalism is not synonymous with the contextual method of 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. (see also Biblical Hermeneutics)

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).

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

Gerald T. Sheppard "Future of the Bible: Beyond Liberalism and Literalism", United Church Pub House (June 1990)
George Regas "Take Another Look At Your Good Book". Los Angeles Times, February 3, 2000
http://www.astronomynotes.com/science-religion/truth-metaphor.htm
http://www.berith.org/essays/esch/esch23.html
"http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=97803346
http://www.newreformation.org/literalism.htm
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.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

Misplaced Pages

History

Incompatibillity of the contextual method with literalism

Arguments against Biblical literalism

References

See also

Literalists reported views on sex

Further reading