10 Wrong Things Learned In A Fundi Church

[BeachOfEden]

I have been working for about week on my book review on the Progressive Christian book, "Ten Wrong Things I learned From A Conservative Church. Here are the author's Ten topics/points:

 

1. The Bible Is Inerrant What I feel needs to be examined here is what "irrerrant" here mean? How does this phrase 'differe' from "inspired"? Or does it? Also we should examine the terms and meanings of the words, "literal", "symbolic", "Myth"(Mythical), "Methaphoric". And how is the phrase "The Bible" defined? Does this mean all modern day copies and translations available today? Does it mean the orginal manuscripts that none of have seen and which the author suggest we don;t have anymore?

 

2. God Is Judge & Thus Why Jesus Had To Die For The Whole World's Sins.

 

The author question this belief and wonders how this can be sperated from an elitist "members-ONLY" salvation view. Thus, he wonders how one could NOT be conservative and believe this.

 

3. Jesus is THEE ONLY way to God. How Conservatives interpretate this to an elitist view on salvation and I think we could compare this to TCPC's inclusive view where Jesus is the relm to God instead.

 

4. There's No Salvation OUTSIDE the CONSEVATIVE CHURCH ( or in the case of JW's..There's NO Salvation OUTside the JW "Organization"...) We could discuss how Progressive Christianity stands in CONTRAST to this belief.

 

5. Now this number#5 point that author finds fault with I would question. He seems to complain that the mega contemporary Evangelical churches focus on a "Seeker-Sensitive" approuch and to make sure church is not boring and has modern upbeat music. I don;t see what's so wrong with this....UNLESS these appearences of being "tolerant", "comporary" and "Seeker-Senstive" are are FALSE-FRONTS to HIDE intolerance or fear-lace tactics underneath. I mean I don;t have a problem with grape-flavored candy-coating that tastes good...UNLESS it's to mask poision = ( intolerance, hellfire threats, elitism) I believe too many liberal churches FEAR contemporary upbeat music..why? Maybe they fear it being connected to Fundamental Pentacostalism? Well, ns donlt handle snakes or role on the floor...so I think such a fear is over-the-top.

 

6. No Drinking, Dancing or Coming Out Of the Closelet.

 

I highly agree with the author's objection to the Fundamental faith groups hardass man-made rules against dancing, recreation and basically having "Too much of a fun time." I also agree with the author that obviously the conservative churches are haetful to gays...But his defense of alcohloisim I question. Leo Booth is one of the best liberal Christian author's and he is against alcohol misuse and he is an A/A rep.

 

7. Sexism...( we all know about that)

 

8. Here the author rejects all the Bible's mircles...accept..the resurrection. This to me does not make sense. I mean if you CAN believe in the resurrection then why can't you believe in the others?

 

9. There is always a good reason why bad things happen. The aujthor says, "no there is NOT," and I agree with him.

 

10. Lie: Conservatives Want everyone To Be Free. I agree with the writters that this IS a LIE by conservatives.

[BrotherRog]

Good stuff.. and here's what I said about this book at www.amazon.com:

------

The following is my review of a similar book called Ten Things I Learned Wrong in a Conservative Church by John Killinger. In it I mention my thoughts about Stealing Jesus and Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism:

----------

Here is the review of that book that I posted at amazon.com:

 

Authored by a former prominent Southern Baptist pastor and professor who was once deemed a "rising star" in that denomination, this book provides the wisdom, insights and learnings of a veteran pastor who is now able to reflect back upon the experiences of his truly dynamic career.

 

This work offers the general public insights into our nation's largest Protestant denomination that only a well positioned insider could possibly have discerned. I read Killinger's book over the course of only two days. It is very well written and truly compelling - you can't wait to read what he has to say next!

 

The work is somewhat similar to that of Bruce Bawer's "Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity" as well as to the popular "Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism" by John Shelby Spong, but is more balanced, less dense, and much less strident in tone than the others.

 

I am tempted to assert that Killinger, in a few places, may have "overstated" or "overly generalized" in his remarks about the ways and practices of the Southern Baptist Convention, but it could well be that he isn't. If not, then this work shines a truly needed exposing light upon the denomination that is most represented in our current U.S. Congress - and that currently has "the keys to the kingdom" of current U.S. foreign and domestic policy.

 

In this United Methodist pastor's opinion, this work ought to be required reading in all mainline seminaries and I highly recommend it for adult Sunday School or church book club discussions.

 

Other books of a similar nature include: "Theological Crossfire: An Evangelical/Liberal Dialogue" by Clark Pinnock and Delwin Brown; "Liberals & Other Born-Again Christians: Many Minds, One Heart," by Sally Geis; "The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Heart and Mind," by Peter Gomes.

 

For those who are currently reconsidering their theological commitments, I recommend exploring: "Good Goats: Healing Our Image of God," Dennis Linn; "The God We Never Knew: Beyond Dogmatic Religion to a More Contemporary Faith," Marcus Borg; "God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God," Gregory Boyd; "Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Opneness," Clark Pinnock; "The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium," Walter Wink; and "Grace & Responsibility: A Wesleyan Theology for Today," John Cobb, Jr.

[BeachOfEden]

I am working on a full book review on this book..but it is going to take a while. I will create a webpage for it on my XJW webpage and I will also compare the author's past experince in SBC with my past upbringing in JW.

[AletheiaRivers]

in·er·rant

1) Incapable of erring; infallible.

2) Containing no errors.

Someone who views the Bible as inerrant would, for example, say that rabbits chew the cud.

 

 

in·spire

1) To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.

2) To fill with enlivening or exalting emotion.

3) To stimulate to action.

4) To affect or touch.

5) To draw forth.

6) To be the cause or source of.

7) To draw in (air) by inhaling.

Conservatives would usually say #1 and progressives perhaps 1-6.

 

 

lit·er·al

1) Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.

2) Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.

3) Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.

Literal=NO metaphor or allegory. For example: stars will actually fall from the sky during the last days.

 

 

sym·bol·ic

1) Of, relating to, or expressed by means of symbols or a symbol.

Symbolic=metaphor or allegory. For example: Jesus is not actually a lamb. Stars do not actually fall from the sky during the last days.

 

 

myth

1) A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.

2) A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal.

Myth=metaphor or allegory. Deeply true insights into humanity or divinity.

 

 

met·a·phor

1) A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare).

Metaphor=Jesus is a sacrificial lamb that takes away sins. (Jesus isn't literally a lamb. It's a symbol or a metaphor.)

 

 

al·le·go·ry

1) The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.

2) A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories.

3) A symbolic representation: The blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory of justice.

Allegory=? Here is where most trouble starts, imo. Some take certain stories as being allegorical. Others take the same stories as literal. Was there literally a flood that wiped out the earth? Were there literally 10 plagues? Did the red sea literally part? Was Lazarus literally resurrected? Etc...

 

 

I think most (but perhaps not all) of the miracles of the bible are actually allegory. It's not that I WANT them to be, I just believe that they are. I, like the author of the book, do think something very special happened in the resurrection of Jesus.

 

Aletheia

 

PS: Something I never noticed before, that was just brought to my attention is that Paul, whose writings came BEFORE the gospels were written, never mentions any miracle of Jesus other than the resurrection.

Edited February 4, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[BeachOfEden]

Well, what i meant was if we were to examine how the writter of this book as well as how the conservative right and liberal left using these terms and whther or not we individually agree with them or not.

[AletheiaRivers]

how the conservative right and liberal left using these terms

 

That was what I was trying to do: Give popular definitions and which groups might use them.

 

Plus it was fun playing with the colors. I've wanted to try that for a while.

 

And looking up all the definitions taught me something. For example: I didn't appreciate the difference between an allegory and a metaphor. Now I know. I learned something and you made me do it.

Edited February 4, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[des]

Thanks, Aletheia for your colorful remarks :-)

They are very useful for discriminating meanings of these key terms. But I wonder

when fundies speak of inerrancy if they mean the *new* covenant or the whole Bible.

I'd have a hard time believing that someone really believes rabbits chew their cuds, for example. Perhaps they might write that one off as a mistake in translation or something.

 

I also wonder if someone who is "literal" about the Bible truly means there is no allegory.

It's funny what these literal believers make out of Revelation. I don't know where you put that-- where there is highly symbolic language and they turn it into some type of factual event. It isn't exactly literalness. Otherwise they'd think the Beast will be some actual beast with horns and so forth-- but I have heard different explanations, like it could be "tiny beasts" like virii, etc. Or it could be the monetary system becoming unified, etc.

So what do you call that?

 

I'm not quite sure the definition on mythology quite works. I think the problem is "ancient".

If we defined it as any stories ancient or modern (or maybe that term is mythos), I think it works better. The story of creation isn't really told by either Genesis 1, Genesis 2, or the Big Bang. Each gives part of the truth, which I am guessing is more awesome than we can imagine. And each tells the story thru the symbols, ideas, etc of its time.

My old friend the Missouri Synod Lutheran (and astronomy major) who would say things like "well the six days aren't really days they are eras" or "in the story light is created before the sun" (is it "light"or LIGHT), reminds me of what a professor once said, "We walk in multiple mythology universes".

 

I liked your comments re: inspire. Yes I would say 1-6.

Your point on allergory is well-taken.

 

 

--des

[Cynthia]

Re: miracles of Jesus - in historical studies (Ex. the Teaching Co. The Historical Jesus) I have read that the miracles were not unique in that time. There were other contenders for the title of messiah whose followers also believed that they were born of a virgin, healed the sick, and raised the dead. I think it was part of a culture vastly different from ours. Imagine people 2000 years from now debating what "virus" means - AIDS or computer???? In terms of believing them miracles of Jesus), I don't have a firm position... ususally I like firm answers, but more and more I don't think it matters if they happened literally or not. SOMETHING happened that caused a group of people to vastly change their lives and make a committment to follow Jesus. That something is still happening.

 

I've tried to open my mind to see a clearer view of the conservative fundamentalist church. I've used Sunday morning TV and a variety of neighbors and acquaintences... the sermons are filled with grace, love, compassion and striving. The audience is exhorted to follow Christ, to live well, to sacrifice. I tend to hear the words of exclusion; but they hear the Great Commission. It's humbling and interesting to confront your own intolerances head on! OUCH.

 

I think Borg has it (in so many ways) when he states that if people have literal views of the bible that work for them, let them be. Many people are happy with that, it does not cause them internal angst and conflict such as (I would guess) many of us experienced. We seem to be a group of thinkers - that has its advantages, but lots of people experience and do without the conflict that thinking invites. I'm trying to express my sense that different strengths or approaches to the world have different strengths and weaknesses but I so highly value thinking that it sounds judgemental to me!

 

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is this: believe in miracles if it works for you. You won't know anytime soon (God willing) whether or not you're "right"... so what... Can you imagine how God shakes his head at the things we choose to struggle with

[darby]

It's humbling and interesting to confront your own intolerances head on! OUCH.

 

How true! And we've all got 'em, I think...

 

Just curious...what preachers on TV are you watching?

[AletheiaRivers]

I have heard different explanations, like it could be "tiny beasts" like virii, etc. Or it could be the monetary system becoming unified, etc. So what do you call that?

 

Allegory

[BeachOfEden]

"Thanks, Aletheia for your colorful remarks :-)

They are very useful for discriminating meanings of these key terms. But I wonder

when fundies speak of inerrancy if they mean the *new* covenant or the whole Bible."

 

The author of this 10 Wrong Things book quotes this First Baptist Church preacher from Dallas Texas who also wrote a book where he claims the whole Bible is literal and without error. He quoted this pastor as saying that the copy of the Bible he has in his hand and are word for word unsullied and unchanged as the orginal manuscripts, and that God assured this. Then the writter of the Ten Wrong Things book responds to this claim by stating that ALL our copies of the Bible today, regardless of their version or translations ARE "Copies of copies" and therefore errors in orginal Greek and Hebrew have taken place countless of times when translated into English and that none of us have even seen any orginal manuscripts. He concludes this point by saying it takes great pateince and scholarship into discovering the truest orginal Greek and Hebrew words and their meanings and how they were orginally placed and how these convayed the orginal writter's meaning.

 

In all of this...I agree with the Progressive Christian writter of this Ten Wrong Things book. Indeed, if the WHOLE Bible was literal and NEVER symbolic..then yes, how does one explained the Beast in the Book of Revelation? If the word or phrase "cleansed by fire" is ALWAYS literal then how does one explained John the Baptist saying that Jesus would Baptise people with "water, spirit, and FIRE"?

[BeachOfEden]

"Re: miracles of Jesus - in historical studies (Ex. the Teaching Co. The Historical Jesus) I have read that the miracles were not unique in that time. There were other contenders for the title of messiah whose followers also believed that they were born of a virgin, healed the sick, and raised the dead. I think it was part of a culture vastly different from ours."

 

This IS a VERY good point. The writter of the Ten Wrong Things book dismisses the story of Moses turning his stick into a snake as 'fairy tale' type stuff. Yet this story brings out the previouly the pharo's own magic men had also preformed this mircle. Today even, people are able to perform things that are beyound normal..granted, though, not as advance as turning sticks into snakes, but bending spoons with their minds, mvoing objects with their minds. The magic or mircles that the pharo's men performed were NOT claimed to be a source from the Hebrew God, and I neither claim or sugest that these modern day magic tricks are either.

 

"I've tried to open my mind to see a clearer view of the conservative fundamentalist church. I've used Sunday morning TV and a variety of neighbors and acquaintences... the sermons are filled with grace, love, compassion and striving. The audience is exhorted to follow Christ, to live well, to sacrifice. I tend to hear the words of exclusion; but they hear the Great Commission. It's humbling and interesting to confront your own intolerances head on! OUCH."

 

This is also covered in the Ten Wrong Things under the Chapter, "Conservatives Want EveryOne To Be Free."

 

"I think Borg has it (in so many ways) when he states that if people have literal views of the bible that work for them, let them be. Many people are happy with that, it does not cause them internal angst and conflict such as (I would guess) many of us experienced. We seem to be a group of thinkers - that has its advantages, but lots of people experience and do without the conflict that thinking invites. I'm trying to express my sense that different strengths or approaches to the world have different strengths and weaknesses but I so highly value thinking that it sounds judgemental to me! "

 

To a degree I agree with you. I mean there's this passiona fight or words between the conservative Protestants verses Jehovah's Witnesses and vice versa over whther God in trinitarian in nature or unitarian in nature. I have have no issue with people beeiving either way..as long as they don;t try and threaten me with hellfire threats or end of the world threats for not agreeeing with them. Also, interestingly, JW's roots came from the Advent Christian Church..but then they split on this one issue where the one party belived that Christ would come back to earth literally in visible and physical form and lived on the renewed earth...while the other party concluded that Jesus' Second Coming would be invisible and thus he would NOT come literally on nor physically back on the earth, but instead would oversee it from heaven. To me, either way is fine and I don't claim one position or the other.

 

"Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is this: believe in miracles if it works for you. You won't know anytime soon (God willing) whether or not you're "right"..."

 

This IS SO right! The same can be said of the trinity debate and other issues of theology we have mentioned. Whether they "New Scolls" are literal or symbolic...we all won;t know where our interpretations were right or wrong untill they are opened.revealed to us anyways.

[DCJ]

I've tried to open my mind to see a clearer view of the conservative fundamentalist church. I've used Sunday morning TV...

TV preachers.. probably not the best representatives of evangelicalism..

 

 

in·er·rant

1) Incapable of erring; infallible.

2) Containing no errors.

Someone who views the Bible as inerrant would, for example, say that rabbits chew the cud.

 

... etc ...

To see an exposition of what evangelicals really mean about inerrancy, etc, check out The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Section 4 is probably the most useful.

 

http://www.jpusa.org/jpusa/documents/biblical.htm

 

It's rather lengthy, so I'll only quote a couple of important items:

 

Transmission and Translation

 

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

 

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

 

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

 

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

 

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

 

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind.

 

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.

[Cynthia]

No worries - I'm not watching TBN... some popular local pastors who are well-respected in the community and their denominations. It's just a televised church service - usually from the week before.

 

I will admit to really enjoying TD Jakes and Creflo Dollar when cleaning up the kitchen or using the elliptical machine I'm in the South, so the most segregated hour of the week has a really different flavor here!

 

Re all the things churches split over... I think that so totally misses the point of christianity that I can't imagine how people justify it.

[des]

I also wonder if someone who is "literal" about the Bible truly means there is no allegory.

It's funny what these literal believers make out of Revelation. I don't know where you put that-- where there is highly symbolic language and they turn it into some type of factual event. It isn't exactly literalness. Otherwise they'd think the Beast will be some actual beast with horns and so forth-- but I have heard different explanations, like it could be "tiny beasts" like virii, etc. Or it could be the monetary system becoming unified, etc.

So what do you call that?

 

Aletheia pointed out this is allegory-- what I meant was IF you took this the Bible literally, well these are the very people who interpret this to mean an actual event that is going to take place. But they don't say that Beasts with horns will be running thru the street-- so they do think of it allegorically. I actually think they have good imaginations as I can't see what they are seeing in it. :-)

 

"Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is this: believe in miracles if it works for you. You won't know anytime soon (God willing) whether or not you're "right"..."

 

 

This is true enough. I don't think it matters esp. either. I think that maybe some of us are more inclined to believe that they were there and others that they weren't-- maybe it's in our DNA, who knows? :-) (I'm not altogether flip about that, btw.) I think one think that we all might agree with is that there are miraculous (though I don't quite like that word), perhaps awesome events, that can't be explained thru a purely rational perspective.

 

 

--des

[AletheiaRivers]

The definition of literal provided by the dictionary I used seems to not quite work, but it's pretty close.

 

One websight has a very good article. Some of it is quoted below:

For biblical literalists, support for their world view comes from a belief that, since their very creation, these texts were read literally and a moral society was the result. Only in recent years (often the 1960s are cited as the beginning of the fall) have we begun to "interpret" them. The result, literalists would argue, is society's moral decay.

 

Conservative religious leaders often blame moral decay on society's increasing failure to read the Bible literally, and they attack "liberal" theologians who provide alternative explanations of what the Bible says.

 

These attacks are often sharpest when it comes to particularly controversial issues like homosexuality but are reflected as well in debates over the role of women in the church and the use of corporal punishment.

 

Biblical literalism argues that not only is the Bible literally correct on all moral questions but it provides historical truth as well. Jerry Falwell, a prominent biblical literalist, argues that "the Bible is the inerrant word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc."

 

In her award-winning book A History of God (1993), Karen Armstrong shows how the earliest religious creation stories were taken allegorically, not literally.

 

As time passed, the methods of interpretation grew numerous, as the number of sects of religious belief multiplied. When one reads the great works of Augustine or Aquinas, it becomes clear that their work includes far more than mere literal interpretation of a text. In fact, the view that literalism was the only correct method of reading the Bible didn't achieve widespread acceptance until the sixteenth century.

 

This new faith in a literal and absolutely correct scripture was the cause of the famous condemnation of Gallileo.  His belief that the Earth circled around the sun violated the scriptures that "The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved" (Psalms 96:10), and "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down and hasteth to his place where he arose" (Ecclesiastes 1:5).

 

Armstrong argues that this new literalism made Christianity vulnerable in a way that Islam and Judaism were not:

 

"Catholics and Protestants were insisting that the Bible was factually true in every detail. This would make the traditional mythology vulnerable to the new science and would eventually make it impossible for many people to believe in God at all.... Science has been felt threatening only by those  Western Christians who got into the habit of reading the scriptures literally and interpreting doctrines as though they were matters of objective fact."

 

The fact that theologians historically argued about the proper way to read the Bible is supported by other scholars. Garet asserts:

 

"Early Christians did not read the Bible "literally" in any sense that matches the rhetorical aims of modern Biblical literalists.... Many Christians, following the Jewish interpreters of Hebrew Scripture, understood Scripture allegorically ... [and] sensitivity to the various nonliteral meanings is just as old as the attempt to recover the literal sense."

 

It should also be noted that one of the major themes of the Protestant Reformation was a belief that the Bible should be interpreted literally, because this would enable lay readers to free themselves from papal rule and lead to a truer, personal understanding of God's will.

 

Apart from its historical origins, we can examine the practical effects of reading the Bible literally. In short, it can create just as many conflicts as does reading it liberally.

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._61/ai_78966507

 

One literal interpretation websight had this to say:

One will find that whenever the yôm (day) is qualified by a number or the phrase evening and morning, it always means an ordinary day. Thus, critically looking at the text and then reading out of Scripture, one cannot come to any other conclusion except that these days were ordinary (24-hour) days.

 

Reading the bible "hyper-literally" has led to young earth creationism, pre-millenialism, subordination of women, the witch burnings and the inquisition, an "eye for an eye" corporal punishment mentality, etc...

 

But in all fairness, most literalists are not "hyper-literalists" and are willing to adjust their views on some things. However, this begs the question: Why some things and not others? Literalism is very inconsistent.

Edited February 5, 2005 by AletheiaRivers