Re: Reading Genesis literally

Your definition of "literal" will depend on your position on the
conservative/modernist spectrum, how much academic study of literature you have
engaged in, etc. Dick Fischer has convinced me of the value of a reading the
Scriptures straighforwardly, without introducing unnecessary symbolism, but
accomodating to what is known about science. If that can be classified as
literal, then for the most part I am a literalist. But I doubt ICR would be
willing to admit me to the literalist club.

--- Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

> What does literally mean?
>
> I have read loads of stuff from the 19th century which claims to take
> Genesis literally and nearly all of it supports geological time .
>
> So my definition of "literally" is "literally literalism does not literally
> mean what literal literally means" . What they really meant was the plain
> meaning of scripture but in fact tempered that with some accommodation.
> After all they accommodated Genesis to heliocentrism and did the same for
> geology and then evolution was no further problem.
>
> A root cause is the introduction of warfare model of science and religion in
> the 1890s and the fallout from that.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Hamilton" <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
> To: "Mervin Bitikofer" <mrb22667@kansas.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:09 PM
> Subject: 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
> >
>
>

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 14:06:56 2006