What is biblical literalism?

[Major]

Here's a prime example of biblical literalism:

Romans 11:25-27

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

As an Israeli, I can take this literally...to mean exactly what it says. Those who might wish to argue the timeframe of that prophecy in relation to us today, as if this has already been fulfilled, well, such a one has a very hard road to go on this one to ever convince not only myself, but many other of my Israeli brothers and sisters in the faith who have studied the scriptures for many decades, and have spent considerable time in relationship with the One who inspired its writing. (1 John 2:27)

MM

MM..........it has been my observation and study that the many different kinds of "religiose groups"/Cults have come from the purposefully manipulation of the Bible. Instead of just accepting what the Word of God says.....they have made it say what they want their followers to believe it says.

Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists are good people but have been seriousely mislead by their leaders.

A text of Scripture is quoted primarily as a device to grasp the attention of readers or listeners and then followed by a teaching which is so nonbiblical that it would appear far more dubious to most people had it not been preceded by a reference to Scripture.

Example:
Mormon missionaries quote James 1:5 which promises God’s wisdom to those who ask him and, then, follow this by explaining that when Joseph Smith did this he was given a revelation from which he concluded that God the Father has a body.

Example:
JW, Alan Watts quotes the first half of John 5:39 (“You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life”), claiming that Jesus was challenging His listeners’ over emphasis of the Old Testament, but the remainder of the immediate context reads, “and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (verses 39-40), which shows that Jesus was upholding the value of the Old Testament as a testimony to Himself.

Example:
Mary Baker Eddy says the name Adam consist of two syllables, A DAM, which means an obstruction, in which case, Adam signifies “the obstacle which the serpent, sin, would impose between man and his Creator.”

Example :
Mary Baker Eddy interprets EVENING as “mistiness of mortal thought; weariness of mortal mind; obscured views; peace and rest.”

Example:
The Mormon theologian James Talmage interprets the prophesy that “thou shalt be brought down and speak out of the ground” to mean that God’s Word would come to people from the Book of Mormon which was taken out of the ground at the hill of Cumorah.

Example:
The Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that blood transfusion is nonbiblical, but the biblical data that they cite fails either to speak directly to the issue or to adequately substantiate their teaching.

Example:
The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi interprets “Be still, and know that I am God” as meaning that each person should meditate and come to the realization that he is essentially Godhood itself.

Which by the way is exactly what Benny Hinn said as well on "TBN TV network on Dec. 1, 1990".............
"Although we are not Almighty God Himself, nevertheless we are now divine"!!!!

 

[crossnote]

MM..........it has been my observation and study that the many different kinds of "religiose groups"/Cults have come from the purposefully manipulation of the Bible. Instead of just accepting what the Word of God says.....they have made it say what they want their followers to believe it says.

Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, 7th Day Adventists are good people but have been seriousely mislead by their leaders.

My notice is that the 'orthodox' bodies of the 19th century became the theological liberals of the 20th century through embracing a 'rational' non literal/non miraculous approach to Scripture who now have dead and/or dying church bodies in the 21st century.

 

[Decoder]

With respect to the topical theme of this thread, the non-literal idea of "delay" is not just outlandish and runs contrary to the fact that the Lord is never surprised by anything. So, to say there was a "delay" can only rest in the arms of man's perspective...or, rather, YOUR perspective, which renders the idea into the arena of non-consideration to be taken seriously.

LITERALISM applied to the texts of scripture rips the legs out from under the assumptions of the -isms that zing all around our heads from all the soothsayers out there trying to gain for themselves a following of supporters for their doctrinal slants, especially in the arena of eschatology. This is the very reason I personally apply, first and foremost, the literalistic study of ALL scripture, and if that reveals the necessity to apply a parallel path of allegory and/or spiritualization, then that will become apparent to the serious student of scripture who relies upon prayer and the Spirit to give revelation.

The book of Revelation is an interesting study in literalism, because that is how we can easily see the shifts between events on earth and those things occurring in Heaven.

Delay? No. I don't buy it. That's Eisegetical rather than Exegetical, especially when it defies and assaults the absolute Deity of the Most High. Literalism is simply a tool in my arsenal, not a weapon. It helps to rightly divide the word, not pound it into conformity to my personal desires.

MM

Peter in 2 Peter 3 did not dispute there was a delay. He disputed what it meant. His is the most direct answer to this question. The other two are the 4 optional return times of the Master in Mk 13, and 'only the Father knows' in Mt 24.

I don't think that you can see that what you are calling literalism is actually dispensational thought. For ex., if the succession of 490 weeks puts 490 right after 489, in normal usage (and it does), the only reason for creating a break there is some extraneous reason. But breaking the succession is called 'literal usage.' There are many examples of this. Acts 1:6 is 'literally' not a sharply-put snap at trying to figure out when the kingdom of Israel happens.

 

[Decoder]

Here is a question that might move toward clarity: is the commonly shared membership, inheritance and promise-sharing of Jews and Gentiles in Christ Eph 3:6 a mature, spiritual development? If so, then the spiritual meaning is very necessary and valuable. 'See how they love each other' was said of the early Christians ability to span differences of race, class, status.

 

[crossnote]

Here is a question that might move toward clarity: is the commonly shared membership, inheritance and promise-sharing of Jews and Gentiles in Christ Eph 3:6 a mature, spiritual development? If so, then the spiritual meaning is very necessary and valuable. 'See how they love each other' was said of the early Christians ability to span differences of race, class, status.

Actually the 'spiritual meaning' points towards a physical reality, if are to take the Incarnation seriously...

Ephesians 2:14-15 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

 

[Musicmaster]

Peter in 2 Peter 3 did not dispute there was a delay. He disputed what it meant. His is the most direct answer to this question. The other two are the 4 optional return times of the Master in Mk 13, and 'only the Father knows' in Mt 24.

I don't think that you can see that what you are calling literalism is actually dispensational thought. For ex., if the succession of 490 weeks puts 490 right after 489, in normal usage (and it does), the only reason for creating a break there is some extraneous reason. But breaking the succession is called 'literal usage.' There are many examples of this. Acts 1:6 is 'literally' not a sharply-put snap at trying to figure out when the kingdom of Israel happens.

D, I'm gonna have to ask you to quote from 2 Peter 3 what you think was allegedly his acknowledgement of some sort of "delay."

MM

 

[Major]

My notice is that the 'orthodox' bodies of the 19th century became the theological liberals of the 20th century through embracing a 'rational' non literal/non miraculous approach to Scripture who now have dead and/or dying church bodies in the 21st century.

Agreed!

 

[Decoder]

D, I'm gonna have to ask you to quote from 2 Peter 3 what you think was allegedly his acknowledgement of some sort of "delay."

MM

Do you know what the question of the chapter is? He was dealing with a question. Answering it. What was that question? It's taken in the plain sense.

 

[Decoder]

Actually the 'spiritual meaning' points towards a physical reality, if are to take the Incarnation seriously...

Ephesians 2:14-15 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

Exactly! That is why these things should be read as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Or you could say in the Gospel event. There wouldn't be any good news unless the thing had taken place 'in his flesh.'

Back to the meaning of 'spiritualizing' then, I don't find it easy to pin that down, but here we have something very important that Jewish and non-Jewish Christians are unified and have peace in. It's not carnal so it must be what spiritual usually means in the NT: maturity that has come in Christ. Conversely, the Law could be called unspiritual or immature because it often brought out the worst, divided, made immature.

 

[crossnote]

Conversely, the Law could be called unspiritual or immature because it often brought out the worst, divided, made immature.

Well, since the law’s intended use was to bring us to Christ, it accomplishes its purpose for those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile.

Galatians 3:24-25 NKJV
[24] Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [25] But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

 

[Decoder]

Well, since the law’s intended use was to bring us to Christ, it accomplishes its purpose for those who believe, whether Jew or Gentile.

Galatians 3:24-25 NKJV
[24] Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [25] But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

But it has a mix of results, unlike the Gospel. Gal 4: the weak and miserable elements of the world. Col 2: the certificate of debt that was was against us and nailed to the cross... If you died to the weak and miserable elements, why do you keep rules like...? And this is where people were having lots of trouble fellowshipping with people not of their own extraction. They were going back to the Law for a purpose it was not designed for.

If the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace... the Gospel would certainly win that contest, as described in Ephesians 2 second half. Or Gal 6 asking the person who is spiritual to try to help the weak. The things mentioned there are a huge spiritual accomplishment for which Christian faith is renowned.

The object here is to establish what spiritual means in relation to intepretation in contrast with literalism. There are spiritual sacrifices (Rom 12) by believers in a spiritual temple (Eph 2:20, 21; I Peter 2), and that's how we should expect the NT to resolve these things. Ps 118, said the apostles in Acts 3, told us who the Cornerstone of the new temple was. So we should not be looking like a Jewish settler did in 1949. Poking through rubble in Jerusalem, he claimed to have found a stone in which there was a Hebrew inscription for the term 'Cornerstone' and that that stone would be the coming new temple.

 

[crossnote]

But it has a mix of results, unlike the Gospel. Gal 4: the weak and miserable elements of the world. Col 2: the certificate of debt that was was against us and nailed to the cross... If you died to the weak and miserable elements, why do you keep rules like...? And this is where people were having lots of trouble fellowshipping with people not of their own extraction. They were going back to the Law for a purpose it was not designed for.

These aren't results of the law but rather descriptors.

If the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace... the Gospel would certainly win that contest, as described in Ephesians 2 second half. Or Gal 6 asking the person who is spiritual to try to help the weak. The things mentioned there are a huge spiritual accomplishment for which Christian faith is renowned.

True, the law doesn't produce the fruit of the Spirit...if anything, it's the opposite...pride self, confidence, etc.

The object here is to establish what spiritual means in relation to intepretation in contrast with literalism. There are spiritual sacrifices (Rom 12) by believers in a spiritual temple (Eph 2:20, 21; I Peter 2), and that's how we should expect the NT to resolve these things. Ps 118, said the apostles in Acts 3, told us who the Cornerstone of the new temple was. So we should not be looking like a Jewish settler did in 1949. Poking through rubble in Jerusalem, he claimed to have found a stone in which there was a Hebrew inscription for the term 'Cornerstone' and that that stone would be the coming new temple.

The NT, which deals primarily with the Church (believing Jews and Gentiles), was founded on a literal fulfillment of the OT prophecies and promises. I believe when the Church is taken God will once again turn his sights back on the Jewish people, taking them through Jacob's Trouble and fulfilling literally the myriads of promises given to them in the OT regarding His Kingdom. Otherwise does God give promises He doesn't keep?

Romans 11:29 (NASB) for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

2 Corinthians 1:20 (KJV) For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

 

[Decoder]

These aren't results of the law but rather descriptors.


True, the law doesn't produce the fruit of the Spirit...if anything, it's the opposite...pride self, confidence, etc.


The NT, which deals primarily with the Church (believing Jews and Gentiles), was founded on a literal fulfillment of the OT prophecies and promises. I believe when the Church is taken God will once again turn his sights back on the Jewish people, taking them through Jacob's Trouble and fulfilling literally the myriads of promises given to them in the OT regarding His Kingdom. Otherwise does God give promises He doesn't keep?

Romans 11:29 (NASB) for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

2 Corinthians 1:20 (KJV) For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

You're right the law makes the wrong things happen after it brings us to Christ. As I Cor 15 says: the power of sin is the law. Pretty grim.

Other than your aprioris, why should the normal sequence of Dan 9's 490 years be broken? Is there anything in it that calls for that?

re 11:29 is not the only line, though. In terms of the whole ending there, he is just validating that the some would be saved. But I get no sense from it that God goes back and forth between race-nation and the faith-based group, because of the ending: God has bound all men to sin, so that he can have mercy on them--if they respond.

Paul knew only a few would be saved, v14. The Israel of 11:26 was qualified back in 9:6 as both Jews and Gentiles.

God would also be a liar if he did not extirpate the person/group (Israel) who does not obey the new Moses of Acts 3. There is no stronger term at use for 'a humiliating disinheriting.' exolethreuō

A huge question on race-nation is 'anothen' back in Jn 3 with Nicodemus. It is not again so much as to refer back to what things were originally, from the beginning, from the highest. To make it clear, Jesus said you can't be born this way from the flesh, which was the same as Jn 1: God's sons are not by flesh, by descent, by ancestry, or a husband's will. The original marker of the faith community is faith; it is not getting land. It was always faith at work in courage, and in Heb. 11, the people of faith 'never received what was promised'!!! Let that sink in. The promises were only fulfilled 'with us' (the writer of Hebrews) in Christ.

That's why Joshua (twice) and Ps 105 are quite clear: everything promised to Abraham was completely delivered.

Peter's lines in Acts 2:30, 31, are very important here. They are not about anything in the future: he is appealing to Israel that the Davidic king is here: "David foresaw his enthronement and spoke of the resurrection." The resurrection was the enthronement of Christ (cp Eph 1, Col 1, Phil 2, Heb 1 which all say it was the resurrection event. This is sealed by v36 that God made Jesus Lord and Christ. Then in ch 3, Jesus is seated in honor in a massive reception in heaven until the end of time when God smashes his enemies. All this was to be Israel's declaration to the nations.

To me, the weight of God lying or not ends up on 3:23: if the people who don't do what the new Moses says in honor of Christ, they will be disinherited in utter destruction. That is what the destruction of Israel was. More perished there than at Carthage, the 2nd largest siege by Rome after Jerusalem.

 

[crossnote]

You're right the law makes the wrong things happen after it brings us to Christ.

I don't recall saying ' the law makes wrong things happen after it brings us to Christ'. If wrong things happen, it's because we are trying do the law in our own strength, rather than walking by faith in the One who was the fulfillment of the law.

Other than your aprioris, why should the normal sequence of Dan 9's 490 years be broken? Is there anything in it that calls for that?

My aprioris or postprioris, either way I never mentioned Dan 9.

re 11:29 is not the only line, though. In terms of the whole ending there, he is just validating that the some would be saved. But I get no sense from it that God goes back and forth between race-nation and the faith-based group, because of the ending: God has bound all men to sin, so that he can have mercy on them--if they respond.

Yes, Rom 3, ALL Jew and Gentile have sinned and fallen short of God's glory.

To me, the weight of God lying or not ends up on 3:23: if the people who don't do what the new Moses says in honor of Christ, they will be disinherited in utter destruction. That is what the destruction of Israel was. More perished there than at Carthage, the 2nd largest siege by Rome after Jerusalem.

I'm not sure which 3:23 you are referring to, but one must remember that the Mosaic Covenant was a conditional covenant whereas the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional hence...

Romans 11:28 (KJV) As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

 

[Decoder]

I don't recall saying ' the law makes wrong things happen after it brings us to Christ'. If wrong things happen, it's because we are trying do the law in our own strength, rather than walking by faith in the One who was the fulfillment of the law.


My aprioris or postprioris, either way I never mentioned Dan 9.

Yes, Rom 3, ALL Jew and Gentile have sinned and fallen short of God's glory.


I'm not sure which 3:23 you are referring to, but one must remember that the Mosaic Covenant was a conditional covenant whereas the Abrahamic covenant was unconditional hence...

Romans 11:28 (KJV) As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

The Abrahamic faith is what Jesus meant about 'anothen' in Jn 3. Nic should have known, being a teacher, but couldn't see it. Yes they are beloved, but it is not unconditional for a race-nation, because of Acts 3:23. It is unconditional for those who have faith, as the olive tree analogy (earlier in Rom 11) shows. We stand or fall by faith, but He is faithful.

The Daniel 9 question was a 'test' of what literalism does. Daniel 9 gets broken unnaturally so that a belief about the future will be kept intact. I don't think there is a reason to break it, but the last teacher I heard on this, also broke the atonement. There's actually two, he said, of v24. The one in Jesus, AD 33, and another for the Jews in the millenium. I call that 'breaking' the text; they call it literalism.

The law is fulfilled in that we love our neighbor; His yoke is easy and his burden is light. But when it gets used otherwise, unlovingly, 'the power of sin is the law itself.' Paul would know!

 

[crossnote]

The law is fulfilled in that we love our neighbor; His yoke is easy and his burden is light. But when it gets used otherwise, unlovingly, 'the power of sin is the law itself.' Paul would know!

Apparently only Jesus fulfilled that law for us and His Spirit is fulfilling it in us.
Yes, the power of sin is the law as well as death’s stinger is sin.

 

[Musicmaster]

Do you know what the question of the chapter is? He was dealing with a question. Answering it. What was that question? It's taken in the plain sense.

Well, it looks like you prefer the circular response style and tones, so I will leave it at that.

MM

 

[Musicmaster]

Apparently only Jesus fulfilled that law for us and His Spirit is fulfilling it in us.
Yes, the power of sin is the law as well as death’s stinger is sin.

Yes. The Law was/is perfect. Otherwise, mankind would have been better able to keep it.

MM

 

[Major]

Exactly! That is why these things should be read as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Or you could say in the Gospel event. There wouldn't be any good news unless the thing had taken place 'in his flesh.'

Back to the meaning of 'spiritualizing' then, I don't find it easy to pin that down, but here we have something very important that Jewish and non-Jewish Christians are unified and have peace in. It's not carnal so it must be what spiritual usually means in the NT: maturity that has come in Christ. Conversely, the Law could be called unspiritual or immature because it often brought out the worst, divided, made immature.

You said.............
"Back to the meaning of 'spiritualizing' then, I don't find it easy to pin that down."

Not me. Allow me to help you by saying that Similar to allegorization, spiritualizing the text states there is a mystical, hidden meaning to the text, something that goes beyond the literal-historical meaning, and that is the true and only correct interpretation of the text. It is a mystical approach to interpreting God’s Word.

Taking the Bible literally is the idea that the meaning or interpretation is limited by the words that are used printed in black and white on the page. This requires attention and importance be given to every word. Words deliver meaning.

This is the approach that claims that God means what he said.

Not taking the Bible literally is when the interpretation is limited only by the imagination of the reader. This is to say, the meaning is not truly limited at all. It can mean whatever the receiver perceives it to mean and is often defined by outside authorities like tradition or popularity.

This is the approach that says that whoever wrote the Bible (it is not required to literally be God) did not say exactly what they mean.

This is called mystical because the meaning is secret and not clearly expressed in the words on the page.

It is called allegorical because it assumes the entire Bible must be representative of something else.

 

[Major]

Yes. The Law was/is perfect. Otherwise, mankind would have been better able to keep it.

MM

Yes sir......the Law is good but we are sinners and we can not keep the Law.