If you are going to talk about a literal interpretation of scripture you might want to study it and learn what in the world you are talking about so you will not say foolish things like this.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
wasn't the historical position of the Church was Literal 6 days/Young earth?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
If you are going to talk about a literal interpretation of scripture you might want to study it and learn what in the world you are talking about so you will not say foolish things like this.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Rev, I understand his point, and I think you do as well. He is calling out a principle, a principle we ALL "fail" in at times. We take things literally or literalistic when we think they should be or when someone else has convinced through some form of analysis or hermeneutic to do so. And others we do not take literal or literalistic for the same reasons.
I don't know what this means. Nodak showed that he/she doesn't know what the literal interpretation of scripture is. Their example was absurd.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Just for clarity, I think he was making the point that being "literal" is often in the eye of the interpreter. His catholic example of transubstantiation which certainly can be be seen as "most literal", and we non-catholic would favor a more general and less "literal" interpretation of the body and blood during the "Lords Supper" (sacrament).
Again such an example is foolish, because it has nothing to do with what an actual literal interpretation is. It is not a subjective issue. If you have to go to an extreme example to make your point then you must not really have one. That usually happens when one is trying to defend the indefensible.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Well, we will just disagree, I do think he makes a point of principle.
The you do not understand the literal interpretation of scripture. Surprised as I am.
This old grandma is most definitely a she.
I was pointing out the absurdity of making a case regarding creation basing it on what the church has historically taught, or a claim to a more literal interpretation of the Bible.
The organized church has taught some pretty ridiculous stuff over time. And strict literalism gets pretty wacky also. It would send us running to Rome over the nature of the elements in communion. It would have us literally stoning our rebellious teenage sons. And I bet lots of the gents on this board trim the corners of their beards. (Or have no beards at all!)
We can have the debate. But let's not get our knickers in a twist and try to take the moral high ground of "it is what the church always taught and is more literal." That high ground is pretty well washed out.
Name calling and sarcasm, by the way, are forbidden to us Christians. We are to show the world we are Christians by our love.
I was pointing out the absurdity of making a case regarding creation basing it on what the church has historically taught, or a claim to a more literal interpretation of the Bible.
The organized church has taught some pretty ridiculous stuff over time. And strict literalism gets pretty wacky also. It would send us running to Rome over the nature of the elements in communion. It would have us literally stoning our rebellious teenage sons. And I bet lots of the gents on this board trim the corners of their beards. (Or have no beards at all!)
We can have the debate. But let's not get our knickers in a twist and try to take the moral high ground of "it is what the church always taught and is more literal." That high ground is pretty well washed out.
Name calling and sarcasm, by the way, are forbidden to us Christians. We are to show the world we are Christians by our love.
quantumfaith
Active Member
My, My....your are surprised very easily.
quantumfaith
Active Member
So who called anyone names?
quantumfaith
Active Member
I think she was referring to one of my posts when I referred to nodak as "he".
Anyone could see that getting that wrong was not on purpose.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Curious... do you have a verse that says to interpret literally?
Cause I can point to Scripture that would indicate otherwise (see my siggie).
And Quantom's example about a RCC understanding of the Lord's Supper is not an extreme view. That was a good example of a literal understanding of Scripture. That was you more or less skirting the issue.
I think the term "literal" is unhelpful in these discussions. It is a word loaded w/ meanings and nuances, each person using it has a different understanding of what it is. Even "historical-grammatical" has lost its value. But "literal" is certainly an unhelpful thing b/c we hardly use that kind of interpretation consistently. We move from figural to literal to literary to allegorical to metaphorical language all the time w/ our tongues. Even saying "move" is not literal b/c that word implies physical motion. Ideas are not physical and thus do not move. We don't speak in literal terms. So "literal" is a term that doesn't help that much.
No its not. What this is, is those who do not like it exaggerating the issue in order to demonize the issue. Sad.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Disagree. What RCC exactly do is overemphasize the Lord's table based on an over literal (i.e. being literal when literal was not intended) understanding of many passages. Its a great example!
Just because the "RCC" misuses the literal does not negate the whole thing. Baptist are not comparable to the RCC. Seriously if you must use them then your case must be weak.
how about defining the term "plain and literal" meaning of the bibical text is to have us read and inteprete its meaning based upon the grammar, structure, syntax, contex, and to also understand its genre being employed?
based upon that, a literal reading of Genesis still gets a literal 6 days of creation, no evolutionary processes!
quantumfaith
Active Member
I did not intend to start a fracas over the concept of "literal", only making the observation, we all have our views on being literal. Ones "literal" is often unacceptable by another, or if not outright rejected, then taken as "not so literal".
the Church of Rome does NOT onteprete the text in a literal fashion, for if they did, they woudl NOT see Communion and water Baptism as they have and do!