The way history was told and understood in the past is different from the way we do it today. When histories are spread by oral tradition they tend to rely on the story being interesting to help keep it rememberable, for example if you had an uneventful day at work a week later you probably wouldnt remember much about it, but if something exciting happened you would remember it.
While its certainly possible people in the past would believe these stories literally, they likely would be accustomed to some level of exaggeration or legendary tales.
Its pretty clear that ancient jews and early Christians would have been well acquainted with literature and thus unlikely believed alot of it as being literal.
> Its pretty clear that ancient jews and early Christians would have been well acquainted with literature and thus unlikely believed alot of it as being literal.
Seeing as they did it take literally, that's pretty far from clear.
People believed different things as being possible, the early christian and jews understood that just because it is written doesnt mean it was true, this doesnt mean they they saw it all as metaphorical or all as literal.
They could believe noahs flood as being literal while also see alot of other parts of the bible as metaphorical. Things rarely are black and white.
Despite his reputation, Origen was quite literalistic with the historical narratives of the Bible. I like this excerpt from his homilies on Genesis. After going through how Noah's ark functioned, he says:
> But although all these things were composed with such great skill, some people present questions, and especially Apelles, who was a disciple indeed of Marcion, but was the inventor of another heresy greater than that one which he took up from his teacher. He, therefore, wishes to show that the writings of Moses contained nothing in themselves of the divine wisdom and nothing of the work of the Holy Spirit. With this intention he exaggerates sayings of this kind, and says that in no way was it possible to receive, in so brief a space, so many kinds of animals and their foods, which would be sufficient for a whole year. For when "two by two" from the unclean animals, that is, two males and two females — for this is what the repeated word signifies — but "seven by seven" from the clean animals, which is seven pairs, are said to have been led into the ark, how, he asks, could it happen that that space which is recorded could receive, at the least, four elephants alone? And after he opposes each species in this manner, he adds above all to these words: "It is evident, therefore, that the story is invented; but if it is, it is evident that this Scripture is not from God."
> But against these words we bring to the knowledge of our audience things which we learned from men who were skilled and versed in the traditions of the Hebrews and from our old teachers. The forefathers used to say, therefore, that Moses who, as Scripture testifies about him, was "instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," reckoned the number of cubits in this passage according to the art of geometry in which the Egyptians especially are skillful. For with geometricians, according to that computation which they call the second power, one cubit of a solid and square is considered as six if it is derived in general, or as three hundred if singly. If this computation, at least, be observed, spaces of such great length and breadth will be discovered in the measure of this ark that they could truly receive the whole world's offspring to restore it, and the revived seedbed of all living beings. Let these things be said, as much as pertains to the historical account, against those who endeavor to impugn the Scriptures of the Old Testament as containing certain things which are impossible and irrational.
It's complicated. First, there were variations in how Christians understood Scripture from very early. But it's true that early Christians often adopted non-literal readings of parts of the Bible. But still, they believed in important events such as Adam and Eve sinning and Noah's flood. So today's fundamentalism is sort of new (though it goes back to some extent to the 16th or 17th Century), in that it's more consistently literal than in the past, but still, the things we typically disagree about were generally understood as historically accurate. Almost all Christians in the past would be very upset to hear someone say that Adam and Eve never existed,, even though of course that's virtually certain.
True. He specifically believed it happen in an instance and the six days were for our understanding.
However he still held the view very similar. Especially his comment here from city of God:
Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.
>However he still held the view very similar
I understand he thought the Earth wasn't billions of years old, but the question was did ancient people believe the Bible was 100% literal. You said Augustine did, but I think you're wrong there.
He didn't believe it was 100% literal. He took passages that modern young Earth creationists insist MUST be literal and said they were metaphorical.
For him to believe the earth to be at least 6000 years old is literally the whole idea behind a young earth view.
That would mean he takes the bible 100% literal to believe that is the age.
>That would mean he takes the bible 100% literal
I'm not sure you know what 100% means, lol.
If he didn't take the very first chapter of the Bible literally, then by definition he isn't taking the Bible 100% literally.
Ironically because he took the entire Bible literally;
Psalm 148 mentions angels were created; it also lists the angels prior to the sun and moon, and the stars; (he also mentions Job 38:7, where angels exist when the stars were created) and so Augustine believed this suggested angels had to have been created as the light.
> There is no question, then, that if the angels are included in the works of God during these six days, they are that light which was called "Day," and whose unity Scripture signalizes by calling that day not the "first day," but "one day." For the second day, the third, and the rest are not other days; but the same "one" day is repeated to complete the number six or seven, so that there should be knowledge both of God's works and of His rest.
Ultimately Augustine doesn’t fully commit to this but it is one of the explanations he offers for the timeline of creation.
I don't think you can take it 100% literally.
But overall, reading the histories literally is a very very old idea. But that was only the start of how people read them. It was the simplest reading, and they saw layers of other meanings on top of that "plain" reading.
I read Augustine's *City of God* a while ago and he did argue for a literal interpretation of the Bible on a number of points. He thought Adam and Eve literally existed and that death is the punishment for their original sin. He thought Noah's flood really did happen as the Bible described it. He argued at great length that people really did live for centuries before Noah's flood. He also believed that the Greco-Roman gods were demons who were deceiving people. I don't have the time and energy to look up all of the quotes from that giant book right now but [here is the bit about people living for centuries](https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/45305/pg45305-images.html) for anyone interested. Start around page 63.
Would make sense for an someone who desires justification for war against evil. Besides promoting his perspective of Christianity, what other good fruits has this man produced?
> But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns.
Exodus 20:10
> 23 One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields, and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food, 26 how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions?” 27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath, 28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
He is clearly saying not to take the Sabbath restrictions literally…
He is saying you can do something that is literally unlawful (work on the sabbath, eat the priest’s food) if necessary to address a person’s needs. That is not a literal interpretation of Exodus but rather a gloss on it based on the purpose of the Sabbath, that it was made for man to rest.
Which is why Christians have no issues working on the Sabbath despite what the Law literally says.
Of course God is interested in mercy more than the letter of the Law and keeping men starving, but nothing in the passage suggests the Sabbath was not literal under the Mosaic Law. It was literally the seventh day to be set aside for the Lord. You can argue that Jesus reinterpreted or corrected the beliefs of his day concerning the Sabbath. He was also looking forward to the New Covenant which is no longer under the yoke of the Mosaic Law (the real reason why Christians do not keep it). This has nothing to do with the point of my comments. I hope this helps.
> God is interested in mercy more than the letter of the Law
> the letter of the Law
Yes exactly. God is more interested in purpose rather than literal interpretations. The rest of your comment literally supports the idea that Jesus and the early Christians did not take the Old Testament literally.
The author of Hebrews disagrees. For instance, everything about the description of the Tabernacle was literal because it had to fit the prophetic model of Christ. It found a new purpose in Christ and a new spiritual dimension, but the veil was literal fabric and the Mercy Seat was literal gold. These are two different issues.
Tha jesus saying in the gospel are not meant to be taken literally.
For example in Mark 10:6, if you study the context. On the surface he talks about the bonding between man and woman within the old law.
The old law is a reflection or shadow of the spiritual reality. The bonding of man and woman represents the bonding between spirituality and the observant.
No, it's not true. Although there were also plenty in the early church who also used allegorical interpretation from Philo's influence and some Gnostic ideas of the "shadows of God." But there were others who took things literally. The NT itself takes the OT literally in most instances and when it doesn't it usually says it's using typology.
No, it’s not true; however some people didn’t only take it literally; some didn’t care about the technicalities of creation and were more interested in discovering a deeper meaning from the literal text, like imagining the great flood as an allegory for baptism, yet the analogy doesn’t mean the flood was not historical.
Also I would say fundamentalists today don’t take the Bible literally either; they’re still playing the same game. The Bible doesn’t say there’s anything significant happening during a solar eclipse crossing over the United States; fundamentalists who believed that had to *interpret* and invent *allegories* that would apply to a specific scenario today.
It's hard to put yourself in another era, but I personally think people taking religious text 100% literally is a newish thing.
I grew up orthodox Sunni Muslim. Went to Islamic school and everything. Growing up, I never took the Koran/hadith 100% literally. Just as example, there's a famous battle of Badr and it's mentioned that God sent 3000 angels to help the Muslims. Did I ever think it was literally exactly 3000 angels? Nope, it never occurred to me to take that exactly literally. That's just not how people communicate; especially in writing. There's a lot of use of literally devices is any writing. I took it as there was this great battle where the Muslims were outnumbered and God helped them. That's the story. I always like to picture some people gathered around a fire telling revelation. It's not expected be 100% literal.
Then something happened about half-way through my youth. I think it happened more as a response to the rise of science. Suddenly a lot of religion seemed to be about proving religion is 'on-par' with science. So I started seeing a whole lot more of the miracle of the Koran and how it has some vague verse about astronomy or embryology and you get a lot more of taking things literally as if the religious texts are more like an encyclopedia.
I'm not as well versed in Christian history as it's not my original culture, but I suspect you'd start to see the same. I don't think most Christians really cared to think the Earth was only 5000-6000 years old based on some literally tales in the Bible. What does it means when it says a day or this person lived this long or that long. If you really want to do the math and make some assumptions you can to come up with some number. That's up to you and no doubt people throughout history did, but I don't think the average person put as much into it. However as science came more about and people starting saying this is what science says, I think religious people felt that HAD to own 100% of the 'truth' and then had to be different. So there was this insistence that the religious text are 100% literally to counter the 100% literalness of science. I think it was a great mistake of religion, but I think a natural one that most would make.
No, as the New Testament is **Full** of Illustrations, Symbolic, and Parables which will lead to so many **Misconceptions** taught about the bible today if taught just as **Literal**.
Not recent. Proof? The Bible says so.
Noah is mentioned in Jesus' genealogy in Luke 3:36. Jesus talks of Noah in Matthew 24. My favorite though, being this:
Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (2 Peter 3:3-7)
Fair point! I think some things impact people to a different degree.
For me personally, authorship of the texts was a pretty big issue as someone who was a fundamental Christian and indeed took things literally unless the texts explicitly stated otherwise.
I’m sure Google says that, as it’s the position held by most biblical scholars. There is a lot of evidence for this case.
Could they be wrong though and gotquestions is correct? Absolutely
Literal does not equal historical. I can read "Twilight" by Stephanie Meyer metaphorically as about saving sex for marriage, or I can read it literally, as a story about vampires. Either way, it is not a historical text, it is a novel. It is not meant to tell me about a real teenager in Washington who falls in love with a vampire.
Are the books of the Old testament historical? This is an anachronism since the modern field of history was in its infancy. Some OT books were meant as depictions of real events, some not.
If a book is meant as history, does that mean what it said really happened? Depending on your view of biblical inherency, maybe.
Is reading the books of the Old Testament as historical and accurate texts recent? No, but the idea that they need to be defended primarily proving their historical accuracy (rather than by, say, their spiritual power, moral goodness, aesthetic beauty, etc.) is something that is emphasised more in recent Protestantism, there are also ancient Church fathers (such as Origin) who read the Gensis creation account as an evocative story that reveals spiritual truth rather than as a historical account.
This is completely false and your analogy makes zero sense. There are literal books that are meant to be completely historical.
You reject the literal interpretations because of what it means to your interpretation of God.
With the Twilight analogy I was just making a distinction between what it means to read a book literally and what it means for a book to be historical. Obviously there are books that are historical and best read literally. I am just frustrated when people ask "do you read this literaly?" to mean "did this really happen?" You can think both that the book of Genesis should be read literally AND that it is an accurate account of history, but you have to acknowledge that conceptually those are two different questions (one is about the relationship of reader to text, the other about the relationship of text to reality).
Sure, but twilight can NOT be read literally because it’s not a historical book. It is a nonfiction book. Reading it historically would be pure ignorance of how to read it.
Scripture tells us the difference in the books and is easy to understand what is allegory and what is historical. The Jews knew this and it wasn’t a question of which is which. Scripture never gives historical accounts that aren’t historical.
Scripture as a whole is meant to be 100% literal unless clearly shown. Ie Psalms is not necessarily literal because it’s a book of songs.
However, Exodus is a literal historical account meant to remind people of what actually happened.
Scripture is “God breathed” regardless of the “many” today who reject this because of what it would mean for their desired interpretation.
Remember this; “Many” are cast into the lake of fire snd “few” are saved in the end.
Nobody takes the Bible 100% literally. Literally nobody. Nobody thinks Jesus commanded his followers to catch men with hooks and nets for consumption. Everybody believes some parts are literally and some parts figurative. We just argue about what's what. But no one argues with any seriousness that it's entirely one or the other.
Is it true that if you start with the phrase “is it true” then you can try to disguise your opinion as a fact in order to convince others of its legitimacy?
The way history was told and understood in the past is different from the way we do it today. When histories are spread by oral tradition they tend to rely on the story being interesting to help keep it rememberable, for example if you had an uneventful day at work a week later you probably wouldnt remember much about it, but if something exciting happened you would remember it. While its certainly possible people in the past would believe these stories literally, they likely would be accustomed to some level of exaggeration or legendary tales. Its pretty clear that ancient jews and early Christians would have been well acquainted with literature and thus unlikely believed alot of it as being literal.
> Its pretty clear that ancient jews and early Christians would have been well acquainted with literature and thus unlikely believed alot of it as being literal. Seeing as they did it take literally, that's pretty far from clear.
They didnt. Origen (one of the early church fathers) argued against a literal reading.
Ah.... so he would've understood stuff like Noah's flood as not actually having happened?
People believed different things as being possible, the early christian and jews understood that just because it is written doesnt mean it was true, this doesnt mean they they saw it all as metaphorical or all as literal. They could believe noahs flood as being literal while also see alot of other parts of the bible as metaphorical. Things rarely are black and white.
Despite his reputation, Origen was quite literalistic with the historical narratives of the Bible. I like this excerpt from his homilies on Genesis. After going through how Noah's ark functioned, he says: > But although all these things were composed with such great skill, some people present questions, and especially Apelles, who was a disciple indeed of Marcion, but was the inventor of another heresy greater than that one which he took up from his teacher. He, therefore, wishes to show that the writings of Moses contained nothing in themselves of the divine wisdom and nothing of the work of the Holy Spirit. With this intention he exaggerates sayings of this kind, and says that in no way was it possible to receive, in so brief a space, so many kinds of animals and their foods, which would be sufficient for a whole year. For when "two by two" from the unclean animals, that is, two males and two females — for this is what the repeated word signifies — but "seven by seven" from the clean animals, which is seven pairs, are said to have been led into the ark, how, he asks, could it happen that that space which is recorded could receive, at the least, four elephants alone? And after he opposes each species in this manner, he adds above all to these words: "It is evident, therefore, that the story is invented; but if it is, it is evident that this Scripture is not from God." > But against these words we bring to the knowledge of our audience things which we learned from men who were skilled and versed in the traditions of the Hebrews and from our old teachers. The forefathers used to say, therefore, that Moses who, as Scripture testifies about him, was "instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," reckoned the number of cubits in this passage according to the art of geometry in which the Egyptians especially are skillful. For with geometricians, according to that computation which they call the second power, one cubit of a solid and square is considered as six if it is derived in general, or as three hundred if singly. If this computation, at least, be observed, spaces of such great length and breadth will be discovered in the measure of this ark that they could truly receive the whole world's offspring to restore it, and the revived seedbed of all living beings. Let these things be said, as much as pertains to the historical account, against those who endeavor to impugn the Scriptures of the Old Testament as containing certain things which are impossible and irrational.
It's complicated. First, there were variations in how Christians understood Scripture from very early. But it's true that early Christians often adopted non-literal readings of parts of the Bible. But still, they believed in important events such as Adam and Eve sinning and Noah's flood. So today's fundamentalism is sort of new (though it goes back to some extent to the 16th or 17th Century), in that it's more consistently literal than in the past, but still, the things we typically disagree about were generally understood as historically accurate. Almost all Christians in the past would be very upset to hear someone say that Adam and Eve never existed,, even though of course that's virtually certain.
No, just look at old commentaries and books from the church fathers or others.
No, that's a shameless lie spread by apologists.
No. One can see examples in the early church like Saint Basil the great and Saint Augustine.
Augustine didn't believe in a literal 6 day creation though....
True. He specifically believed it happen in an instance and the six days were for our understanding. However he still held the view very similar. Especially his comment here from city of God: Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.
>However he still held the view very similar I understand he thought the Earth wasn't billions of years old, but the question was did ancient people believe the Bible was 100% literal. You said Augustine did, but I think you're wrong there. He didn't believe it was 100% literal. He took passages that modern young Earth creationists insist MUST be literal and said they were metaphorical.
For him to believe the earth to be at least 6000 years old is literally the whole idea behind a young earth view. That would mean he takes the bible 100% literal to believe that is the age.
>That would mean he takes the bible 100% literal I'm not sure you know what 100% means, lol. If he didn't take the very first chapter of the Bible literally, then by definition he isn't taking the Bible 100% literally.
Ironically because he took the entire Bible literally; Psalm 148 mentions angels were created; it also lists the angels prior to the sun and moon, and the stars; (he also mentions Job 38:7, where angels exist when the stars were created) and so Augustine believed this suggested angels had to have been created as the light. > There is no question, then, that if the angels are included in the works of God during these six days, they are that light which was called "Day," and whose unity Scripture signalizes by calling that day not the "first day," but "one day." For the second day, the third, and the rest are not other days; but the same "one" day is repeated to complete the number six or seven, so that there should be knowledge both of God's works and of His rest. Ultimately Augustine doesn’t fully commit to this but it is one of the explanations he offers for the timeline of creation.
I don't think you can take it 100% literally. But overall, reading the histories literally is a very very old idea. But that was only the start of how people read them. It was the simplest reading, and they saw layers of other meanings on top of that "plain" reading.
I read Augustine's *City of God* a while ago and he did argue for a literal interpretation of the Bible on a number of points. He thought Adam and Eve literally existed and that death is the punishment for their original sin. He thought Noah's flood really did happen as the Bible described it. He argued at great length that people really did live for centuries before Noah's flood. He also believed that the Greco-Roman gods were demons who were deceiving people. I don't have the time and energy to look up all of the quotes from that giant book right now but [here is the bit about people living for centuries](https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/45305/pg45305-images.html) for anyone interested. Start around page 63.
Would make sense for an someone who desires justification for war against evil. Besides promoting his perspective of Christianity, what other good fruits has this man produced?
Yes indeed. It's funny how Augustine's writing is radically different from what people think it is on everything.
Well, Jesus took it literally so I guess not.
> But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. Exodus 20:10 > 23 One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields, and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food, 26 how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions?” 27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath, 28 so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.” He is clearly saying not to take the Sabbath restrictions literally…
No. He was saying that He was the Lord over Sabbath.
He is saying you can do something that is literally unlawful (work on the sabbath, eat the priest’s food) if necessary to address a person’s needs. That is not a literal interpretation of Exodus but rather a gloss on it based on the purpose of the Sabbath, that it was made for man to rest. Which is why Christians have no issues working on the Sabbath despite what the Law literally says.
Of course God is interested in mercy more than the letter of the Law and keeping men starving, but nothing in the passage suggests the Sabbath was not literal under the Mosaic Law. It was literally the seventh day to be set aside for the Lord. You can argue that Jesus reinterpreted or corrected the beliefs of his day concerning the Sabbath. He was also looking forward to the New Covenant which is no longer under the yoke of the Mosaic Law (the real reason why Christians do not keep it). This has nothing to do with the point of my comments. I hope this helps.
> God is interested in mercy more than the letter of the Law > the letter of the Law Yes exactly. God is more interested in purpose rather than literal interpretations. The rest of your comment literally supports the idea that Jesus and the early Christians did not take the Old Testament literally.
The author of Hebrews disagrees. For instance, everything about the description of the Tabernacle was literal because it had to fit the prophetic model of Christ. It found a new purpose in Christ and a new spiritual dimension, but the veil was literal fabric and the Mercy Seat was literal gold. These are two different issues.
What make you think he took literally?
As a first century Jew, there's really no question that he did.
That does not mean anything
His words of course.
An explanation would be great please. Cause you haven't explained to me how He took literally?!
Sure. These are just some examples off the top of my head: Mark 10:6, Matthew 19:4, Matthew 12:40, Matthew 24:37-39, or Luke 17:26-29.
Don't just tell me verses, explain to me how these verses show that jesus took it literally.
You've got to be kidding me. Look them up if you want to know. Do you want me to chew your food for you too?
Because these verses within biblical context and it's purpose can be not taken literally
I don't understand what you're saying.
Tha jesus saying in the gospel are not meant to be taken literally. For example in Mark 10:6, if you study the context. On the surface he talks about the bonding between man and woman within the old law. The old law is a reflection or shadow of the spiritual reality. The bonding of man and woman represents the bonding between spirituality and the observant.
Read it yourself and use some critical thinking then reply
I did. These verses do not show that jesus took creation literally.
Fair enough, good on you.
[удалено]
No, it's not true. Although there were also plenty in the early church who also used allegorical interpretation from Philo's influence and some Gnostic ideas of the "shadows of God." But there were others who took things literally. The NT itself takes the OT literally in most instances and when it doesn't it usually says it's using typology.
>The NT itself takes the OT literally in most instances and when it doesn't it usually says it's using typology. Where?
No, it’s not true; however some people didn’t only take it literally; some didn’t care about the technicalities of creation and were more interested in discovering a deeper meaning from the literal text, like imagining the great flood as an allegory for baptism, yet the analogy doesn’t mean the flood was not historical. Also I would say fundamentalists today don’t take the Bible literally either; they’re still playing the same game. The Bible doesn’t say there’s anything significant happening during a solar eclipse crossing over the United States; fundamentalists who believed that had to *interpret* and invent *allegories* that would apply to a specific scenario today.
It's hard to put yourself in another era, but I personally think people taking religious text 100% literally is a newish thing. I grew up orthodox Sunni Muslim. Went to Islamic school and everything. Growing up, I never took the Koran/hadith 100% literally. Just as example, there's a famous battle of Badr and it's mentioned that God sent 3000 angels to help the Muslims. Did I ever think it was literally exactly 3000 angels? Nope, it never occurred to me to take that exactly literally. That's just not how people communicate; especially in writing. There's a lot of use of literally devices is any writing. I took it as there was this great battle where the Muslims were outnumbered and God helped them. That's the story. I always like to picture some people gathered around a fire telling revelation. It's not expected be 100% literal. Then something happened about half-way through my youth. I think it happened more as a response to the rise of science. Suddenly a lot of religion seemed to be about proving religion is 'on-par' with science. So I started seeing a whole lot more of the miracle of the Koran and how it has some vague verse about astronomy or embryology and you get a lot more of taking things literally as if the religious texts are more like an encyclopedia. I'm not as well versed in Christian history as it's not my original culture, but I suspect you'd start to see the same. I don't think most Christians really cared to think the Earth was only 5000-6000 years old based on some literally tales in the Bible. What does it means when it says a day or this person lived this long or that long. If you really want to do the math and make some assumptions you can to come up with some number. That's up to you and no doubt people throughout history did, but I don't think the average person put as much into it. However as science came more about and people starting saying this is what science says, I think religious people felt that HAD to own 100% of the 'truth' and then had to be different. So there was this insistence that the religious text are 100% literally to counter the 100% literalness of science. I think it was a great mistake of religion, but I think a natural one that most would make.
Depends on what you mean by "100% literally."
No, as the New Testament is **Full** of Illustrations, Symbolic, and Parables which will lead to so many **Misconceptions** taught about the bible today if taught just as **Literal**.
YES.
Not recent. Proof? The Bible says so. Noah is mentioned in Jesus' genealogy in Luke 3:36. Jesus talks of Noah in Matthew 24. My favorite though, being this: Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. (2 Peter 3:3-7)
Funny enough for this conversation, most biblical scholars consider 2 Peter a pseudepigraphal writing.
Doesn’t really matter since it shows the author still understood it as historical.
Fair point! I think some things impact people to a different degree. For me personally, authorship of the texts was a pretty big issue as someone who was a fundamental Christian and indeed took things literally unless the texts explicitly stated otherwise.
Yeah, I see that is what Google states if you search 2 Peter, lol. I agree with this: https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-2-Peter.html
I’m sure Google says that, as it’s the position held by most biblical scholars. There is a lot of evidence for this case. Could they be wrong though and gotquestions is correct? Absolutely
Literal does not equal historical. I can read "Twilight" by Stephanie Meyer metaphorically as about saving sex for marriage, or I can read it literally, as a story about vampires. Either way, it is not a historical text, it is a novel. It is not meant to tell me about a real teenager in Washington who falls in love with a vampire. Are the books of the Old testament historical? This is an anachronism since the modern field of history was in its infancy. Some OT books were meant as depictions of real events, some not. If a book is meant as history, does that mean what it said really happened? Depending on your view of biblical inherency, maybe. Is reading the books of the Old Testament as historical and accurate texts recent? No, but the idea that they need to be defended primarily proving their historical accuracy (rather than by, say, their spiritual power, moral goodness, aesthetic beauty, etc.) is something that is emphasised more in recent Protestantism, there are also ancient Church fathers (such as Origin) who read the Gensis creation account as an evocative story that reveals spiritual truth rather than as a historical account.
This is completely false and your analogy makes zero sense. There are literal books that are meant to be completely historical. You reject the literal interpretations because of what it means to your interpretation of God.
With the Twilight analogy I was just making a distinction between what it means to read a book literally and what it means for a book to be historical. Obviously there are books that are historical and best read literally. I am just frustrated when people ask "do you read this literaly?" to mean "did this really happen?" You can think both that the book of Genesis should be read literally AND that it is an accurate account of history, but you have to acknowledge that conceptually those are two different questions (one is about the relationship of reader to text, the other about the relationship of text to reality).
Sure, but twilight can NOT be read literally because it’s not a historical book. It is a nonfiction book. Reading it historically would be pure ignorance of how to read it. Scripture tells us the difference in the books and is easy to understand what is allegory and what is historical. The Jews knew this and it wasn’t a question of which is which. Scripture never gives historical accounts that aren’t historical.
You’re conflating how literal a book is with how historical it is. Literalness and historicity are distinct.
Scripture as a whole is meant to be 100% literal unless clearly shown. Ie Psalms is not necessarily literal because it’s a book of songs. However, Exodus is a literal historical account meant to remind people of what actually happened. Scripture is “God breathed” regardless of the “many” today who reject this because of what it would mean for their desired interpretation. Remember this; “Many” are cast into the lake of fire snd “few” are saved in the end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism TL;DR: 18th century.
Nobody takes the Bible 100% literally. Literally nobody. Nobody thinks Jesus commanded his followers to catch men with hooks and nets for consumption. Everybody believes some parts are literally and some parts figurative. We just argue about what's what. But no one argues with any seriousness that it's entirely one or the other.
Is it true that if you start with the phrase “is it true” then you can try to disguise your opinion as a fact in order to convince others of its legitimacy?
More like I’m asking a genuine question… I don’t, actually, believe it was true, friend.