Why literal creationists are abusing scripture

[Quiddity]

I figured this was worth sharing and it may just turn into an interesting discussion or debate.

An irritating feature of modern life is the way in which useful words get hijacked and used for different, and often unacceptable, purposes. An example is “creationist”. As a Christian believer I am, of course, a creationist in the proper sense of the term, for I believe that the mind and the purpose of a divine Creator lie behind the fruitful history and remarkable order of the universe which science explores. But I am certainly not a creationist in that curious North American sense, which implies interpreting Genesis 1 in a flat-footed literal way and supposing that evolution is wrong.

The irony of this notion of creationism is that it not only involves many scientific errors, but is also the result of a bad theological mistake. When we read any kind of deep literature, if we are to give it the respect that it deserves we must make sure we understand the genre of what is written. Mistaking poetry for prose can lead to false conclusions. When Robert Burns tell us his love “is like a red, red rose”, we know that we are not meant to think that his girlfriend has green leaves and prickles. Reading Genesis 1 as if it were a divinely dictated scientific text, intended to save us the trouble of actually doing science, is to make a similar kind of error. We miss the point of the chapter if we do not see that it is actually a piece of deep theological writing whose purpose, through the eight-times reiterated phrase “And God said, ‘Let there be . . .”, is to assert that everything that exists does so because of the will of the Creator. Thus literal creationists actually abuse scripture by the mistaken interpretation that they impose upon it.

Continued…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4790446.ece

Thoughts?

 

[Willamena]

Thus literal creationists actually abuse scripture by the mistaken interpretation that they impose upon it.

Thoughts?

I agree. Do you feel that painful wince, too, when they suggest that "interpretation" applies only to the non-literal, but the literal is "truth"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you feel that painful wince, too, when they suggest that "interpretation" applies only to the non-literal, but the literal is "truth"?

I certainly do.

That is not to say, however, that non-creationists are free from interpretative errors.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I said in another thread, I personally think that fixating on a literal interpretation of Genesis can only serve to distract from other aspects of the Bible. Does the message of the Gospels, for example, have anything at all to do with bizarre definitions of the term "after their kind"?

Also, I think that if I was a Christian, I would see that sort of behaviour as a form of blasphemy. If the universe is an expression of the will of God, then denying the truth of scientific facts is akin to denying God.

To top it all off, since (IMO) Creationism (at least how the word is typically used, and not in the sense that you called yourself a creationist in the OP) involves a large measure of deceit, I think it's incompatible with any religion that considers honesty a virtue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree. Do you feel that painful wince, too, when they suggest that "interpretation" applies only to the non-literal, but the literal is "truth"?

It seems to me that anyone who suggests that has not realized that interpretation by the reader must be present whenever meaning is taken from a text.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

As I said in another thread, I personally think that fixating on a literal interpretation of Genesis can only serve to distract from other aspects of the Bible. Does the message of the Gospels, for example, have anything at all to do with bizarre definitions of the term "after their kind"?

Also, I think that if I was a Christian, I would see that sort of behaviour as a form of blasphemy. If the universe is an expression of the will of God, then denying the truth of scientific facts is akin to denying God.

To top it all off, since (IMO) Creationism (at least how the word is typically used, and not in the sense that you called yourself a creationist in the OP) involves a large measure of deceit, I think it's incompatible with any religion that considers honesty a virtue.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, really.

These people are prone to commiting all kinds of atrocities in the name of a strict interpretation of Scripture.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's just the tip of the iceberg, really.

These people are prone to commiting all kinds of atrocities in the name of a strict interpretation of Scripture.

No so strict as they would have you believe, though. For instance, I've seen plenty of "literal" interpretations of the Bible that seem to have missed the explicit commands in the Gospels for love and compassion.

 

[Quiddity]

I agree. Do you feel that painful wince, too, when they suggest that "interpretation" applies only to the non-literal, but the literal is "truth"?

I do.

However, I've been getting just as perturbed with the way the word "literal" gets used. I really wish people would start using that term more correctly. The literal sense of "God is a rock" is that God is steadfast, that is the literal sense. The spiritual senses can then be founded on that. One then first has to ascertain what the letter of Genesis seeks to convey as far as history is concerned. True, it need not be a scientific history or a history like Herodotus, but a symbolism must be found in the letter.

Sooooooo.....technically one can be a complete literalist with regard to the Bible and still agree that Genesis didn't mean to convey emperical truths as it relates to science.

Then you have the word "hyper-literalist" which is the word I tend to use, but avoid using it in this forum mostly because I end up speaking a different language here then if I was talking to my own.

Anyways, I most certainly agree with Dr. Polkinghorne but refrain from using an area of freedom (catholics are both hyper-literalist and literalist when it comes to Genesis) to claim that the opposing party is theologically wrong. This is what got Galileo in trouble. He was right about science, but wrong about condemning certain theological propositions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do.

However, I've been getting just as perturbed with the way the word "literal" gets used. I really wish people would start using that term more correctly. The literal sense of "God is a rock" is that God is steadfast, that is the literal sense.

I'm pretty sure that that usage would be the metaphoric sense, not the literal. The literal sense of "God is a rock" would imply that God is made up of cooled magma and would hurt if He fell on your foot.

However, I also think it's silly for someone to arbitrarily decide that the literal meaning of a text can be the only valid one.

 

[Sunstone]

Literalists can be pretty selective in which parts of their holy text they take as literal.

 

[Watchmen]

So, speaking of being selective, how do we know what should be taken literally and what should not be? For example, I completely agree with the OP in terms of the creation, however, I also believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. The outsider can simply point to my contradictions in interpretation methods to damage the credibility of my interpretations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, speaking of being selective, how do we know what should be taken literally and what should not be?

God tells you?

Seriously, some denominations hold that the Bible is divinely inspired, but requires the reader to be divinely inspired to take the full and proper meaning from it.

Short of that, maybe study, reflection and logic?

For example, I completely agree with the OP in terms of the creation, however, I also believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ. The outsider can simply point to my contradictions in interpretation methods to damage the credibility of my interpretations.

Why would it be a contradiction for you to interpret one Biblical passage literally and another one allegorically or metaphorically? Assuming you have good reasons for your decisions to do so, I don't see any contradiction at all.

In fact, I would think that taking literal vs. metaphoric interpretation as an all-or-nothing premise for the entire Bible as a unit would be kinda silly.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm pretty sure that that usage would be the metaphoric sense, not the literal. The literal sense of "God is a rock" would imply that God is made up of cooled magma and would hurt if He fell on your foot.

However, I also think it's silly for someone to arbitrarily decide that the literal meaning of a text can be the only valid one.

I agree...however one doesn't have the luxury to extract whatever meaning they want either. Atleast, not if they want to do the text justice.

...adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression

literal - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[1]

 

[Quiddity]

Literalists can be pretty selective in which parts of their holy text they take as literal.

So can non-literalist.

 

[Willamena]

I agree...however one doesn't have the luxury to extract whatever meaning they want either. Atleast, not if they want to do the text justice.

...adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression

literal - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[1]

I see where you are coming from, but in terms of the construction of our "ordinary" the primary will always be the one first learned; no? Did you first learn "rock" as "steadfast" or as a hunk of earth?

Edit: And bonus question: In what way do you susppose "steadfast" is a hunk of earth?

 

[Quiddity]

I see where you are coming from, but in terms of the construction of our "ordinary" the primary will always be the one first learned; no? Did you first learn "rock" as "steadfast" or as a hunk of earth?

Edit: And bonus question: In what way do you susppose "steadfast" is a hunk of earth?

I had to develop presuppositions first. But really, it started as a relationship. So, it really doesn't matter what you, Hilary Clinton, or a purple smurf tell me "rock" means. Whatever meaning I attach finds it's source in that relationship.

If that is too vague, fuzzy, and mushy for you, there is a starting point found in Christian history for those who don't have this relationship. It would be akin to asking someone from the Ming Dynasty to extract meaning from a Roman text. I suppose today's scholarship is the as close as we get to an attempt to get proper meaning but as I believe today's scholarship has gotten so secular to the point of taking the task upon themselves, I sort of get picky with them as you might imagine.

Anyways, that's another story.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree...however one doesn't have the luxury to extract whatever meaning they want either. Atleast, not if they want to do the text justice.

I agree to that as well. Hopefully the answer to that problem is to put some thought into the interpretation of the text, taking into account things like word choice, context, and what we know of the authors' intent rather than just issuing a blanket decree that for all Biblical interpretation, the literal meaning will be assumed correct.

...adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression

literal - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary[1]

But isn't the primary meaning of the term "rock" something like "piece of stone"? I think its connotations of steadfastness, steadiness or firmness flow out of that primary meaning.

 

[Monomonk]

As I said in another thread, I personally think that fixating on a literal interpretation of Genesis can only serve to distract from other aspects of the Bible. Does the message of the Gospels, for example, have anything at all to do with bizarre definitions of the term "after their kind"?

Also, I think that if I was a Christian, I would see that sort of behaviour as a form of blasphemy. If the universe is an expression of the will of God, then denying the truth of scientific facts is akin to denying God.

To top it all off, since (IMO) Creationism (at least how the word is typically used, and not in the sense that you called yourself a creationist in the OP) involves a large measure of deceit, I think it's incompatible with any religion that considers honesty a virtue.

There is nothing wrong with literal interpretation, as long as the interpretation is
correct, which it seldom is, and the worst examples are by the "Creationist".

monomonk :sad4:

 

[Quiddity]

But isn't the primary meaning of the term "rock" something like "piece of stone"? I think its connotations of steadfastness, steadiness or firmness flow out of that primary meaning.

Of rock? Yes of course...but as you said, once you begin to take the context, intent, etc......the primary meaning changes.

Idioms do something similar. The primary meaning is just something known by the people reading it. The primary meaning of "needle in a haystack" is something hard to find.

Anyways, you can pretty much appreciate the value in interpretating and extracting the proper meaning of a text and that really goes a long way. Even if we happen to disagree on how to go about it, the fact that you are interested in getting the proper meaning is good enough work with.

 

[Elessar]

"Literal creationism", the somewhat absurd (at least, to me - no offense intended) idea that G-d created the entire Universe in seven literal days as we now measure them, I think is a bad misinterpretation of what the account of creation in Parashah 1 (B're/Gen 1:1-6:8) is attempting to stress.

Judaism developed as a monotheistic faith in a land and civilization in which polytheism was the rule. Each of these has their various creation ideas, where different parts of Creation are ascribed to different gods. The point of Parashah 1 is:

G-d created the heavens and the earth (B're 1:1)
G-d said, "Let there be light"; and there was light (B're 1:3)
G-d divided the light from the darkness (B're 1:4)
G-d said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let dry land appear," (B're 1:9)
G-d said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to divide the day from the night (B're 1:14)
So G-d created humankind in his own image;\in the image of G-d he created him:\male and female he created them. (B're 1:27)

The point is that G-d made *everything*, and the story is meant to accent the oneness and absoluteness of G-d. The meaning is that G-d, and no one else, made the earth - not humans, not angels, not other gods.

*All biblical quotations taken from Complete Jewish Bible