Scriptural fundamentalism & literal interpretation

[OzSpen]

In another thread (End Times, topic, 'The two-minute salvation'), a poster used the language of 'scriptural fundamentalist'. Do you know what such a Christian believes?

What is your approach to interpretation of any text, whether that be reading your local newspaper, C S Lewis's Mere Christianity, Shakespeare's Henry IV, or reading the Bible?

Do you engage in literal interpretation or do you use some other method of interpretation? When you read this post, are you using literal interpretation or not in your attempt to understand the meaning of what I write?

Oz

 

[Sinthesis]

What are you trying to say?

 

[OzSpen]

What are you trying to say?

Please help me to understand your question. What was unclear about what I wrote in the OP?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Do you engage in literal interpretation or do you use some other method of interpretation?

Both.

 

[OzSpen]

Both.

So you use:

• Literal interpretation, and
• Some other method of interpretation.

What do you understand by 'literal interpretation'? Which other method(s) of interpretation do you use with any literature, including the Bible?

Oz

 

[for_his_glory]

Many things we read are fictional and non-fictional like books, newspapers and magazines. The Bible also contains that of the literal, but also in parts of the literal needs to be explained with the Spiritual aspects of what the literal is representing.

 

[JohnDB]

Pirates massacre Dodgers....

I'm going to read that figuratively

ISIS beheads Christian..... gonna read that literally

Context is everything.

 

[Edward]

I'm one of those weirdo's who read the Bible with a literal ear.

Didn't used to be like that. I was Mr metaphor. The problem with that was that most of the Bible was indecipherable.

I decided to try reading as if it were literal history. It is written, that, God is not the author of confusion. That makes all sorts of sense to me.

What happened then was pretty cool. The Bible came alive and made more sense to me. When I read literally, other scriptures now made sense where before they didn't.

When the Bible speaks in parables, it tells you so. When the Bible speaks in allegory or metaphorically, it's pretty easy to see it through the wording used. Was like unto...and so forth. So to read scripture as literal, allowed me to progress in my overall understanding of scripture. It doesn't make me popular amongst my Christian brethren though, lol.

When read metaphorically, the Bible becomes a Hodge podge of confusion. It's not literal, so must be allegory or metaphorical, so this passage must mean...this or that, and people will choose their fav metaphor and apply it to said passage, and woe unto anyone who says anything different than what they like.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

ISIS beheads Christian..... gonna read that literally

United States beheads ISIS....gonna read that figuratively.

 

[Malachi]

When read metaphorically, the Bible becomes a Hodge podge of confusion.

Correct. And God is not a God of confusion but of order. Scripture must be read in its plain literal sense unless there is compelling reason to believe that a metaphor is being used. When Jesus said "I am the Door" that was a metaphor. When Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I AM", that was a Bible truth.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

When read metaphorically, the Bible becomes a Hodge podge of confusion.

Only where the reader pushes for a metaphor instead of letting the Spirit reveal one. This is a somewhat common problem among Christians. What I resist is the notion that we have to toss out all personal spiritual revelation from God just because it can be a problem.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Correct. And God is not a God of confusion but of order. Scripture must be read in its plain literal sense unless there is compelling reason to believe that a metaphor is being used.

Is this strictly literal, or is it both literal and metaphor?

12“Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. 13Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14but 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 male or female servant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do. " (Deuteronomy 5:12-14 NIV)

 

[Edward]

Correct. And God is not a God of confusion but of order. Scripture must be read in its plain literal sense unless there is compelling reason to believe that a metaphor is being used. When Jesus said "I am the Door" that was a metaphor. When Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I AM", that was a Bible truth.

Oh, you're one of those weirdos too I see, lol.

Back on topic, admittedly, a lot of scripture that is literal, is...weird, scary, and things that we don't want to believe is true. (for the most part at least).

But when read literally, it brings clarity to oh so many other scriptures... then we are compelled to believe the literal account. That's a biggie.

 

[Edward]

Only where the reader pushes for a metaphor instead of letting the Spirit reveal one. This is a somewhat common problem among Christians. What I resist is the notion that we have to toss out all personal spiritual revelation from God just because it can be a problem.

You're correct in this. And when the Spirit reveals some truth...oh no, that must be the enemy whispering to me, so it still means...(what I like, and want it to mean).

And the Spirit revealing truths is extra-biblical so toss that out. ()

The good will be called evil, and evil good. Fulfilled.

The clarity to other scriptures that a literal interpretation brings can not be ignored, like it or not.

 

[Jim Parker]

It seems to me that there is something fundamentally (no pun intended) lacking in insisting on only a literal understanding of any work of literature.(And the Bible is literature, not the transcript of the video tape.)

The problem is compounded by the fact that the Bible is a translation of ancient, dead, pre-scientific, eastern languages into a modern, western, post-scientific, languages.

That problem is further compounded by insisting on reading it in yet another language which the reader does not speak: the Late Middle English of the King James Version.

Finally, top that linguistic sandwich with the condiment of the average western reader's 4th grade reading level (at which the army writes its manuals for widest possible comprehension) and you've got a recipe for quite a theological tummy ache.

Many, not realizing the impediments to understanding which they have not even noticed, let alone overcome, are happy to insist that their "literal" understanding is "right there in the (KJ, of course) Bible."

And, Oh, yes! Even if they do realize that there are challenges, they are confident that their conclusions are the result of the Holy Spirit leading them into all truth

Oh brave new world to have such people in it! (Otherwise, it would be dull, indeed!)

iakov the fool

 

[jasonc]

He thar hateth not his mother or father can not be my serveant.?

Literal?

And the stars in their courses fought against sisera.

Literally a star came from space drew a sword and fought against sisera?

 

[Butch5]

In another thread (End Times, topic, 'The two-minute salvation'), a poster used the language of 'scriptural fundamentalist'. Do you know what such a Christian believes?

What is your approach to interpretation of any text, whether that be reading your local newspaper, C S Lewis's Mere Christianity, Shakespeare's Henry IV, or reading the Bible?

Do you engage in literal interpretation or do you use some other method of interpretation? When you read this post, are you using literal interpretation or not in your attempt to understand the meaning of what I write?

Oz

I read everything literally unless there is a reason to believe it is figurative. Isn't that how we read everything?

 

[OzSpen]

Many things we read are fictional and non-fictional like books, newspapers and magazines. The Bible also contains that of the literal, but also in parts of the literal needs to be explained with the Spiritual aspects of what the literal is representing.

FHG,

Fictional and non-fictional are types of literature. That is not a way of describing hermeneutics - interpretation. Let's pursue the meaning of literal interpretation:

Encyclopaedia Britannica provides this definition of 'Literal interpretation' (online): 'Literal interpretation asserts that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. The literal meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors'.

Dr Vern Poythress in his article, 'What is literal interpretation?' states that there are 'at least three plausible ways of talking about literal meaning'. These three ways are:

1. 'The literal meaning of a word is the meaning that native speakers are most likely to think of when they are asked about the word in isolation (that is, apart from any context in a particular sentence or discourse)'. This is what he calls the 'first thought' meaning.
2. 'We could imagine reading passages as organic wholes, but reading them in the most prosaic way possible. We would allow ourselves to recognize obvious figures of speech, but nothing beyond the most obvious'.
3. 'One reads passages as organic wholes and tries to understand what each passage expresses against the background of the original human author and the original situation. One asks what understanding and inferences would be justified or warranted at the time the passage was written. This interpretation aims to express the meanings that human authors express'.

A leading seminary text on hermeneutics, A Berkeley Mickelsen (this is the one I used in seminary for my MA) concludes that:

By literal meaning the writer refers to the usual or customary sense conveyed by words or expressions'. The contrasting meaning is that of figurative: 'By figurative meaning the writer has in mind the representation of one concept in terms of another because the nature of the two things compared allows such an analogy to be drawn (Mickelsen 1963:179, emphasis in original).

He provided an exposition that led him to that conclusion.

I have attempted to address this further in my articles:

• What is the meaning of the literal interpretation of the Bible?

• Isn’t it obvious what a literal interpretation of Scripture means?

The end result is that literal interpretation means that a person reads any text (not just the Bible), taking into consideration the meaning of the words, grammar, figures of speech, and context. All of that is included in literal interpretation. It seems to me that some Christians get hung up on letterism vs literal interpretation.

I do hope you read this post by means of literal interpretation to gain the meaning of what I'm trying to communicate.

Oz

Works consulted

Mickelsen, A B 1963. Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[Edward]

It seems to me that there is something fundamentally (no pun intended) lacking in insisting on only a literal understanding of any work of literature.(And the Bible is literature, not the transcript of the video tape.)

I might have a problem with that to, if it happened. I dunno, depends on the passage I suppose.
But uh, nowhere in my post did you see me 'insisting', but rather, what I do and what works for me.

The problem is compounded by the fact that the Bible is a translation of ancient, dead, pre-scientific, eastern languages into a modern, western, post-scientific, languages.

Yep. Good thing we have a concordance to get into the original language with.

That problem is further compounded by insisting on reading it in yet another language which the reader does not speak: the Late Middle English of the King James Version.

It might if the reader didn't have a concordance. As you can see in my post though, I didn't insist on it, nor did I insist on the KJV . I like the KJV but don't go around telling others which translations to use.

Many, not realizing the impediments to understanding which they have not even noticed, let alone overcome, are happy to insist that their "literal" understanding is "right there in the (KJ, of course) Bible."

Again...where did I insist anything.
And what's your point? That you don't want to even try word studies? That any obstacle to metaphors be removed so that you can insist on metaphors all throughout?
That's incredibly amusing Brother.

 

[reba]

In another thread (End Times, topic, 'The two-minute salvation'), a poster used the language of 'scriptural fundamentalist'. Do you know what such a Christian believes?

What is your approach to interpretation of any text, whether that be reading your local newspaper, C S Lewis's Mere Christianity, Shakespeare's Henry IV, or reading the Bible?

Do you engage in literal interpretation or do you use some other method of interpretation? When you read this post, are you using literal interpretation or not in your attempt to understand the meaning of what I write?

Oz

I am just trying to figure out what you are saying. Many of your posts are way over my head...