Re: Reading Genesis literally

For a really eye-opening example of how literalists of the past exegeted
Genesis, take a look at "On the literal meaning of Genesis" by St. Augustine. I
would hardly characterize Augustine's interpretation as literal. However, it is
a valuable reference.

--- Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:

> From "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman (or was it Cutler's
> work about N. Steno -- I may be conflating two recent readings of mine),
> I recently learned that what we refer to as "literalism" or
> "literalists" today is probably an unfair caricature of what the word
> used to refer to. Back in the reformation days, those known as
> literalists freely acknowledged literary devices in their many
> appearances throughout scripture -- beyond just those parts that are
> obviously or explicitly acknowledged to be parables or poems, etc.
> Even today's literalists are probably not quite so literarily shallow as
> they are often painted. But it does sound if the term did have deeper
> nuanced meanings historically than gets packed into it today.
>
> I was interested to learn in Cutler's work "Seashell on a Mountaintop"
> that Christian geologists (in the then fledgling profession) and
> certainly many Christian scientists in general had little objections to
> the departure from the young-earth time line in and around the 18th
> century -- in some ways precipitated by the pious Steno himself. It
> wasn't till Darwin's common descent which did evoke stronger reactions
> -- and perhaps well after that even that old earth timeliness came to be
> seen as ammunition in the science vs. religion warfare model.
> Apparently some who would have identified with "listeralism" back then
> saw no conflict in reading Genesis 1 timelines metaphorically. I can't
> get more specific without checking out the book again to find names, but
> others here probably know who's who.
>
> --merv
>
> There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
> returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. --
> Mark Twain
>
>
>
>
> gordon brown wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, burgytwo@juno.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>From AIG this week:
> >>
> >>Q: AiG teaches that we must take Genesis as written, but should we take the
> whole Bible literally?
> >>
> >>A: We?ve got to be very careful here. It?s true, for example, that Jesus
> quoted from Genesis when he talked about the foundation of marriage. Thus, he
> took Genesis literally. Paul quoted from Genesis when writing about the first
> man and the Last Adam, so he accepted Genesis literally, too.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >We tend to give the term 'literally' a meaning that is not literal. Even
> >the so-called literalists do not take everything in the Bible literally.
> >The passage referred to above that Jesus quotes is Gen. 2:24 that speaks
> >of two becoming one flesh. Does AiG take one flesh literally?
> >
> >Gordon Brown
> >Department of Mathematics
> >University of Colorado
> >Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Mon Apr 24 08:09:35 2006