Sorry, if I came across overly strong there.Proinsias wrote:I was not intending to draw a strict dichotomy of literal/allegorical, I appreciate there are a myriad of opinions. I read the thread linked a while back, but admittedly skimmed parts. Reading Genesis I find myself rejecting what I would consider the view of most Evangelical Biblical scholars, It doesn't particularly stand out as any more inspired than the texts of other traditions and I don't see much point in trying to harmonize a literal reading of the text with current scientific models.Kurieuo wrote:Also, if you're going to comment on what the Bible says, then you should at least be qualified to comment.
It isn't as easy to paint as "literal" vs "allegorical". I bet many who use the term "literal" don't even know the true meaning of it.
What do most Evangelical Biblical scholars mean by it? (these are after all the ones who advocate taking the Bible "literally").
I'd encourage you read over my posts here.
I know that I often loose people when talking, but happy to clarify anything there if you do wish to try and gain understanding of these matters.
But, until you are familiar with the issues then you have no right to comment on what is/isn't literal or interpretations really.
Nor you Audie. It's no different than YECs commenting to you about scientific matters.
Audie has since put me in my place, but I thank you for taking it on the chin.
As for most of Evangelical Biblical scholars would be YEC, perhaps your pastors and even lay Christians.
YECs are after all the most vocal in churches. They'll try get you involved in video nights, discussions on creation and the like, tell people any other position is compromise.
They're the best marketed position in all of Christendom, and so many Christians (Evangelical or not, even non-Christians) would have probably had a taste of it and be influenced towards YEC.
BUT, when it comes to actual Biblical scholars, then I think the tables have always been the opposite.
At the start of that thread that I previously mentioned, I really get into some deep debate regarding different theological points. Don't blame you or anyone if they lost interest and left.
However, take a read of Norman Geisler Believes Age of Earth Is Not a Matter of Scriptural Orthodoxy and ICBI Response to Scripture & Young-Earth Creationism.
Take the Evangelical scholars on the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy. In the founding membership there were over 30 discrete positions with reference to the interpretation of Genesis 1. Only one of these positions involved a 6-day recent creation. Henry Morris wanted the council to accede to the YEC position, but instead received stiff responses from many scholars who even claimed the YEC position makes Scripture contradict itself and err. That is quite astounding. These scholars are not your liberal wishy-washy Christians. These are very conservative Bible-believing Christians who established the standards of Biblical authority for modern Evangelical "Bible-believing" Christians and denominations (ones that many YEC-leaning pastors and Christians take for granted).
Certainly the majority were not YEC then, and I'm sure such would also be true today.
That is, at a Biblical scholarly level with those who understand and stick to the "literal" historical-grammatical rules of interpretation.