This is true.
The Bible is thus interpreted not "literally" standing on its own -- but in context to this developed knowledge and expertise -- not available to the fundamentalist individual locked in his bedroom Bible in hand.
A wise interpreter will employ proper hermenutical principles, taking into account the importance of context, the importance of historical considerations, making a correct genre assessment, letting Scripture interpret Scripture, etc.
A "literal" Bible, one written in plain speak, could be self-contained and any reader conversant in the particular language as that of the Bible ought to be able to decern its actual, hence "literal" meaning.
Even though the Bible contains various literary genres and figures of speech, the biblical authors still very often employed literal statements to convey their ideas. And where they use a literal means to express their ideas, the proper method of interpretation is to employ a corresponding means of a literal methodology. A literal method of interpreting Scripture simply means giving to each word in the text the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage.
On the other hand hermenuetic knowledge and practice would allow someone to deduce that Genesis is allegorical rather than a "literal" description of the science of the creation of the universe and man himself.
Yet we know that Jesus, who most certainly did not lack the parallel knowledge base of hermenuetic principle, consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally. If Jesus is the model for interpreting Scripture, we can see that He treated the historical narratives as factual accounts, including such things as the creation account of Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark and the flood, and so on. When he quoted the Old Testament, he used the normal, rather than allegorical meaning, of the passage. In short, he took a literal approach to interpretation which took into account the literary type of the passage. Moreover, that the "average person" can understand Scripture is demonstrated by the fact that Jesus, whether speaking to highly educated Scribes and Pharisees or just the average joe, expected his hearers to understand his meaning as certainly as he would hold them accountable to the message. It is an accountablity to the Word of God that is evident throughout Scripture.
The hermenuetics of the Catholic Church is particularly wise in finally divorcing ALL scientific pronouncements from matters of essential faith. The Catholic Church wisely opened the door for acceptence of the evolutionary explanation for the origin of species.
Alvin Plantinga has written a very interesting three-part article on this subject:
"...It would be of great interest to explore this area further, to try to say precisely what I mean in saying that science isn't religiously neutral, to see in exactly what ways Christianity bears on the understanding and practice of the many relevantly different sciences and parts of science. The first is not the focus of this paper, however; and the second question (of course) requires vastly more knowledge of science than I can muster. That is a question not just for philosophers, but for the Christian community of scientists and philosophers working together. What I shall do instead is vastly more programmatic. First, I shall point to three examples of the religious non-neutrality of scientific claims or hypotheses. I shall then argue that a Christian academic and scientific community ought to pursue science in its own way, starting from and taking for granted what we know as Christians. (This suggestion suffers from the considerable disadvantage of being at present both unpopular and heretical; I shall argue, however, that it also has the considerable advantage of being correct.) Now one objection to this suggestion is enshrined in the dictum that science done properly necessarily involves "methodological naturalism" or (as Basil Willey calls it) "provisional atheism."[3] This is the idea that science, properly so-called, cannot involve religious belief or commitment. My main aim in this paper is to explore, understand, discuss, and evaluate this claim and the arguments for it. I am painfully aware that what I have to say is tentative and incomplete, no more than a series of suggestions for research programs in Christian philosophy..."
I. Is Science Religiously Neutral? Three Examples
Cordially,
And a placemarker.
Just from the excerpts, I particularly like that he is offering this theory knowing it is controversial and incomplete.
This is not at all the "certainty" you see from the "literalists." It is my opinion the thing that you call hermenutics has and will continue to save Christianity from the dustbin of history due to the otherwise "literalist" conflicts with emerging scientific knowledge. Alvin Plantinga seems to be fighting a bit of a rear-guard action, but that's okay.
Scientific results have a way of blowing away other explanations, and so religions better learn to adjust or be ultimately discreditied.
Just wanted to see that again. :-)
Frasier "Spelling Bee" episode repeat BUMP.