Biblical Literalism

[Sétanta]

Today in my Biology class we had a massive debate about evolution. The Christians and one Muslim in my class argued that since the Bible (and Koran) talk of God creating the world, evolution is a hoax. The others denied that the Bible and Koran were meant to be taken literally.

What do you think. Are Holy Books like the Bible and Koran to be taken literally at face value? Are they metaphors? Are parts metaphor and parts literal?

[AngryTitusPullo]

Today in my Biology class we had a massive debate about evolution. The Christians and one Muslim in my class argued that since the Bible (and Koran) talk of God creating the world, evolution is a hoax. The others denied that the Bible and Koran were meant to be taken literally.

What do you think. Are Holy Books like the Bible and Koran to be taken literally at face value? Are they metaphors? Are parts metaphor and parts literal?

I'm not sure about Christianity but I think there's a phrase in Christianity that God created men in His own image, which according to Christians (those whom I've heard) means that God looks like men. So, when the Bible (and the Qur'an) says that God created the world, they must probably imagine that God created the world like men create something, a building maybe. Take this, put this there and so on. So the theory about evolution and the big bang are something that literally against the teachings of the Bible.

As a muslim, in the Qur'an however, the meaning that God created men in His image does not mean physical image but in attributes. Men have love, but God loves more than men can ever be. Men can be angry but God can be angries and so on. Regarding creation of the world, the Qur'an says that God the creator only have to say 'Kun, Fayakun' or basically mean 'Be, and so it be' (or something along those line). It comes with the believe that God as befitting His creator status can do as he please.

If God wanted to create the world and the universe He just need to say and the world will be created. Either the creation process is through the big bang or whatever theory in science nowadays can be easily accepted as muslim as all the events can be fit with the 'Be, and so it be' concept.

Regarding the evolution, in the Qur'an during the creation of Adam (the first man) it is written that the angels question God when God decided that men (humankind) will be the caliph (leader) of this world, that how can men be the leader when men are known (or going) to cost destruction in this world.

There are 2 interpretation regarding this matter from what I know.

First, the angels forsees the destructions that will be caused by men.
Second, there exist some form of mankind before us (homo sapiens) were created.

The first is not really accepted because only God knows what the future is, angels and us human (even prophets) will not know what the future is.

The second, while muslims do not believe that men Adam and his descendants or us) are not evolved from apes but we do acknowledge that before homo-sapiens were created, there exist other forms of humans. That is our version of evolution.

p/s: I don't remember the exact verses, so if there's anyone who knows can post them here.

[jankren]

I dont know about tha Bible. However, according to my knowledge Al Quran only says that God perfected (Which I think opens interpretation regarding evolution) humans and Adam was only the first successor on earth which does not necessarily mean he was the first human.

Peace,

[vopohame]

Christianity also endorses that God created man in its spiritual image(ie, infinite experience, growth of knowledge, immortality etc) there are very few christians that actually believe it is literal meaning God and us look like each other. In order to properly understand the old testement one should probably learn hebrew and understand the culture that it was in. While translation is often technically accurate, the original understandings of that same text is usually lost when trasmitting it to another culture.

[SickBoy13]

I, as custom in the Armenian church, have rarely interpreted the Bible's words literally. The Bible is filled with metaphors and idiomatic phrases that do not translate well. "In his image" does not mean physically looking like God, as how is God's appearance relevant? Rather, it means like him spiritually and mentally, capable of intelligence and instinct. Vopohame is right, good post. We cannot take much of exact words in the Bible literally.
For example, when we pray do we really go into the most secluded room available, lock the door and cover the windows? No, but we must try to separate ourselves from our current grudges, problems and necessities when we pray. I hope I have illustrated my point.

[Irishman]

The Christians and one Muslim in my class argued that since the Bible (and Koran) talk of God creating the world, evolution is a hoax.

I find that this is quite a reason to dismiss a scientific theory.
Copernicus' theories about the world moving were dismissed because of biblical evidence too, look where that got them.

If you dismiss Evolution you must show that something is wrong with the theory, not that it doesn't agree with a two thousand year old book.

I think that people need to realize that the scientific understanding of the world at the time in which the bible was written was far less than our understanding now. It makes no sense to take these two thousand year old guesses literally when you have evidence to the contrary right in front of you (bacterial evolution).

[Scorch]

I think the issue is that man often applies the things talked about in the bible to a context or idea we can understand, and so the image or understanding of god is tainted.

But to be honest, the main crux of Christianity is as clear as day, Jesus died for our sins so we can go to heaven. At points, I think the bible needs to be interpreted different ways, however noone will agree upon the ways those interpretations should be applied ... thus we have endless amounts of denominations.

To my mind it doesn't differ much, just take your own interpretation, as long as you understand the main points of the religion.

[Sidus Preclarum]

What do you think. Are Holy Books like the Bible and Koran to be taken literally at face value?

some looneys tells us yes.
reality tells us not to.
your pick.

[Scorch]

some looneys tells us yes.
reality tells us not to.
your pick.

And by 'some looneys' you mean who? Random looneys or the church?

[Kythras]

I was watching the 3rd part of a Doco on sunday night, Called the Story of God, presented by that British-Jew Professor who does lots of stuff like that, and , as the third part, it was talking about Science vs Religion, and he said something that has stuck with me, and I think, always will, that both those who follow science and those who follow religion, must always avoid "Certainty" because once you become totally certain of something, it blocks out everything else, that's why I'm hesitant to totally label myself an atheist (instead I use that hated term agnostic)...

Not sure how helpful that, was - there seemed to be a fair bit of ramblage in there...

Oh well...

[Sidus Preclarum]

And by 'some looneys' you mean who? Random looneys or the church?

THe Church doesn't advocate Biblical litteralism.

[Scorch]

THe Church doesn't advocate Biblical litteralism.

I realize that, but when people generally refer to looneys as a group, their usually (as is my experience) having a dig at the church.

[Ummon]

There is nothing in religion about how God created humanity, if not metaphors.

[Scorch]

There is nothing in religion about how God created humanity, if not metaphors.

That's a fairly ambiguous sentence? What do you mean by that?

[Ummon]

That if someone take metaphors literally, first thing to do is to tell him that they are meant not to.

If I say that God creates humans from clay, it is because of the role of clay in my time and my society, not because infact, God did so.

Therefore, to understand those passages, we must think of what clay means. For example, it's something which, can be found everywhere, and has little value, yet it becomes precious if baked (you have no idea how long was the life of this metaphor). Etc.

[Evariste]

Any historian will say that primary sources from thousands of years ago contain all kinds of exaggerations and misinterpretations from translation, so I don't think that the Bible or Koran are any different and shouldn't be taken literally. They're stories that tell you how to live your life, if you need that.

[green tea]

What do you think. Are Holy Books like the Bible and Koran to be taken literally at face value? Are they metaphors? Are parts metaphor and parts literal?

It depends on what you want. If you want to find inner peace, biology and other sciences will not really help. Religion is about spirituality, not about hard facts.

If you want, for example, fly to the moon, the bible and other religious writings will not help very much. Then you have to accept things and concepts like gravity, velocity etc. And a very religious person might find these concepts been mentioned in some way in the bible, but you need no bible to understand them.

The evolution theory is good enough to work with it, if you want to work in the fields of genetics. It may be against the religious beliefs of many people, but will show results. If you want to live your life in a small village under medieval conditions and have explanations for everything, religious writings will do. But if for example a plague hits your village, and you wont just say "we are cursed by god because we are sinners", if you want to save your people, maybe then you have to accept that things like cleaning yourself, not eating contaminated food, putting sick people in isolated hospitals etc. instead of just praying for forgiveness may help to end the plague.

So this is my opinion: take those parts of your religious writing that do not harm you and others literally to find inner peace. You may also believe that those religious writings may be literally right (even if there may be other villages with other religious writings which are entirely different but also are entirely literally right). But if problems arise, that only scientifical thinking can solve, be tolerant enough to think in the ways of science.

[Scorch]

It depends on what you want. If you want to find inner peace, biology and other sciences will not really help. Religion is about spirituality, not about hard facts.

If you want, for example, fly to the moon, the bible and other religious writings will not help very much. Then you have to accept things and concepts like gravity, velocity etc. And a very religious person might find these concepts been mentioned in some way in the bible, but you need no bible to understand them.

The evolution theory is good enough to work with it, if you want to work in the fields of genetics. It may be against the religious beliefs of many people, but will show results. If you want to live your life in a small village under medieval conditions and have explanations for everything, religious writings will do. But if for example a plague hits your village, and you wont just say "we are cursed by god because we are sinners", if you want to save your people, maybe then you have to accept that things like cleaning yourself, not eating contaminated food, putting sick people in isolated hospitals etc. instead of just praying for forgiveness may help to end the plague.

So this is my opinion: take those parts of your religious writing that do not harm you and others literally to find inner peace. You may also believe that those religious writings may be literally right (even if there may be other villages with other religious writings which are entirely different but also are entirely literally right). But if problems arise, that only scientifical thinking can solve, be tolerant enough to think in the ways of science.

Well talk about two ends of the scale. You'll find that most Christians (including myself) don't live under medieval conditions and explain everything as a curse or blessing of god. You'll find that most most Christians believe in God and the Bible, but are realistic enough to realize that physics, gravity, velocity, biology and other aspects of science are accurate and developed enough to depend on.

And by the way, there are very few problems an average Christian could care to answer that 'only scientific thinking can solve'.

[green tea]

Well talk about two ends of the scale. You'll find that most Christians (including myself) don't live under medieval conditions and explain everything as a curse or blessing of god. You'll find that most most Christians believe in God and the Bible, but are realistic enough to realize that physics, gravity, velocity, biology and other aspects of science are accurate and developed enough to depend on.

I know that not all people who refer to themselves as religious are entirely ignorant about science, and this was not what I wanted to say. But the case we are discussing now is the situation in setanta's class, in which there were two parties: the science-party, which said that the bible and other religious writings should not be taken literally, and the religion-party, which said that the evolution-theory was a hoax. It was about extreme positions. I know there are enough moderate persons on this planet to keep it running, religious or not.

And by the way, there are very few problems an average Christian could care to answer that 'only scientific thinking can solve'.

Could you please explain? What exactly did you mean by this?

[Blau&Gruen]

What do you think. Are Holy Books like the Bible and Koran to be taken literally at face value? Are they metaphors? Are parts metaphor and parts literal?

I suppose you are the teacher in this class and face the problem how to explain the kids that words can mean more than the ink on the paper. Can a kid understand what is a metaphor? It can maybe. Nevertheless, the doubt is the ticket to an independant and critical individual. The more they know about biology or any scientific mattern the more they develop the ability to understand that explanations ex autoritatem are not sufficent and that they have to invent their own critical use of the mind.