How to explain biblical literalism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dahominical
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dahominical

Guest
I’m sure you are all well aware that it is depressingly common for atheists and other Christian critics to feel the need to over literalise all of the Bible.

What is the best way to address this misconception without appearing to backpedal?
 
In arguments with athiests it is commonplace for them to misinterpret the Bible typically by taking literally passages that are not meant to be or are typically taken to be as such. How then do we address this without being accused of being weak or being selective or back pedaling?
 
Well, we actually are selective. That is part of the discipline of exegesis, to know when and how.
 
I’m sure you’ve noticed that some passages contain standalone pearls of wisdom.
Having said that I have had at least two occasions when individuals have quoted me chapter and verse to such an extent that I have felt cursed by their words! A very nasty misuse of the bible and with a huge amount of self serving bias.
 
Last edited:
We actually are supposed to hold to the literal interpretation of scripture, except where reason would suggest that we don’t.
 
I’m sure you are all well aware that it is depressingly common for atheists and other Christian critics to feel the need to over literalise all of the Bible.

What is the best way to address this misconception without appearing to backpedal?
Would I be able to introduce a question on this subject?

Consider Revelation 12:1-3 in its contextual setting, with John (on the Isle of Patmos) being shown things in vision by Jesus.

There is given the image of a woman pregnant with child in heaven, and the next image is of a great red dragon also appearing in heaven in the same location to devour the child as soon as it is born.

Now, consider Genesis 1-3 in its contextual setting in combination with Exodus 20:8-11, for God Himself is speaking therein.

There is given the recounting of God creating the Heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

I have a question. What do you think my question is in relation to those two examples?
 
I have no idea and have no idea of how that relates to the topic
The question (as a hint) I am thinking of, deals with literal, symbolic, literalism, context, and how to address questions on those subjects.
 
The question of understanding the Bible PROPERLY begins with a prerequisite of faith. So, the atheist is going to have trouble understanding or admitting to any position besides his own. So, that’s an obstacle for him/her.

Another hurdle to jump is the literalism itself, I suppose. The Bible itself uses many genres of writing and those genres were never meant to be literal. In places, the Bible points out its own symbolism or metaphors or points TO them.

In Genesis there’s talking snake. Now, does one take that literally (CAN anyone take that literally?) or does it point to a supernatural reality? There’s also a cherubim with a flaming sword. Neither of these are explained whatsoever.

If an atheist is really trying to understand, that’s one thing. If they are debating, then they will be a moving target and probably not convinced of any explanation.
 
In Genesis there’s talking snake. Now, does one take that literally (CAN anyone take that literally?) or does it point to a supernatural reality? There’s also a cherubim with a flaming sword. Neither of these are explained whatsoever.
The Bible elsewhere explains that the serpent was merely the medium for the devil to speak through. Same with the donkey of Balaam, in regards the messenger of God.

It literally and actually happened.

Same with the cherubim and the flaming sword before the gate to the garden. This also literally happened. It was to bar Adam and Eve, or any mortal to eat from the tree of life in the garden and become an immortalized sinner. At the flood, the garden was taken back unto God in Heaven (and is again seen in Revelation), for originally it was “planted” from Heaven unto the earth. Adam will once again experience his original home in the resurrection. It takes some careful reading and comparing scripture with scripture to get the nitty gritty details.
 
Another hurdle to jump is the literalism itself, I suppose. The Bible itself uses many genres of writing and those genres were never meant to be literal. In places, the Bible points out its own symbolism or metaphors or points TO them.
Good, perhaps we can now look at the texts of Revelation 12:1-3 in the light of what you have stated.
 
Education … people who think this is true, need education… patience too
 
Yeah, I mean, ask them why interpreting different types of writing differently is wrong. It’s like saying, “hey, you apply a different mindset when you read Shakespeare from when you read this medical textbook.”

Yeah, no duh.
 
Last edited:
We actually are supposed to hold to the literal interpretation of scripture, except where reason would suggest that we don’t.
Which simply means “what the human author intended to mean.” That’s different than the literalistic approach that the OP is talking about.
 
The problem isn’t taking the Bible literally. The problem is not knowing things such as the doctrine and the historical context behind it.
 
It takes some careful reading and comparing scripture with scripture to get the nitty gritty details.
Actually, in order to reach those conclusions, all it takes is an unwillingness to yield to the teaching authority of the Church that Jesus himself founded, and a desire to interpret the Bible on one’s own. 🤷‍♂️

Apologies if it sounds harsh, but arguing for Biblical literalism because you think it is literal… well, that’s the very definition of a circular argument.
 
From the Catechism…
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.” Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79 (128, 368) The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”81). (81)
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation. (90)

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”83 (110-114)
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs. (1101) The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84 The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction.”85 The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith; The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top