Why does it matter if its factual ?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This post seems to suggest that in the not too recent past it was normal to interpret the bible literally and that those that do not need some kind of personal excuse for not doing so.

There is abundant evidence that is is not the case at all. My understanding is that biblical literalism is largely a recent development, due to sects such as the 7th Day Adventists and similar, around the end of the c.19th and subsequently*.

The main traditions of the established churches have always realised, from 200AD onwards, that interpretation was needed, generally of the first and second kinds in your list, though sometimes latterly the third too, as science started to advance. Just about any member of one of the more established Christian denominations, with a structure to its clergy and a developed body of theology, (e.g. Catholic, Anglican/Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian) is a "non-literalist" by default.



* From the Wik article on biblical literalism: Karen Armstrong, a most popular liberal living historian of religion writes, 'Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture. The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge.'

P.S. In fact this Wiki article is worth a read, to get a more accurate idea of how limited the prevalence of literalism actually is: Biblical literalism - Wikipedia

Biblical literalism is not a recent thing. We only need to look to Ussher's chronology and the Church's opposition to Galileo (both in the 17th century) or the many kings through history who claimed descent from David or Solomon (e.g. the Ethiopian kings from the 13th century on) to see cases of people treating the events described in the Bible as literally true going back to ancient times.

 

[exchemist]

Biblical literalism is not a recent thing. We only need to look to Ussher's chronology and the Church's opposition to Galileo (both in the 17th century) or the many kings through history who claimed descent from David or Solomon (e.g. the Ethiopian kings from the 13th century on) to see cases of people treating the events described in the Bible as literally true going back to ancient times.

OK but literalism is the idea that everything in the bible is to be taken literally. This was never the position of the Catholic church. They objected, specifically, to Galileo's contradiction of what they had understood from the bible, since up to that point there had never been any reason to imagine that it, Aristotle and Ptolemy were all wrong (and they were hypersensitive to heresy at that time, due to the contemporary threat from the Protestant Reformation.)

And Ussher's chronology was not official church doctrine, it was just one interpretation of the age of the Earth, at one point in history - and again long before there was any scientifically determined view to contradict it. It does not indicate that the Anglican church of the day was literalist in its reading of the bible.

It is obvious Christians did, and do, treat some things in the bible as literally true. That does not make them literalists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK but literalism is the idea that everything in the bible is to be taken literally. This was never the position of the Catholic church.

That's never been anybody's position, AFAICT. I mean, I've never met anyone who thinks that when Jesus says "feed my lambs" in the Gospels, he's talking about livestock.

A much more common understanding of literalism is the one you see in this thread: assuming that the fantastic stories in the Bible really did happen as described. By that measure, Young Earth Creationism is literalism. Belief in a God who literally resides on a throne in Heaven is literalism. Taking Jesus seriously when he says "some of this generation will not pass away" before the Second Coming is literalism.

They objected, specifically, to Galileo's contradiction of what they had understood from the bible, since up to that point there had never been any reason to imagine that it, Aristotle and Ptolemy were all wrong (and they were hypersensitive to heresy at that time, due to the contemporary threat from the Protestant Reformation.)

And it was considered heresy because it contradicted a literalist understanding of the Bible.

And Ussher's chronology was not official church doctrine, it was just one interpretation of the age of the Earth, at one point in history - and again long before there was any scientifically determined view to contradict it. It does not indicate that the Anglican church of the day was literalist in its reading of the bible.

No, it's just evidence that a literalist mindset was common enough that someone like Bishop Ussher would assume as a starting point that the Bible was literally true as a starting point for investigating the physical world.

It is obvious Christians did, and do, treat some things in the bible as literally true. That does not make them literalists.

It seems to me that you and your friends should figure out what "literalism" is supposed to mean, because we have people in this very thread objecting to descriptions of gods as "cosmic supermen" on the grounds that this is "literalist," while you're claiming that "literalism" means taking every word of the Bible literally.

I mean, would you say that a Young Earth Creationist isn't necessarily a literalist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nice post. To me one of the main purposes of true religion is to create peaceful, loving and intelligent human beings and foster unity and world brotherhood.

What leads you to that conclusion?

Edit: and what do you mean by "true religion?"

 

[Trackdayguy]

That's never been anybody's position, AFAICT. I mean, I've never met anyone who thinks that when Jesus says "feed my lambs" in the Gospels, he's talking about livestock.

A much more common understanding of literalism is the one you see in this thread: assuming that the fantastic stories in the Bible really did happen as described. By that measure, Young Earth Creationism is literalism. Belief in a God who literally resides on a throne in Heaven is literalism. Taking Jesus seriously when he says "some of this generation will not pass away" before the Second Coming is literalism.


And it was considered heresy because it contradicted a literalist understanding of the Bible.


No, it's just evidence that a literalist mindset was common enough that someone like Bishop Ussher would assume as a starting point that the Bible was literally true as a starting point for investigating the physical world.


It seems to me that you and your friends should figure out what "literalism" is supposed to mean, because we have people in this very thread objecting to descriptions of gods as "cosmic supermen" on the grounds that this is "literalist," while you're claiming that "literalism" means taking every word of the Bible literally.

I mean, would you say that a Young Earth Creationist isn't necessarily a literalist?

Brilliant, couldn't have said it better.

 

[exchemist]

That's never been anybody's position, AFAICT. I mean, I've never met anyone who thinks that when Jesus says "feed my lambs" in the Gospels, he's talking about livestock.

A much more common understanding of literalism is the one you see in this thread: assuming that the fantastic stories in the Bible really did happen as described. By that measure, Young Earth Creationism is literalism. Belief in a God who literally resides on a throne in Heaven is literalism. Taking Jesus seriously when he says "some of this generation will not pass away" before the Second Coming is literalism.


And it was considered heresy because it contradicted a literalist understanding of the Bible.


No, it's just evidence that a literalist mindset was common enough that someone like Bishop Ussher would assume as a starting point that the Bible was literally true as a starting point for investigating the physical world.


It seems to me that you and your friends should figure out what "literalism" is supposed to mean, because we have people in this very thread objecting to descriptions of gods as "cosmic supermen" on the grounds that this is "literalist," while you're claiming that "literalism" means taking every word of the Bible literally.

I mean, would you say that a Young Earth Creationist isn't necessarily a literalist?

My friends? Who are they, in your opinion?

I just think if you play around with the meaning of literalist in this way you deprive it of all useful meaning. The generally accepted sense of the term - though I admit I have never seen it formally defined this way - is someone who asserts the literal truth of a biblical account in the face of solid evidence to the contrary. So someone who still thinks Joshua literally did get God to make the sun stand still, that there literally was no physical death in the world until the first sin of a literal couple of actual people called Adam and Eve, etc etc - you know the drill as well as I do.

If instead you go back in history to a time when there was no evidence the contrary, then it strikes me as a little unfair to judge those people by knowledge you have, now, but they didn't, then. That's all.

Ussher for instance was just going on the only source available to him at the time. What is silly is people who hung onto (and even today still hang onto) Ussher's chronology, after the science of geology had developed a proper analysis of the age of the Earth, in the mid c.19th. In fact, the churchmen were pretty quick to realise that Ussher's idea had to be dropped. One of the most prominent geologists at the time was in fact a clergyman - Buckland.

There's an article here with more detail of what the church thought about it at the time. You will note the use of the term literalist in the sense in which I have been using it: https://michaelroberts4004.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/genesis-and-geology-unearthed.pdf

 

[Segev Moran]

As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual. in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

For me as an ex, I feel sorry for the folks who in my opinion have been hood winked, sadly some of the most closed minded people I know are fundamentalists.

I think it is a very important question.
The entire Jewish religion is based on the biblical stories.
I cannot say the same about the NT as i do not know enough about Christianity, but without a doubt,one cannot be a religious Jewish without accepting the stories of the bible as true.
The reason is very simple, all the Jewish "Mizvas" are all from the bible.
Each ritual, tradition, idea are all directly from the bible.

I cannot see how one can say X is true but Y is not. I see it as black or white. either it is all true or it is all false.

 

[Firemorphic]

As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual.

Those two things (fundamentalism and believing in the Biblical account as a factual thing) aren't synonymous with each other and require wise distinction.
It takes a knowledge of a religion's schisms and theological history to know were some of the biggest misconceptions surround this (regarding Christianity?, I presume)


(And no, I'm not going to give a comment on the Bible itself because that's another topic)

 

[loverofhumanity]

What leads you to that conclusion?

Edit: and what do you mean by "true religion?"

By true religion I mean this.. I can’t put it in any better words than below.

Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth; it should give birth to spirituality, and bring light and life to every soul. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure, but if the remedy only aggravates the complaint, it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion. (Baha’i Writings)

 

[Trackdayguy]

By true religion I mean this.. I can’t put it in any better words than below.

Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth; it should give birth to spirituality, and bring light and life to every soul. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure, but if the remedy only aggravates the complaint, it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion. (Baha’i Writings)

Who ever wrote that is delusional. Religion in most cases reflects peoples world view, culture and values which is why we have disagreements.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Who ever wrote that is delusional. Religion in most cases reflects peoples world view, culture and values which is why we have disagreements.

My understanding is true religion is what the Founders originally taught not human additions and interpretations thus the difference between true and man made religion.

Christ for instance taught love so why isn’t Chrustianity one united family if they all follow Jesus teaching of love? If religionists obeyed what the Founders originally taught I believe there would never ever have been any religious wars in human history.

 

[PruePhillip]

Good question. Lots of things. The real issue for the literalist is (Is it factual) NOT what is the text speaking to me about.
In answer to your question I think the fruit that I saw fundamentalism create. I think that fundamentalism is attractive to insecure and fragile people who need some absolutes in their life.

Judgment
Segregation
Pride
Blindness
Arrogance
Close mindedness

are all the fruits I observed in fundamentalism

So why is it that people won't judge Jesus as being narrow minded?
He condemns Israel and its children to the siege engines of the Romans.
He puts a curse on Jews for generations to come.
Anyone not found following him to the letter is doomed for eternity.

Is this why people present him as a tolerant, animal loving, kid hugging,
good looking, peacenik sort of guy?

 

[blü 2]

As an ex literalist & fundamentalist I realize 1st hand why its so important for some folks to believe the Biblical account is factual.]

If you think about it, it's because they've never examined their assumption that 'truth' means 'according to the bible' (which contradicts itself so many times that the proposition is untenable).

I hold with what's called the 'correspondence' view: a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms to / accurately reflects objective reality.

in my opinion what that insistence produces is argumentativeness and strife

My definition of truth can have that effect. It's up to the participants to argue honestly from examinable evidence and keep cool.

To me the whole concept of literalism misses the point, so instead of this amazing book (The Bible) becoming a source of spiritual inspiration it becomes a weapon and a debating platform on whether or not its literally true.

It's too too easy to show it's not literally true. For example, none of the authors of the NT ever met a real Jesus. Bits of the bible may reflect actual history, though.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If you think about it, it's because they've never examined their assumption that 'truth' means 'according to the bible' (which contradicts itself so many times that the proposition is untenable).

I hold with what's called the 'correspondence' view: a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / conforms to / accurately reflects objective reality.
My definition of truth can have that effect. It's up to the participants to argue honestly from examinable evidence and keep cool.
It's too too easy to show it's not literally true. For example, none of the authors of the NT ever met a real Jesus. Bits of the bible may reflect actual history, though.

With over 40,000 sects already of Christianity I think the point has been proven beyond doubt that neither human argument, speculation or cool reasoning is able to distinguish between what is factual and what is not.

The only way I believe of knowing the truth is from God Himself to inform us. And after Jesus He has sent Muhammad and the Quran, the Bab and His Writings and Baha’u’llah Who have confirmed what is allegorical, what is mere superstition and vain imaginings and what is truth.

Turning to God through His Manifestations I believe gives us the truth about the Bible whereas human argument and learning are flawed and imperfect and the divisions and sects in both Islam and Christianity prove this in my humble opinion.

Even in the Bible Jesus promises that when ‘He the spirit of truth comes He will guide us into all truth’. I believe this is referring to Baha’u’llah.

 

[PruePhillip]

... none of the authors of the NT ever met a real Jesus. Bits of the bible may reflect actual history, though.

Please don't quote received wisdom from biblical "scholars"
Of the seven or so authors of the NT I would say that two or
three never met Jesus - that would be Luke, Paul and the
maybe the unknown author of Hebrews.

When you read the epistles of John you see the same person
depicted in the Gospels, "the one whom Jesus loved."
And if the epistle of Peter states that the author was an "eye
witness" to Jesus then I am happy with that statement.
Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, which as he states, was a
research effort of people who knew Jesus. Luke also wrote
The Acts. His work finishes about AD 64 - cut off mysteriously
in a manner similar to the Greek historian Thucydides history.

They don't always agree. Today I read about the guy called
Legion of the Gadarenes. Legion is one person, or he is
two. And Gadara is represented three ways by three authors.
But that's okay, it shows no-one was editing these texts in
later centuries to iron our discrepancies. No two historians
ever agree on anything.

 

[Jumi]

For me rejecting literalism for the heresy it is has increased my faith, made me less judgmental and open my eyes to a spiritual dynamic in my life rather than arguments, debates and strife over whether of not the text is factual.

It is quite refreshing isn't it? Saves a lot of time being spent on pointless mental exercises of hiding ones head in the sand at tactical moments too where facts become unbearable...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By true religion I mean this.. I can’t put it in any better words than below.

Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth; it should give birth to spirituality, and bring light and life to every soul. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division it would be better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure, but if the remedy only aggravates the complaint, it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion. (Baha’i Writings)

Why would religions like that be any more "true religions" than any other?

(Though at this point, we're speaking hypothetically, since - IMO - the inherent tribalism of religion means that no religion is a cause for unity)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My understanding is true religion is what the Founders originally taught not human additions and interpretations thus the difference between true and man made religion.

Christ for instance taught love so why isn’t Chrustianity one united family if they all follow Jesus teaching of love? If religionists obeyed what the Founders originally taught I believe there would never ever have been any religious wars in human history.

Are you talking about this Jesus? You find his message to be one of unity?

Matthew 10:34-36:

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law,36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 10:34-36 - New English Translation

 

[Augustus]

And it was considered heresy because it contradicted a literalist understanding of the Bible.

It contradicted a point of theology that happened to be based on a literalist interpretation of a certain Biblical passage, it wasn't heretical simply for contradicting a literalist understanding of the Bible.

Galileo was guilty of heresy for claiming as fact that the Church was wrong on a point of theology. This point of theology was both supported by a literal interpretation of one part scripture and by the consensus of contemporary 'scientists' based on their Aristotelian natural philosophy.

Had the overwhelming scientific consensus been in favour of heliocentrism, the Church would likely have revised their position as it was not theologically married to a strict literalist interpretation.

Difficulties raised by the literal sense of certain passages could be dealt with by appealing to the long-standing principle of accommodation – the idea that the words of Scripture had been tailored to the capacities of its original audience.
This principle was available to Catholics, but could be applied only with the warrant of the appropriate authorities. Protestant interpreters were also free to reject exegetical traditions that over the centuries had necessarily been influenced by the principles of Aristotelian natural philosophy.
The Bible and the emerging ‘scientific’ world-view
Peter Harrison

Non-literal interpretations of scripture were as old as the church:

Origen in his Treatise on First Principles, recommends for the Old and New Testaments to be interpreted allegorically at three levels, the "flesh," the "soul," and the "spirit." He states that many of the events recounted in the Scriptures, if they are interpreted in the literal, or fleshly, sense, are impossible or nonsensical. They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. Some passages have parts that are literally true and parts that are literally impossible. Then, "the reader must endeavor to grasp the entire meaning, connecting by an intellectual process the account of what is literally impossible with the parts that are not impossible but historically true, these being interpreted allegorically in common with the part which, so far as the letter goes, did not happen at all."

Stricter literalism was a later development:

Early modern Christian exegetes were heirs to a complicated hermeneutical tradition developed over the course of centuries and ostensibly based on a fourfold division of meaning. The fourfold sense of Scripture, a product of the early church, was based in the first instance on a twofold division between the literal (sometimes also called historical) sense and the spiritual sense, as expressed, for example, in Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians and in the writing of the Greek exegete Origen (c. 184–254). Early on, exegetes began to draw additional distinctions within the spiritual sense, constructing three- fold or fourfold hermeneutical schemes. Origen elaborated a threefold under- standing of Scripture, distinguishing between literal, allegorical and moral senses, and Gregory the Great (c. 540–604) famously followed this model.2 John Cassian (c. 360–435) divided the spiritual sense into three subcategories – the allegorical, the moral and the anagogical – and he is generally credited with the first clear articulation of what was to become the dominant Christian hermeneutic.

While the idea of multivocality in the text was central to all medieval exegesis, an overwhelming preference for spirit over letter marked Christian reading of Scripture from late antiquity until the twelfth century, when a changing intellectual culture and renewed interest in classical grammar, rhetoric and history in burgeoning schools gave rise to new interest in the literal–historical sense.



Theories of interpretation: The quadriga and its successors -
Deeana Copeland Klepper (from: New Cambridge History of the Bible)

That's never been anybody's position, AFAICT. I mean, I've never met anyone who thinks that when Jesus says "feed my lambs" in the Gospels, he's talking about livestock.

The literalist position would be that he literally said that in the context described in the Bible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is quite refreshing isn't it? Saves a lot of time being spent on pointless mental exercises of hiding ones head in the sand at tactical moments too where facts become unbearable...

I don't see why a non-literalist interpretation would take any less time or effort. If anything - if the interpretation is taken for honest reasons, anyhow - it should be more work to interpret a passage or book of scripture non-literally.

If someone's trying to give a factual account of a literal event, then this means that some details of the account might be insignificant or even irrelevant: the reader can infer that some detail was included in the story simply because it was happening at the same time as everything else, and therefore might not be related to the overall theme of the account.

A literal interpretation also allows for mistakes in the story: maybe the author was an unreliable witness (or was recounting the story of an unreliable witness) and mistakes crept in. When we take a story as a literal account, we can always say "well... maybe the author got that detail wrong."

Non-literalist interpretations don't allow these outs, though. You still need to approach assuming that every word was placed there deliberately, even if the reason wasn't "to recount something that actually happened."

If the author intended the story to be non-literal, then every word has significance. Every word is important to the overall meaning.

And with a non-literal interpretation, we can't assume that the author got details wrong. If the author is describing something that was constructed in their own head to express some meaning, then the author can't be an unrealiable witness: the author's understanding of the thing being described is the thing being described.