Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Consider the following:
Biblical literalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As far as I know, the majority of biblical literalists believe one or more of the following claims:
1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is young.
In addition, as far as I know, the vast majority of Christians who believe one or more of those claims are much more likely to oppose homosexuality, and/or same-sex marraige, and/or abortion, than Christians who are theistic evolutionists, and/or do not believe that a global flood occurred, and/or believe that the earth is old.
I also believe that biblical literalists are more likely than liberal Christians to believe that President Obama is a Muslim, and that President Obama's birth certificate is a forgery.
If a God inspired the Bible, which does he prefer, biblical literalism, or liberal Christian theology? I know that those two terms do not have exact defintions, but we have enough information about the meanings to have some discussions.
Biblical literalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia said:Biblical literalism (also called Biblicism or Biblical fundamentalism) is the interpretation or translation of the explicit and primary sense of words in the Bible. A literal Biblical interpretation is associated with the fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to Scripture—the historical-grammatical method—and is used extensively by conservative Christians, in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christians. The essence of this approach focuses upon the author's intent as the primary meaning of the text. Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor). Also literalism does not necessarily lead to total and complete agreement upon one single interpretation for any given passage.
There are two kinds of literal interpretation, letterism and the more common historical-grammatical method. Letterism attempts to uncover the meaning of the text through a strict emphasis upon a mechanical, wooden literalism of words. This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text. The historical grammatical method is a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre.
Fundamentalists and Evangelicals sometimes refer to themselves as "literalists" or Biblical literalists. Sociologists also use the term in reference to conservative Christian beliefs which include not just literalism but also inerrancy. Often the term Biblical literalism is used as a pejorative to describe or ridicule the interpretative approaches of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians.
As far as I know, the majority of biblical literalists believe one or more of the following claims:
1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is young.
In addition, as far as I know, the vast majority of Christians who believe one or more of those claims are much more likely to oppose homosexuality, and/or same-sex marraige, and/or abortion, than Christians who are theistic evolutionists, and/or do not believe that a global flood occurred, and/or believe that the earth is old.
I also believe that biblical literalists are more likely than liberal Christians to believe that President Obama is a Muslim, and that President Obama's birth certificate is a forgery.
If a God inspired the Bible, which does he prefer, biblical literalism, or liberal Christian theology? I know that those two terms do not have exact defintions, but we have enough information about the meanings to have some discussions.
Last edited: