How many of you are aware that Biblical literalism was invented in the 16th century?

Question

Ha! Made you jump didn't I! It's true though; it's almost as newfangled as the 19th century rapture theory. That being so, why are people so keen to hang on to this perverted approach to scripture, when the universal testimony of the Christian church pre 16th century is against them? [By the way, read the earliest Church Fathers, even the Apostolic ones, and you'll find not a trace of slavery to the letter.]

Answer 1

What do you mean by 'literalism'?

If you find that you cannot trust God's word, then what can you trust?

Answer 2

You certainly did your homework. Good job fella, I didnt bother reading any of that old garbage i just enjoy upsetting christians.

Answer 3

Here is a biography of King James:

CROWNING ACHIEVEMENT.

Not only was King James the first monarch to unite Scotland, England and Ireland into Great Britain (as he liked to call it), but he commissioned what many consider to be the greatest piece of religious and literary work in the world--the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, aka the Authorized Version. King James gave his subjects the greatest gift he could--the Holy Bible so that they could be saved and fed from the Word of God.

In January of 1604, the King called the Hampton Court Conference in order to hear of things "pretended to be amiss" in the church. At this conference, Dr. John Reynolds, a Puritan, requested of the King a new translation of the Bible because those that were allowed during the reigns of Henry the VIII and Edward the VI were corrupt.

The King loved the idea and by July of 1604 the King had appointed 54 men to the translation committee. These men were not only the best linguists and scholars in the kingdom but in the world. Much of their work on the King James Bible formed the basis for our linguistic studies of today.

The translators were organized into six groups and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. This group of great scholars had qualifications such as have not been rivaled before or after them. They spent most of their lifetimes in the pursuit of God and knowledge. One translator, Dr. Lancelot Andrews, mastered at least 15 languages and by the time he was 6 years old, he had read the entire Bible in Hebrew. Others on the translation committee were just as qualified. Some wrote foreign language dictionaries and lexicons, they commonly debated in Greek, they translated and edited great works and wrote their own. These are but a few of their fantastic accomplishments. They not only knew the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek biblical languages but also the related languages that shed light on them such as Arabic, Persian, Coptic, Syriac, Latin, Chaldee, Spanish, French, Italian, and Dutch.

These men were not only world class scholars, they were Christians who lived holy lives as Deans and Presidents of major universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster. Some prayed 5 hours a day.

Their translation work did not go without opposition. According to the translator's notes in the preface of the King James Bible, the Catholic religion was dead set against translating the Bible into the common tongue. Popery proved to be the translator's chief enemy. The translators wrote of the Catholic religion:

"So much are they afraid of the light of the scripture, that they will not trust the people with it...Sure we are that not he that hath the good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit."

Despite the opposition of the Catholic religion, the work continued and the end product was nothing short of miraculous. Many consider the commissioning of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible the crowning achievement of King James the VI and & I.

Their translation work did not go without opposition. According to the translator's notes in the preface of the King James Bible, the Catholic religion was dead set against translating the Bible into the common tongue. Popery proved to be the translator's chief enemy.

So you see it was the Catholic church who didn't want commom man to read the bible for themselves. If they did they would know all the things the Catholic church does that is forbidden in the Holy Bible.

Answer 4

I don't know about all that, I think fundies conviently take those parts literally that serve their socio-political point of view, while not taking literally those parts that don't.  For example, fundies say we are saved by faith alone, while Our Lord and Savior Jesus christ clearly tells us in the Gospel according to one of the origianl bishops St. Matthew 25:31-46 that we will be judged by our works, particualrly how we treat the least among us, if we do not see Jesus in that person we think to be the biggest scum bag, then we are not saved.  Jesus was very clear on this.  But of course it  support the fundie conesvative socio-political point of view and agneda (why shoudl I help the least among us when it is their choice to be the least, or if I help them it will really be hurting them and other such nonsnes that is not in their own words "biblical", so they conviently ignore this portion of the bible.  

As fundamentalists  it is their socio-political point of view that is fundamental, not their religon not their fait and not their bible which they pretend to worship in a manner that borders on if not out-right -- idolatry.

They also ignore and don't take literally the Gosple according to Our Beloved St. John, another of the original bishops -- who personanly ordained St. Polycarp as bishop of symna, thus usering in the second generation of bishops and insuring that the catholic hierachy that Jesus formed would continue after his death, -- chapter 6 which says clearly and with no "symbolism" whatever

"UNLESS YOU EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOOD THERE IS NO LIFE IN YOU".  

Now this is a hard teaching and many turned away and turned away and turned away, as they continue to do today.

So, we can see that protestants particualrly of the fndie persusion don't take the bible literally -- they can't they have no idea waht it says, it is babal to them -- just those parts of it that support thier fundamental socio-political agneda which is not Chirst.  But a very harsh conservatism that is anti-abortion on the one hand and yet supports capital punishment on the other, catholic doctrine is clear on this, both are life issues.  It is a fundamenalism that allows their pastors to live like kings and get away with anything, while they pharastically look down on the people, while catholic social teaching has always held a place for blue collar and minotrity peopel and for them to get a fair shake in business and at the work place, always emphasizing the proper balance between work and home and standing up  to the powers that be whether they be corporations or currupt comunist regiems.

Catholics are consitantly for the people.

Of course child abuse scandals never become scadlous in the fundies way becsuae they never see the light of day, they are suppresed by the indvidual pastors who preside over thier congregations like dictators stamping out discent and of cousre loading down abuse victims with the guilt of false accusation while defending the reputation of the perpatrator at all cost.  They are today's pharisiess, who know nothing of God nor the Bible yet shout WE SEE SE SEE WE SEE.

Sola Scriptura ?

Go get a copy of the marine corp. manual, take it home study it. Don't forget to rip out the five chapters that contradict what you are doing.

Get other people together to study it, implement it in your life, get the people who you study it with to implement it in there lives.

Oh, don’t forget to get your official marine corps manual concordance, so you can look up words and phrases like “simper fi”, “Iwo Jima”, “Helmet”, “Grenade”, and “Honor”,  etc.  

Now does this make you guys marines?

I think not.

You are missing pretty much everything that it means to be a marine. You haven't had the training that they have done for years you don't have the history -- the understanding of what it means to BE a marine as passed on from the founder of the marine corp to his first lieutenants and on down through the ranks through the years – the direct link to the founder of the marine corp. and writers of the manual, nor do you have  the word of mouth testimony (those unwritten instructions that the founder himself – who by the way did not write the manual -- passed on to his first lieutenants, things the marines have been doing for years),  nor do you have the true meaning of what the manual says. Because, of course, outside of the marine corp., the manual is MEANINGLESS.

People who belong to bible studying fellowships who believe in the doctrine of solely scripture, scripture first, scripture only -- sola scriptura are no more Christians than are the people who got together to study the marine manual are marines.  

Now that you and your friends have studied the marine corp manual. Go out in front of a marine corp. recruiting station and as people walk in hand them a tract from the manual and get them to come join you. Go to a marine corp. camp and do the same thing see if they will join you marine corp. manual studying fellowship. But don't call yourselves that. Call yourselves, "marines". Go to the veterans day parade and hand out tracts from the manual there, and tell them to come to your marine barracks. Let people know that you have the way that all they have to do is study the manual with you and they too can be marines.

Oh yes and erect marine corp. manual studying colleges and graduate what?

Experts in misunderstanding the marine corp. manual.

And OHHHH yes don't forget to call yourselves not just marines but "heroes(saints)", because after all everyone who is part of your marine corp., manual studying fellowship is a "hero(saint)", after all the manual says that doesn't it?  Forget about honoring real marine “Heroes(Saints)” like Colonel Louis C. Plain and Gunnery Sergeant John Basilone;  or Gunnery Sergeant Donald A. Levesque (RET); or Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham ... etc.; for after all the manual tells us not to do that, right?

Then, go up to a real marine (if you dare) tell them what you are doing, and ask them what is wrong with it?

Answer 5

You could be right, but I don't think so.

Answer 6

Just get back to the simplicity of the Scriptures, Jesus did, he believed the 'Old Testament' writings and said if they had known them they would have known him.

Answer 7

Well friend, I have a hard time seeing the revelance of that since very few people had ever read the scriptures in their native tounge before the 16th century.  Right?

Answer 8

The Jews do not take Genesis literally, so why would Jesus?  That is asinine.

Answer 9

I too would like to see your sources for Biblical literalism.  I would agree that from the time of the 4th century councils there was push to keep average people from knowing the Bible -- the major church of that era seemed to squelch independent study for fear of people leaving them and therefore these powerful leaders would lose their following.  Luther was led 16th century opposition to that.  But there is evidence (www.tracesofthekingdom.org) documenting people trying to be literalists pre-reformation before 1525 maybe as early as A.D. 1000.

Answer 10

Nah. Jesus said Adam and Eve were literal people. Nice try though.

Mat 19:4  And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mat 19:5  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mat 19:6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Gen 2:24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Gen 2:25  And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Jesus also confirmed Jonah and Noah as historical people.

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!

When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.

He confirmed many of the accounts in the Old Testament, such as the destruction of Sodom and the death of Lot's wife (Luke 17:29, 32), the murder of Abel by his brother Cain (Luke 11:51), the calling of Moses (Mark 12:26), the manna given in the wilderness (John 6:31-51), the judgment upon Tyre and Sidon (Matthew 1-1:21), and many others.

Not only did Jesus confirm the historicity of these accounts, He also authenticated some of the passages that are most disputed today. Many modern scholars do not believe that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, but Jesus did (see Matthew 19:8, 9; John 7:19; Mark 12:29-31).

Some modern scholars also assume the existence of more than one Isaiah, but Jesus believed in only one. In Luke 4:17-21, He cites Isaiah 61:1, 2 (the so-called second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah) while in Matthew 15:7-9 He refers to the first part of Isaiah's work (Isaiah 6:9) without the slightest hint of more than one author.

The account of Daniel is rejected today by many as actually coming from the pen of Daniel, but the Lord Jesus believed him to be a prophet (Matthew 24:15). The account of Adam and Eve often is ridiculed today as legend, but Jesus believed the story to be true (Matthew 19:1-6).

Likewise, the narrative of Noah and the great flood not only is authenticated by Jesus (Matthew 24:37), it also is used as an example of His second coming. Finally, the most unbelievable of all-the account of Jonah and the great fish-is used by Jesus as a sign of His resurrection (Matthew 12:39ff).

It almost seems as though Jesus was anticipating 20th century biblical criticism when He authenticated these accounts. The con-clusion is simple. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct. Many want to accept Jesus, but also want to reject a large portion of the Old Testament. This option is not available. Either Jesus knew what He was talking about or He did not. The evidence is clear that Jesus saw the Old Testament as being God's Word; His attitude toward it was nothing less than total trust.

Answer 11

No one had a Bible until 1611.

Jesus also said there was a literal Noah and Noah's Ark and a literal Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah.  Read Luke 17:26-30

Jesus said, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."  Luke 16:31  

So, if you believe not Moses and the prophets who wrote the Old Testament, and Jesus believed them, then are you saying you don't believe Jesus' words.  Jesus even spoke of Jonah, one of the most far fetched books of the Bible.

Sorry, friend, if it is good enough for Jesus, It is good enough for me.  The Bible is the inspired word of God and I take it literally until I see metaphors and then I look for their explanation by some other prophet.

Jesus said not one jot or tittle would pass from that Old Testament until all be fulfilled.

2 Timothy 2:9 ".....the word of God is NOT BOUND."  The King James Version of the 1611 Bible is not bound by a copyright law.

Psalm 147:19 says, "He showeth His WORD unto JACOB..."  James is not an English word, b ut it is a Hebrew word.  Did you know the Hebrew word for James is Jacob?  Even the King James Version of the Holy Bible is written in Scripture.  God covers everything my friend.

Proverbs 16:10 says, "A divine sentence is in the lips of the KING" and Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a KING is, there is power..."

Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had all of the readings available to them that modern critics have available to them today."  (The Answer Book, Gipp, p. 110)  85-90 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible.  We have no original texts of the Bible, only copies. The ghost of "the originals" is a LIE!

We don't have the "originals" Moses, or Paul or David wrote.  There are no set of "Originals" on the face of this earth.  

Friend, where is the Lord God?  the One that "spoke" the worlds into existence - can He not PRESERVE His word as He promised in Psalm 12:7 and Matthew 24:35?  Did God almighty NOT  know what He was "inspiring"?  Does the Lord need "Bible correctors" or any of your sources to help Him "straighten out" His Word?  I think NOT.

God is more than able to protect his LITERAL word.  Satan's aim of attack hasn't changed.   Satan knows if he can supplant even a small seed of doubt in God's word that mankind will look elsewhere!  Satan planted a small seed of doubt into the mind of Eve.  And as Eve questioned the truthfulness of God's Word - the fall of mankind was only a bite away.  The first attack - was a direct attack on the Word of God.  And here you are today, doing it again!

Answer 12

Inconsistency is one of the main reasons for those of who are more intelligent and observant eschew religion, especially Christianity.

Answer 13

I have a feeling that Moses meant what He said, and said what he meant.  If that isn't literalism, I don't know what it is.

Answer 14

Jesus took the Old Testament literally...

The disciples took Jesus literally...

are you suggesting that it's all allegory?

that's not logical.  This comes off to look like an attempt to dismiss the strong statements found in the Bible.

Answer 15

Not true. The Catholic Church has been teaching that the literal meaning of the Bible is to be taken first for 2000 years.

Answer 16

Wouldn't surprise me. And to goethe, your a moron, jews do not teach literalism in their beliefs. Even the eden story is seen as a mid-rash, a story that never happenedd but conveys a spiritual truth. And buddy doesn't even rate a responce.

Answer 17

Literal interpretation of any spiritual writing is for children. imo

Our experience eventually pushes us into deeper understandings when we are ready.

Things that change are of this world

Truth is unchanging and  God

Answer 18

I knew that.  None of the church fathers held to the idea that the Earth was created in six literal days, 6-10,000 years ago.

Answer 19

About the same number as know that Protestantism was created in the 15th century with a strong belief in individual interpretation from reading the Bible to escape the Authority of the Church (Catholic), where reading of the Bible by the church members was not encouraged and all the Bible was filtered through the sermons of the ordained priests.

edit

Also Bibles in local languages, rather than Latin, were first printed, in violation of the rules of church and many states.

Answer 20

Horsespit.  The Gnostics were claiming it literal truth, as have the Jews from 6,000 years ago.

Answer 21

This is fascinating. Can you give me your sources please?

Buddy R, I have never met a person so willfully ignorant. What does your diet consist of?

Answer 22

I'll look into that.  It definitely wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be correct.