Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: metmom
BTW, what groups are *Biblical literalists*? I have yet to meet anyone who demands that one has to take the whole Bible as literal or not at all, besides an evo. I know of no religious people or group that does that.

It's admittedly a broad brush. By 'literalist' I meant not any particular denomination, but some of the evangelicals who insist that the Earth must be only 6000 years old because of the genealogies in Genesis; and draw the conclusion that dinosaurs must have been in the Garden of Eden.

Some of the more extreme have even chastised C.S. Lewis as being a tool of Satan for incorporating mythological creatures and demi-gods into Narnia. See this site for example.

Or for another example of the kind of mouth-shooting-off, the late Keith Green once wrote a tract denouncing the use of the neutron bomb, because it would be ineffective. IIRC, the tract said something like, "I don't know about you, but if I knew I had only 24 hours to live, I'd fight harder than ever."

Had he even considered talking to a doctor or looking up non-classified sources on the effects of neutron irradiation on the human body?

Cheers!

106 posted on 01/03/2007 11:00:14 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]


To: grey_whiskers

The thing I take issue with about the term *Bible literalist* is that it is used to discredit anyone who takes the creation account literally. There's a big difference between taking a narrative account, that's clearly written as a narrative account, literally and taking the whole Bible literally. Taking the accounts literally does not automatically demand that all of it be taken litearlly.


When the Bible states that *He said* or *They went* or other terms used to show action, there is no precedent for reading it as an allegory. Yes, there are allegories, along with metaphors, analogies, parables, etc.; but recognising the difference between them and reading them as such also does not mean that none of the Bible should be taken literally or that the Bible is therefore untrue. Or that the person doing so is hypocritical or being unfaithful to what they believe.

Personally, I am uncommitted as to the age of the earth. It may be about 6,000 years old; it may be not. There are factors mentioned in Scripture that would muck up the dating methods we depend on that could render them unreliable as far as I can see. I am aware of the history of the dating of the age of the earth by Ussher and that is why I am hesitant to accept it. The age of the earth was derived using Scripture by a man but is nowhere stated IN Scripture. If it was, that'd be a whole different matter. I hesitate to accept as truth something calculated by a person.


140 posted on 01/04/2007 9:02:59 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson