NO ONE is a complete "literalist"

"No One is a complete literlist."
Agreed. I do believe that the Bible should be taken literally UNLESS there is a compelling reason, within the context of the passage, to seek another explaination. God's word is truth, and He wants us to know the truth. Of course, when, exactly, to seek another explaination is, often, a matter that leads to disputes.

 

"When the literal sense makes sense seek no other sense."

 

I knew there was a line for that, but couldn't think of it, that's it. Thanks.

 

Literal Historical Grammatical Context

That includes figures of speech, idiom, metaphor, etc.

I do know some people who are literalists literally, but most of them are simply ignorant of the historical context of a passage. Like those who preach that the Isaiah passage about Abraham not bearing his thigh means men can't wear shorts, and other perversions of the true meaning of scripture.

 

Where can one find scripture to literally understand which says that the Bible must be interpreted literally whenever possible?

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Alcott

An interesting point! I think one has to always compare scripture passages against each other, when they speak on the same subject or event. The examples you gave show that if one takes them too literally, a ‘tension’ is created that is hard to reconcile. If someone reads too literally – i.e. proof-texting – one can arrive at all manner of strange quandaries (i.e. “drink my blood” and “eat my flesh”).

 

No one claims to be a complete literalist. The words Dave used as "literal historical grammatical" interpretation means "normal." We interpret language normally.

As for Danny's question, it is the nature of language to interpret it normally. The presumption of communication is built on the univocal nature of language. Bottom line, you intepret Scripture under the same principles you would anything else. Words have meaning in context and understandint eh context, along with idioms and figures, is the normal means of interpretation.

 

"Literal sense" is a bad translation of the Latin "sensus literalis" which would better be translated "literary sense" i.e., "figures of speech, idiom, metaphor, etc." as Superdave mentioned. The problem comes in when some claim that they are the only ones who interpret "literally" and everyone else interprets "spiritually."

 

OK So I read in I Kings 7:23 (NASU)

23 Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty[8][Lit a line of 30 cubits went around it ] cubits in circumference.

I take this non-literally, in that I assume the craftsman truly cast the basin at ten cubits in diameter, and the reference to 30 cubits is not the result of a literal measurement but simply an estimate based on the primitive state of mathematics in that culture at that time. Someone of our own times, however, I would expect to point out the circumference was a little over 31 cubits, 31.4159 (to 4 decimal places).

Is this a valid extension of the non-literal interpretation principle?

 

I think that is a little bits of apples and oranges. Usually the "non-literalist" wants to say that one word means something different. In this case, what you have is a generalization most likely. Inerrancy or accuracy does not necessarily mean precision. It is common to round things off in everyday speech. Someone asks about the price of a car. They are told 20,000 dollars. The actual price is probably 19,995 or some such number.

So, no, I do not think that is a valid extension of hte "non-literal" interpretation principle.

 

"Usually the "non-literalist" wants to say that one word means something different."

I'm not sure this is always the case. As I mentioned in a previous post a non-literal hermeneutic is not equivalent to "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing". THIS type of interpretation has its roots in the early patristic period when men like Origen and Tertullian attempted to find hidden and symbolic meanings in scripture - such as the idea that any mention of water in any context meant that the verse was dealing with baptism!

Most non-literalists do not make such assertions. Let's take the creation account as an example. The literalist sees a sequence of days and creation events and as such sees this as a literal time-line description of how creation ACTUALLY occurred. A nonliteralist does not necessarily REJECT as literal interpretation. He/she simply does not feel bound to take the literal reading at face value. A typical nonliteralist position on creation might be something like this (I'll use the explanation of Nahum Sarna, a renowned Jewish scholar):

Moses was familiar with the Babylonian creation myths an as such new that the Israelites were likewise familiar. He retold creation in a way that made Yahweh the absolute maker and ruler of all. As such the details of the account were not meant to be literally physically true, rather they were meant to tell the story in terms with which the people would be familiar. T

THIS (whether we agree or not) is an example of taking context, culture, and language OVER the literal reading of the passage.

 

That was funny. I didn't think anyone would understand what I meant if I said I interpret the Bible normally

 

I've always been told that we should interpret Scripture according to its plain sense. This is really true of any book. For the most part, narratives are be taken literally unless there is good reason to do otherwise (personal prejudices are not a good reason), while poetry, proverbs, and parables can be treated differently. The problem is that although the Bible gives us ample evidence of its inerrancy, it does not provide detailed rules on how to interpret it. So the debate goes on.

 

"As I mentioned in a previous post a non-literal hermeneutic is not equivalent to "spiritualizing" or "allegorizing"."

"The problem is that although the Bible gives us ample evidence of its inerrancy, it does not provide detailed rules on how to interpret it. So the debate goes on. "

Good points from CM and Tangent. Too many fundamentalists are unwilling to cede these points.

Tim

 

Well, there have been verbal wars fought over this passage in the name of inerrancy for or against but I take it that other than quibbling over using the word non-literal we're on the same page here for this verse.

 

Yes, but those wars were fought over inerrancy, not over the literal vs. non-literal issue ...