Old Testement & The Literalist

[Dr. Shane]

Bravus wrote:

Quote:

---

But that's the whole point. All of you are very happy arguing that 'place and time' must be considered in relation to this issue, but not to others like the role of women or homosexuality. The inconsistency is in picking and choosing which areas are place and time dependent and which are eternally literal. And in the accompanying claim that everything is literal... except the bits that aren't.

|

Who will be the first to concede that no-one is a consistent literalist?

---

[Dr. Shane]

I understand and agree to the "place and time" position regarding women's ordination. However there is no explicit exclusion of women from the ministry in the Bible. So it is a bit different from homosexuality.

I see that God forbid homosexaulity because He knew it is a self-destrctuing lifestyle. God was looking out for us by forbidding it. He wasn't trying to be a killjoy.

The arguement made in the other thread is that if we believe in a literal seven-day creation week then we must also believe that we are still subject to levitical laws that God used to rule the nation of Israel. I don't see that the belief in one (literal creation) leads to the belief in the other (being under levitical laws).

I am open minded to an extent. If someone can show me how homosexuality has changed with place and time, I am interested in seeing how what God once called an abomination is acceptable given different circumstances.

[Nicodema]

Shane I believe Bravus may be referring to the inconsistency with which things are regarded "abomination" in general in that segment of Leviticus. A careful reading will ascertain that wearing a garment of two mixed fabrics, for example, was considered equally an "abomination" as various sexual no-nos; however in our modern era we dismiss the former as being any real or serious "abomination" while maintaining that very status -- serious & real abomination -- for the latter.

[Bravus]

Thanks to you, Shane, for setting up this thread, and to Nico for clarification.

The question is actually even broader than that: the claim is made that the Bible must be interpreted literally in all points. It started with a discussion of creationism, as it often does, but the argument that is made is a 'slippery slope' argument: if you interpret Genesis 1 in a less literal way (or, as I would put it, read it in the sense that it was written), then where do you draw the line, and doesn't it make all Biblical interpretation just a matter of personal preference?

My contention, in response to this 'slippery slope' argument, is that no-one fully lives out the literal meanings of everything in the Bible. Everyone has some area that they explain away as being bound to particular places and times.

To me that's not even a big issue - it means we must seek, with prayer and struggle and thought and study and humility, to understand the Scriptures and how God intends us to live.

I simply want those who claim absolute literalism to be consistent in their arguments. If someone can show me that, in fact, they are completely consistent, I'll be happy.

By the way, it's not just the Old Testament: people also explain away the New Testament injunctions on women to cover their heads and to not speak in church.

[Gregory Matthews]

Literal vs. figurative.

A common understanding of a literal publication, such as the Bible would be that such would not allow the use of metaphore, simile, allegory, and parables. But, we all know that the Bible uses such. In fact the Bible often reports Christ as using parabales. So, does that mean that the Bible cannot be said to be literal?

Well there is another possible useage of the term "literal" as we might apply it to the Bible. That useage would would allow us to understand a specific passage in terms of its common meaning at that time.

Take the simile. Gore Vidal once said: "We die from the top." But, that is not all that he said. He gave that phrase explicit meaning when he said: "Like ancient trees, we die from the top." He used the literaly device of a simile. But, the explicit meaning that he attached to it allows some peopel to say that he made a literal statement.

My personal thinking allows me to call the Bible literal, and yet to recognize the symbolic elements in it.

[there buster]

I'd be delighted to explore this subject. IN the past, however, interest in actually outining an approach to study has always fallen by the wayside the minute its application doesn't yield the results people prefer. So I'm extremely reluctant to embark on such a discussion.

The subject is both fascinating and highly practical, but it requires a willingness to go where the text takes us, rather than shoehorning it into our theological preferences.

[Bravus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Well there is another possible useage of the term "literal" as we might apply it to the Bible. That useage would would allow us to understand a specific passage in terms of its common meaning at that time.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think that's a workable definition: but once again, that's pretty much exactly the definition I've been arguing *for* (I would argue). The definition those I've been arguing with seem to be applying, as best I can tell, is "That useage would would allow us to understand a specific passage in terms of its common meaning in our time."

[Bravus]

Ed, I'd be very interested to see/participate in such a discussion. (Doesn't mean we'll necessarily end up agreeing about where the text takes us, but we can disagree civilly and learn something.) One challenge is deciding where to start: with the stoning provisions in Exodus and Leviticus, the head-covering and not speaking in church in the NT or the creation story in Genesis. I'd be happy to have you decide which case allows for the richest and most practical discussion of this issue.

[there buster]

In keeping with the title of the thread, why not any part of the Old Testament you like?

Anything from before the Flood is particularly problematicalm, and probably would best be addressed after we've successfully investigated other passages, but I'm game. Those earlier passages would mainly require a longer foundational preparation.

[Bravus]

I guess so, although Shane chose the thread title rather than me. Stoning for, e.g., Sabbath breaking is an interesting one to me, but I'll be interested in whether the judgement that it is no longer binding on the Christian lies in those chapters in Exodus and Leviticus or elsewhere in Scripture (the latter is still valid study, of course). So maybe Exodus 31:14?

[there buster]

AS a first step, I would simmly examine the text in context:

Quote:

---

12Then the LORD said to Moses,

13“Say to the Israelites,

‘You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.£

14“‘Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you.

Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.

15For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

16The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant.

17It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.’” Exodux 34:12-17, NIV

---

Context also would have to include the first citation of the requirement, and its setting.

Quote:

---

1And God spoke all these words:

2“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

. . . .

8“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

---

Given this material as a start, what does it tell us, and what do we otherwise know about how the recipients would have viewed these stipulations. How did they understand/perceive these strictures?