Greg Boyd: A Pastor's Perspective on the Ultra-literal Pespective

[boiserealestatesoup]

Amen!



[sapnyosentry]

I'm a lot like Greg Boyd. I believed it had the entire Bible had to be literal or else it was all lies. I became a Christian much earlier though, so it was more deeply planted in me of this way of believing.

He's right, its nothing something you should have to go through. It tears you out from the inside. You have to fight to even want to go on believing in God after having so much of your foundation being tested and burned down. Thinking literally can become toxic if we let it.

[brendos444]

I've been pleasantly surprised by Greg Boyd's immense intelligence. I suppose it's not something you'd expect when first hearing him. But this guy is actually a formidable thinker. And when you see what he's written and compare it to some of his theological foes like Grudem and Piper, you see that there is a huge disparity in the power of argumentation. Boyd simply blows them out of the water. I must say that it is not Boyd who is right, but rather his understanding of scripture clearly wins.

[waluum]

I want to add that the root of the denial of Genesis is one's inability to justify the literal account in the face of their own understanding, which is primarily (as it is the deciding factor) shaped by their subjective experience. At the opposite end of their basis is their lack of faith in the power and authoritative word of God, as they find the uncertain (at best) evidence presented by the scientific community to provide a more plausible explanation for the creation of the physical realm.

[waluum]

...I think it's important to recognize the impact of his early Christian walk (as revealed by his short testimony) on his current thinking. By his own admission, it was the "all or nothing" reasoning that "destroyed" his faith and made for a "miserable" experience in returning to it. I'm sorry that it was so hard on him, but an extreme case does not always warrant an extreme reaction.

[waluum]

...But the literal interpretation of Genesis is denied on the grounds that science disproves it, when in fact the evidence which is claimed for that is nowhere near as certain or unquestionable as with the pillar case. And on the idea of the earth being surrounded by water, clouds are technically water in the sky, and it is possible that in the early history of the earth the atmosphere supported a greater amount of it...

[astronomer747]

Scripture is not teaching science and you cannot impose modern scientific ideas and modernist thought patterns on to these ancient texts without seriously distorting the original message and content of the narrative. Genesis 1 is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook; it is an ancient document and therefore must be understood in the context of its ancient near eastern culture.

[waluum]

@astronomer747 : science is the investigative search for evidence for truth. The scripture encourages it (Matthew 7:7, 1 John 4:1, etc.), but not above faith. It is contrary to truth, though, to lend credence to any scientific ideas in the context of religion that oppose what faith prescribes.

[astronomer747]

No one denies that Genesis 1 and 2 are wooden literalistic accounts of creation on the grounds that modern science disproves it. Scholars simply recognize that these are ancient theological texts that have no scientific content within them. There was no science or scientific literature at the time, and such an approach is completely anachronistic.

[waluum]

@astronomer747 : Funny how science is subject to our own conclusions yet we assign an objective meaning to it, as if no truth discovered in accordance to the systematically methodology of modern science falls under its umbrella or is much less valid. The search for truth is as old as man's inquisition, which is separate from modern science. Why should an institution which doubts the very existence of God be considered credible or authoritative enough to have the privilege of the last word?

[astronomer747]

If you're speaking of the scientific community, it is really quite ridiculous to refer to it as an atheistic enterprise that doubts the existence of God. Some 40% of scientists believe in a personal God. Many will say they find no inconsistency between what they discover as scientists and the revealed truth of scripture. Both theology and science are concerned with truth and seek understanding. As a student of the natural sciences myself I take both very seriously.

[waluum]

@astronomer747 : "Very existence" was just an example to illustrate my point. The majority doubt at the most basic level, but most rebel. It hardly matters that a portion believe in Him as an even smaller portion of them have an accurate understanding of Him, and a fraction among them actually follow Him (which reflects in their work). And what is their interpretation of the "revealed truth of scripture"? For example, do they assume 1 day in Genesis is equal to 1 billion years?

[waluum]

@astronomer747 : ...My problem with modern science is that it contents with God. Genesis does not meet the standards of modern scientific evidence therefore it is declared absent of evidence by a self-proclaimed authority and arbiter of truth. Absence of evidence is the end of science and the beginning of doubt, and that is precisely what God discourages in regard to what He proclaims (both what we understand of it and what remains a mystery).

[waluum]

...You cannot reasonably defend a non-literal interpretation of Genesis by saying we do not take all parts of the Bible literally. Indeed we do not, but there are reasons for that. On one of the examples given: pillars holding up the earth. We all know, and there is no reasonable discourse on the idea, that the earth is not supported by actual pillars in the sense that we think of them (ie: vertical, cylindrical supporting structures)...

[waluum]

I agree with a lot of what he says, but I'll address what I contend with: this argument is presented to those whose reasoning is as specious as his once was, and it makes me wonder if he believes there are any who oppose him whose reasoning is as plausible as he believes his to be...

[johnkw47]

By the way, I believe in the literal Resurrection.

[johnkw47]

House of cards, indeed. The whole plot is set up in Genesis 1-11. What gives you the authority to reject this (which even unbelieving scholars will tell you was not meant to be taken figuratively) while maintaining the Resurrection? Whoever heard of a dead man coming alive and out thru a rock?

[conformingrebel]

@johnkw47 what?