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

In this video Conversation, Greg Boyd considers the implications of an "ultra-literal" approach to scripture. Such an all-or-nothing mindset, which often defines the fundamentalist worldview, does nothing to promote unity among believers.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bible
• Christianity
• ultra-literal reading
• Scripture
• interpretation
• Greg Boyd

[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]

@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?

[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 : ...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]

@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]

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 : 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]

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.