Inconsistency of literalists vs science

[The Galatian]

The sky is observably not a big inverted bowl over a circular Earth.

When reality and scripture seem to conflict it is because you have misunderstood one or the other of them.

So you have to decide whether reality or a literal reading of scripture is more likely in this case.

What do you think?

 

[Grasshopper]

Pastor Larry:

You still have absolutely no basis for saying that the people of the Bible times meant what you say. They use the same language we do today. If we so easily understand it, why don't we think they did?? Why not just accept the normal reading of text?

I must disagree with you here. Jews of the OT and 1st century used much more figurative and metaphoric language. We take things literal that they understood as figurative. Example:

Is. 13 speaks of the destruction of Babylon brought on by the Medes:

Is. 13: 10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause its light to shine.

Yet the very same language is used in Matt. and we in the 21st century take it literally:

Matt. 24: 29 But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

I have had this discussion many times concerning eschatology. Much of the language is metaphoric in nature. They are both literally true, IF you understand what the moon, sun, stars represent.

 

[Brett]

No it doesn't. It is good that the problem is that you don't really understand what "literal interpretation" means. Literal interpretation means normal ... you interpret the language as it is normally interpreted. We use figures of speech all the time in literal interpretation.

So, your argument is that one would "normally interpret", "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed" as "the earth stood still", which is what actually must have happened?

Even under your twisted definition of literal, this doesn't work.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Brett, I think Pastor Larry is having one of those "senior moments" about the meaning of the word literal. I would expect someone arguing the YEC position to actually say that INERRANCY does not always demand a LITERAL interpretation and go for the "idiom" theory or something along that line, and I'm sure he or someone of the YEC position will make that clear and we can then discuss that idea.

OK YEC'rs, can you oblige us?

 

[Marcia]

The whole discussion about the earth and the sphere shape took place in the General Baptist Forum on the "Are There Errors in the Bible" thread. I posted the NET Bible's translation of Is 40.22 as "earth's horizon." Anyway, I posted this in that other forum:

The Hebrew word here, translated as "circle of the earth" means:

chug (295b); from 02328 ; vault,
horizon :-- circle(1), vault(m)(2).

So there is reason for the NET Bible to translate that as the "earth's horizon." Some also translate it as saying the vault above the earth, but it is not implying the earth is flat in any way.

It comes from a root word meaning

to draw
around, make a circle :-- inscribed a circle(1).

I think the evidence is coming down on the side of this verse implying the earth is spherical more than it implies the earth is flat.

As far as Pastor Larry's meaning of 'literal,' I think what he's saying is that literal does not mean a wooden interpretation. We do not say, "The earth will rotate to a point at which we will see the beginning of sunlight on the eastern horizon at 6:35 a.m." We say, "The sun will rise at 6:35 a.m."

When we say the sun will rise are we speaking metaphorically? No. We are using a figure of speech that is taken as a normal meaning even though we know the sun is not rising. Talking about the sun moving in the Bible is the same thing. It's not an error and it's not a lie.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Larry, before you embarrass yourself further about what the word "literal" means, perhaps you should check with some of your colleagues whom you trust to give a fair and honest response as to the meaning of the word "literal"

It most certainly does NOT mean "common usage".

The reason you think I am embarrassing myself is because you are uninformed and unlearned on this topic. Below are three quotes (and I could multiply them many times over if I had the time and wanted to spend it on this). The fact is that I am right about what I said. I, in fact, already gave you several sources that you could verify it in, and rather than use them to learn, you instead made accusations about me. It helps to learn what you are talking about before you go down this road that you have gone down. There is nothing worse than loudly trumpeting your own ignorance.

This recognition of a metaphorical style is not to be thought of as a return to allegorization, nor is it a “spiritualizing” of the passage. When a writer employs metaphor he is to be understood metaphorically and his metaphorical meaning is his literal meaning: that is to say, it is the truth he wishes to convey. The term “literal” stands strictly as the opposite of “figurative,” but in modern speech it often means “real,” and it is used this way by those who want to be sure that they know what the writer really and originally meant. In this sense a metaphorical saying is “literally” true. … Thus a metaphorical statement is “literally” true but cannot be “literalistically” true. The “literal” meaning, then, is what the particular writer intended, and although he used metaphor, no one familiar with the language in which he expressed himself could reasonably misunderstand him (Kevan, “The Principle of Interpretation,” in Revelation and the Bible, ed Henry, p. 294).

Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. It is sometimes called grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined byu grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of the words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. … Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 80).

The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpretation—that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded (Lange, Revelation, cited in Ryrie, p. 81).

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Marcia:
The whole discussion about the earth and the sphere shape took place in the General Baptist Forum on the "Are There Errors in the Bible" thread. I posted the NET Bible's translation of Is 40.22 as "earth's horizon." Anyway, I posted this in that other forum:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Hebrew word here, translated as "circle of the earth" means:

chug (295b); from 02328 ; vault,
horizon :-- circle(1), vault(m)(2).

So there is reason for the NET Bible to translate that as the "earth's horizon." Some also translate it as saying the vault above the earth, but it is not implying the earth is flat in any way.

It comes from a root word meaning

to draw
around, make a circle :-- inscribed a circle(1).

I think the evidence is coming down on the side of this verse implying the earth is spherical more than it implies the earth is flat.

</font>[/QUOTE]The word "horizon" is a modern concept, based on our realization that the earth is a sphere. To one who believed the earth is a flat circle, he would expect there to be an edge which would resemble our horizon idea; in translating we might use horizon for his word, but it would be inappropriate to read into that a thought of a spherical earth just because the translation sort of works.

The idea of a vault over the earth is precisely incompatible with a spherical earth. The vault would be the upside down bowl of the firmament and wouldn't work on a sphere.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Pastor Larry, before you embarrass yourself further about what the word "literal" means, perhaps you should check with some of your colleagues whom you trust to give a fair and honest response as to the meaning of the word "literal"

It most certainly does NOT mean "common usage".

The reason you think I am embarrassing myself is because you are uninformed and unlearned on this topic. Below are three quotes (and I could multiply them many times over if I had the time and wanted to spend it on this). The fact is that I am right about what I said. I, in fact, already gave you several sources that you could verify it in, and rather than use them to learn, you instead made accusations about me. It helps to learn what you are talking about before you go down this road that you have gone down. There is nothing worse than loudly trumpeting your own ignorance.

This recognition of a metaphorical style is not to be thought of as a return to allegorization, nor is it a “spiritualizing” of the passage. When a writer employs metaphor he is to be understood metaphorically and his metaphorical meaning is his literal meaning: that is to say, it is the truth he wishes to convey. The term “literal” stands strictly as the opposite of “figurative,” but in modern speech it often means “real,” and it is used this way by those who want to be sure that they know what the writer really and originally meant. In this sense a metaphorical saying is “literally” true. … Thus a metaphorical statement is “literally” true but cannot be “literalistically” true. The “literal” meaning, then, is what the particular writer intended, and although he used metaphor, no one familiar with the language in which he expressed himself could reasonably misunderstand him (Kevan, “The Principle of Interpretation,” in Revelation and the Bible, ed Henry, p. 294).

Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. It is sometimes called grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined byu grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of the words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. … Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 80).

The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpretation—that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded (Lange, Revelation, cited in Ryrie, p. 81).

</font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry, I remain astonished by your assetions. Did you read what these men said?

"The term “literal” stands strictly as the opposite of “figurative,” but in modern speech it often means “real,” and it is used this way by those who want to be sure that they know what the writer really and originally meant. In this sense a metaphorical saying is “literally” true. … Thus a metaphorical statement is “literally” true but cannot be “literalistically” true."

your source here is actually using a made up word - literalistically! to say something he should have said in another fashion. He started on the right track - when he said "The term 'literal' stands strictly as the opposite of 'figurative'.

Please be advised I am attempting to hold to the strict usage of "literal" in this discussion.

Now we can certainly agree that many passages of scripture are not to be interpreted literally; there are many times the proper interpretation is evidently not literal. The context will define these passages for us and almost without effort we make the adjustments as we read. For example, when Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaratan and urges us to go and do likewise, none of us feels compelled to start travelling with donkeys on the road from Jerusalem to Jerico. The truth of scripture is to be interpreted less literally than that.

I trust that, whatever you might feel concerning your rights to use the word "literally" in a looser fashion, you realize what I was trying to communicate in the preceding paragraph.

My whole point for this thread is not a quarrel over the word "literal" so much as the inconsistency of "literalists" in insisting that passages of their choosing need not be interpreted literally.

Your point is evidently that loosely speaking, the biblical passages referring to the sun moving across the sky literally true because - the word literal itself would allow such a usage. You simply object to holding to the scriptures "literalistically" instead of "literally".

That is quibbling. The point is, shall we accept what the scripture plainly states or shall we not?

In order for your idea to be true, your idea being that the plain statements of scripture about the Sun in the sky don't mean what they literally and "literalistically" say, you would need to find an example somewhere in all the history of human thought prior to copernicus and even further back, back to Biblical times, where the idea was expressed that the earth rotates and this causes night and day. My understanding of the history of science is that there is no such realization at any earlier time in any culture anywhere at all. This would plainly mean that there was perfect accord between the words and the ideas behind the words; that when men spoke of the sun rising, they actually thought the sun was rising; that when the Psalmist said the sun had a chamber, there was an actual place the sun went to when it sets; and so forth.

The belief that the idea of a rotating earth was contrary to the literal words of scripture was plainly expressed by clerics both Catholic and Protestant when the notions of Copernicus started to circulate.

THey thought they had a handle on what scriptures literally meant. You believe they made a mistake. So - the quest is yours to verify your assertion.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Gup20 in another thread:

Yet still YOU are personally responsible for what YOU personally believe. Would you rather believe what God says, or what other men say that God says? You should never trust the opinion of any person who puts knowlege, academia, or human intelligence before scripture.

We have SHOWN you why - based on scripture - we believe what we believe. You have said that you believed something else and based that on man's observation, and man's opinion OF the scripture, yet you still have given no scriptural basis for your belief.

This is exactly the kind of thing this thread is about. Gup20 probably believes the earth rotates, contrary to the plain, ordinary understanding of the language of the Bible relating to the Sun moving across our skies. Gup20 would therefore be guilty of doing exactly the thing Gup20 says here one should never do in interpreting scripture.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Paul,

The fact remains that I was right in my assertion, and you were wrong becuase you don't understand what "literal" means in biblical hermeneutics. You can deny it all you want, but your point will not stand. Read the sources I gave. Immerse yourself in learning about hermeneutics for a few weeks and you will see that what I have said is the standard position.

The rotation of the earth is not contrary to any words of Scripture. It is contrary to your own opinion about what Scriptures authors must have meant. I disagree with your assertions and find no basis for them apart from your attempt to prove something about the word of God.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Pastor Larry, when Copernicus and Gallileo and others first proposed that the earth rotates, and this is the cause of day and night, they met with clerical opposition.

This is a fact of history.

The clerics called on all good christians to stick with the ________ interpretation of scripture instead of accepting the teachings of science.

The word that should go here would be

a. Literal

b. Something else (you tell me what)

I am simply telling you that the natuaral meaning of the word "literal" fits here and for you to claim it does not is to be perversly stubborn about what the word "literal" means.

But of course I am very curious as to how you would prefer to alternatively express the idea. Surely you do not wish to leave the english language bereft of any way to express what you know I am trying to say. Your suggestions?

 

[Pastor Larry]

My suggestion is that when you talk about biblical hermeneutics, you use the word "literal" like most others do, including the teachers/authors on the subject. I am talking about "literal" in biblical hermeneutics. I quoted you three sources and gave you references to others (my colleagues, if you will, that you claimed I should ask) so that you could find out for yourself. I am not asking you take my word for it. I have proven it and told where to find it yourself.

I do not know what the clerics of the 1400 and 1500s told people to stick with. What I do know is what "literal" means in biblical interpretation. I also know that you should not impose your view on the text and presume that they meant what you think they should have meant.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

What word would mean to accept the words of the Bible as they are written instead of reinterpreting them to mean what we understand today? What word would mean to accept what every person in the world thought was happening when dawn arrived, and they thought the sun was actually climbing up into the sky before their very eyes, as being the denotation of the words "we watched the sun rise?"

Literal doesn't cut it for you. How should I express that idea instead? What would be the natural, appropriate thing to say instead of saying they literally believed the sun moved across the sky, back in bible times?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Literal might be the expression you would use for that. But when theologians talk about literal interpretation, they usually do not mean that. And since you asked me to consult with "my colleagues" to see what they would say, I did just that, and showed you that they agree with me.

I don't care what word you use for it, just understand what "literal interpretation" means in biblical hermeneutics.

But more to the point, you don't have any idea that the biblical authors meant what you think they mean. You are surmising that because of your presupposition and because of your intent to find some problem with the Bible. The words are the exact same words we use today to describe the exact same thing. What "every person in the world thought" is beyond the realm of your knowledge. So accept that, and understand that the point you are trying to make fails at the outset because you based it on a wrong principle to start with.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Ahh, now we can begin to discuss the ideas instead of the words. Let's cut to the chase.
Note I do not mean we are literally running around or wielding knives.

You claim that we can have no idea what the Biblical authors meant by the words describing the sun going across the sky.

We have the documentation of history how the idea that the earth rotates was hard-won by men of science (Copernicus, Gallileo, Keppler, et. al.)

We have the documentation of history how the scientific idea was opposed when it was first presented.

We have an unbroken series of references prior to the science to the sun moving across our skies, both from pagan mythology and from literary references including our bible passages, with never a single reference in any passage anywhere that the actual facts might differ from the words being used.

Why do you even entertain the possibility that prior to Copernicus references such as this did not mean exactly what the words denote, considered as literal words?

Do you have some reference somewhere, where the explanation of what was truly believed was mentioned, instead? Today, we regularly take time on various occasions to pause and say we don't really mean the sun rises, the earth rotates. Do you have any pre-Copernican reference along that line at all? Biblical or extra-biblical?

Are you aware of the many cosmologies that were developed that explicitly stated the sun moved around the earth, including Ptolomy from ancient Egypt? Are you aware of all the ancient mythologies that explained who it was that dragged the sun across the sky? Are you aware of the crystalline spheres postulated by Aristotle that moved around the earth?

There was no dearth of statements about the Sun. It was just never imagined that the earth rotated - that the solid foundation under our feet is moving. Human imagination wasn't up to that. Only science could find it out. Divine revelation might have been a source - do you have any evidence anywhere that such a revelation actually occurred?

Please do not fell I am trying to find a fault with the Bible. I am not proposing to do anything else with these verses about the Sun moving across the sky than anybody else. That is, where it states one thing literally, I read into it my modern knowledge, and accept that as what I understand them today.

In fact, it is my proposition that in viewing the text it is OK to do that.

I simply ask for the right to do the same thing with reference to other scientific discoveries in addition to the rotation of the earth, including the ancient age of the earth and the common descent of all life.

I further believe that the real reason for all the opposition to doing that is simply because the realization that the ancient age of the earth and the common descent of all life are factual has simply not sunk in to the minds of many of our folk.

 

[Travelsong]

AMEN!

 

[BobRyan]

We have PERFECT understanding of what the Bible writers meant when the use the term "Evening and Morning were ONE day". Impossible to bend, twist, obfuscate or misdirect on such clear and obvious, consistent meaning all through scripture.

Evolutionists "like to pretend" that the language is "so vague" and "so unknowable" that MAYBE it could be bent or twisted into "millions of years of undetermined time" ...

Yet even a child knows that the text of scripture does not support such abusive "reworking".

So "on other days" those SAME evolutionists will "confess" that God DID use Creationist terms and NOT evolutionist. They claim He had no intention of teaching evolution but rather the CREATOR was teaching CREATION to HIS stupid ignorant people of Bible times since they were not yet skilled enough at creating solar systems and life -- to know "the truth".

And so we watch as they "try both ways" to wedge evolutionism in - one way or the other.

Very instructive to the objective reader.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

BobRyan, we have all been exposed to your opinion on this part of the subject time and time again. In honor of the theme of this thread, we need to hear from you a defense for rejecting the literal interpretation of the bible concerning the movement of the Sun across the sky as the cause of day and night, and a cogent explanation as to why we can reject the one literal teaching yet are bound to accept the other.

 

[A_Christian]

The sun rises in the East and sets in the West. This is literally what one witnesses standing in one's own yard.

How this happens is a scientific explanation and doesn't injure the Word of GOD.

 

[Johnv]

OTOH,

There used to be a person on this board who said that the earth was the center of the universe, and that everything revolved around it, just like we used to think way back when. He cited verses referring to the sun rising, and made the (ridiculous) assertion that God no more made the sun appear to rise than he made the Son to appear to rise.

Yes, I know, different arguement, but you see how it can open a can o'worms.

Blessings,
Johnv