What is a Biblical literalist?

[guillaumeb]

What is a Biblical literalist?

I ask because I have been accused of being a Biblical literalist. And the term is used enough here in the religion group, that it would be helpful to define what is meant. I did a quick search and came up with a very few references.

First,

Biblical literalism is a term used differently by different authors concerning biblical interpretation. It can equate to the dictionary definition of literalism: "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense", where literal means "in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

So, using this as a starting point, we come to:

Biblical literalism is the method of interpreting Scripture that holds that, except in places where the text is obviously allegorical, poetic, or figurative, it should be taken literally. Biblical literalism is the position of most evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists. It is the position of Got Questions Ministries as well.

https://gotquestions.org/biblical-literalism.html

One thing I would note is that when the word “obviously” is used, what obviously means is not always in fact obvious. So obvious is anything but.

And another view:


Ken Ham: Biblical Literalist:

Ken Ham might be called the very model of a modern anti-evolutionist. Although his view of the earth's origin is entirely fundamentalist, his techniques for spreading his message are cutting-edge: a huge mailing list, presentations with artfully done visuals, and a Web site he claims gets 3,000 visits a day. Ham is an Australian who came to the United States and launched Answers in Genesis, an organization devoted to debunking evolution. He takes a hard, literalist line, leaving no room for compromise on the role of evolution. He claims to have started 110 "creation clubs" in American schools. And he has a busy speaking schedule as he criss-crosses the country denying that evolutionary theory has any basis in truth.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_04.html

All three of the definitions seem to agree that a Christian Biblical literalist is someone who holds that the Bible is generally the exact, inspired word of God. My view is much the same.
So when discussing religion here, if one is called a Biblical literalist it should be understood that the term refers to those Christians who believe that the earth is approximately 5800 years old, and that the Universe was created in 6 literal, 24 hour days. And that Adam and Eve are actual humans and not archetypes.

Thoughts?

[True Dough]

1. I'll await the "good word"

from this saint...

[guillaumeb]

4. Two Corinthians went into a bar, and one had a parrot on his shoulder..........

No sense repeating that joke.

[True Dough]

7. Bless you, my son.

[hrmjustin]

2. A Bible literalist is a pain in the ass.

Those accusing you of this don't know you enough to make that call.

There are parts I take as true and other parts I think are allegorical.

[guillaumeb]

5. The word often seems to be used as a negative.

But even in a discussion, it helps to have a common accepted meaning when using such terms.

I think many of us take your approach.

[Goblinmonger]

9. So you are a literalist about some parts.

Now it's just about drawing a line.

[hrmjustin]

10. The gospel aspects of Jesus's life I take literally for the most part.

Birth, ministry, trial, death, resurrection, and ascension I take literally. But a Bible thumper I am not nor amI the most religious person on the planet.

[okasha]

11. There's more than one line.

There's history, embellished history, epic narrative (may or may not have historical basis), poetry, allegory, political and social commentary, and especially in the New Testament, a heavy dose of theology.

For an informed reader, there's more than just literal or not-literal.

[Goblinmonger]

13. Well aware of that.

My point is that people who believe that Jesus is the son of god are, to some extent, literalists. To say that literalists are a pain in the ass is to just not like what THEY take literally because what you take literally is, of course, logical and makes sense.

I see the whole thing as fiction. It's much easier to deal with the lessons in there that way.

[okasha]

25. But then, "Jesus is the son of God"

doesn't mean the same thing throughout the New Testament. If you follow the Adoptionist interpretation, are you a literalist? How about the opening passage of John's Gospel? If you believe that ""In the beginning was the Word....and the Word was God," it becomes rather dificult to separate that identity into father and son. Is that literalism or acceptance of a paradox?

Chesterton once said that "Orthodoxy is my doxy. Heterodoxy is some other man's doxy.". Which is witty, but oversimplified.

[immoderate]

3. Biblical text may, in some passages, coincide with actual events, but it's a work of fiction.

A biblical literalist believes something in the bible is literally true.

--imm

[guillaumeb]

6. True. Some of the chronologies correspond with known figures.

My last example is a person who claims to believe that everything in the Bible literally happened.

[edhopper]

8. How much of the Old Testament

do you think actually happened.

[guillaumeb]

14. An interesting question.

As I said, I believe that most of the chronologies represent a history of the ruling families and various wars.

My view of Genesis is that it is allegorical.

[edhopper]

21. thanks

for me, that is an earmark of a literalist. Someone who believes those early stories, Eden, Babel, Noah, Moses, etc...
Which run up against every known fact about history, archeology, geology, and so on, would be a literalist.

Believing the NT story verbatim would be similar.

[guillaumeb]

22. And Mr. Ham describes himself as a Biblical literalist.

I am not one of the children of Ham.

[edhopper]

23. I see what you did there

[guillaumeb]

24. A small Biblical joke.

Trying to add a bit of humor to the forum.

[edhopper]

28. always can

use some of it.

[trotsky]

12. Logically, no one can take ALL of the bible literally.

There are parts that directly contradict each other. Taking the whole thing literally would be akin to making a square circle. It can't logically be done.

So for what is a literalist, we are left with: "Someone who takes at least some of a holy book literally."

Thus, you're a literalist. You take some of the Christian bible literally. You believe there is a literal creator of the universe. You believe there was literally a person named Jesus who literally died for your sins - sins like lying, for instance. Or insulting others. Those kinds of sins.

[guillaumeb]

15. According to the accepted definition of the term,

a literalist does accept that every word of the Bible is literally true. If one does not take every part as true one cannot be a literalist.

Can there be degrees of literalism? I would argue no, that by its nature it is an either/or proposition.

[trotsky]

16. According to the definition you've chosen, no one can be a literalist.

Because as I pointed out, there are direct contradictions in your bible, and so to take each contradiction literally is impossible.

You do take many parts of your bible literally, though. So you are a biblical literalist. Clearly you don't take the parts about contrition literally though.

[guillaumeb]

17. If we allow for self-definition of words,

we can only debate with ourselves. An interior debate.

Feel free to present a definition of literalist.

[trotsky]

18. Already did. I used one of YOUR links too.

This is lots of fun. Are you ready to make amends yet? Retract and apologize?

[guillaumeb]

19. A mutual making of amends? eom

[trotsky]

20. Retract and apologize. n/t

[okasha]

26. That is certainly the common understanding.

Biblical literalists are generally adept at reconciling the contradictions to their own satisfaction, if to no one else''s. Ken Ham does so without a ripple of doubt.

[guillaumeb]

27. True. But people can and do argue about meaning endlessly.

And that is fine, but if taken too far we are left in a position where nothing can be said without debate about the literal meaning of every word.

[Bradical79]

29. Right. Literalists are either liars

or not thinking logically. Literalists don't actually exist if we're talking about someone who actually does take every word of the bible literally. They do exist if we limit the defenittion to those who believe they take every word literally.

[guillaumeb]

30. Sometimes they are called "letteralists".

Meaning that they literally believe that every word, every letter, is divinely inspired and literally true.

I can understand the inspiration, but literalism does not allow for metaphor, poetry, any symbolic language.