Biblical Literalism and Intelligence Level

northwye

New member
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2008/05/27/biblical-literalism-and-iq/

Razib Kahn, who works in genetics, put together data from surveys on
proportion of followers in various Christian denominations who believe the
Bible should be interpreted literally with IQ data from these different
denominations.

The denomination with the highest average intelligence test scores was also
the denomination with the lowest belief in a literal scripture
interpretation, which was the Episcopalians. The denominations with the
lowest average intelligence test scores were also the denominations with
the highest level of belief in a literal interpretation of scripture, The
Assembly of God and Pentecostal denominations.

The Methodist and Presbyterians were in the high middle level on average
intelligence test scores and low middle on belief in a literal view of
scripture, and the Southern Baptists were higher on belief in a literal
view of scripture and low medium on average denomination intelligence test
scores, meaning that this finding supports the idea that there is a
relationship between level of IQ and belief in literalism, with those of
higher IQ being lower on literalism.

The average IQ score of the Episcopalians was about 110 and the average IQ
of the Methodists and Presbyterians was about 103, with the average IQ of
the Assembly of God at about 94 and that of the Pentecostals at about 92.

Kahn also compared percentage of those in various denominations who had
post-graduate degrees with the level of belief in the denominations in a
literal interpretation of scripture. The data for this comparison shows
more denominations, including Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's
Witnesses, and Evangelical Lutherans.

Not all denominations what are high in a literal interpretation of the
Bible are dispensationalism or Christian Zionist. The Seventh Day
Adventists are high in literal interpretation but are not
dispensationalists.

The denominations low in a literal interpretation of scripture and a higher
level of intelligence test scores are, however, not denominations which,
for example, follow Jude 1: 4 and earnestly contend for the faith once
delivered unto the saints. In the falling away of II Thessalonians 2: 3-4
the entire Church is in false doctrines, though the denominations differ in
the exact kind of false doctrines they teach. Some are not Christian
Zionist, but are luke warm and may teach only a part of the Gospel of
Christ, and a lot of stuff from the world.

An important question then, is what is it about the IQ test, probably the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, that is related to preference for a literal interpretation of scripture?

This IQ test tries to measure verbal skills, among other things. For example it tries to measure Comprehension: 18 items that require examinee to explain what should be done in certain circumstances, the meaning of proverbs, why certain societal practices are followed, and so forth.

Digit Span: Two parts, Digits forward and digits backwards. Examinee required to repeat 3 - 9 digits forward and 2 - 9 digits backwards. Measures short-term memory, attention, and concentration..

It attempts to measure Vocabulary: 66 words of increasing difficulty are presented orally and visually. Examinee required to define the words. Score (0-2) based on sophistication of definition. Measures verbal knowledge and concept formation.

All of these cognitive abilities - Comprehension, Digit Span, or Attention Span, and Vocabulary, or understanding of the meaning of words, can all relate to a preference for that which is literal above that which is written as parables or metaphors.

And a belief in a consistent literal view of all scripture may be related
to the cultures with which the various denominations are associated.

Kahn says "It seems the most plausible model is one which notes that
various denominations tend to have particular socioeconomic profiles which
shape a general cultural outlook…"

Kahn's Table 4,2 also shows the growth rate, 1965 to 1991, by denomination.
The denominations that grew more in membership in that period were the more
literalist denominations, from the Pentecostals down to the Southern
Baptists. The Catholics only grew 23 percent. All the more non-literalist
denominations lost church members.

If you want to grow your church into a mega church with hundreds and
sometimes thousands of members, then make sure you teach a literalist
interpretation of scripture. The Seventh Day Adventists were the only
denomination which grew significantly that is not a dispenationalist one.

The denominations that grew in membership were mostly the
dispensationalist-literalist ones, and if Chafer is right, they are the
denominations, in teaching dispensationalist-literalist Bible
interpretation, which have a Gospel message easier to understand - and are
those not weaned from the milk who cannot take the strong meat of the word.

"Not one instance exists of a 'spiritual' or figurative fulfilment of
prophecy... Jerusalem is always Jerusalem, Israel is always Israel, Zion is
always Zion... Prophecies may never be spiritualised, but are always
literal." C.I. Scofield, Scofield Bible Correspondence Course (Chicago,
Moody Bible Institute, 1907), pp. 45-46.

"To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole
possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it
in all areas of biblical interpretation is." Charles C. Ryrie,
Dispensationalism (Chicago, Moody Press, 1995), page 40.

"I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and
used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." Hosea 12: 10

"All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a
parable spake he not unto them:" Matthew 13: 34

As they often do, the Christian Zionists say the exact opposite of what
scripture says. Scripture says God often speaks in similitudes and in
parables but Christian Zionists say all scripture is to be interpreted
literally.
 

northwye

New member
"The denominations that grew in membership were mostly the
dispensationalist-literalist ones, and if Chafer is right, they are the
denominations, in teaching dispensationalist-literalist Bible
interpretation, which have a Gospel message easier to understand - and are
those not weaned from the milk who cannot take the strong meat of the word.

Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has "...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both
the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity
to come.." Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447

Chafer, a founder of Christian Zionism, following John Darby and C.I. Scofield, claimed the Bible is a mass or more or less conflicting writings and that dispensationalism or Christian Zionism makes the Bible more easily classified and assimilated, or more easily understood

"For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

What does Hebrews 5: 13-14 mean by the use of the metaphors "milk" and "strong meat?' Here is an example in scripture of the use of metaphor which has to be interpreted.

Not being weaned from the "Milk" means only being able to understand the more easily understood texts in scripture.

"But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age," means they are able to understand the more difficult texts of scripture, the deeper things of the Gospel and of God - and can undertand the parables and metaphors.
 

6days

New member
I don't think any Christian takes everything totally literal. (How do you lift your eyes to the hills?).
But...God's Word is inerrant.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Does he post his raw data anywhere? I think generally, he is correct, but I really want to see those 'literal' vs. 'interpretive' questions. -Lon
 

northwye

New member
If you are in Missouri, you might already be in the hills.

"Does he post his raw data anywhere? I think generally, he is correct, but I really want to see those 'literal' vs. 'interpretive' questions. -Lon "

The article says that he used data from the General Social Survey.

"The 2008 GSS featured special modules on attitudes toward science and technology, self-employment, terrorism preparation, global economics, sports and leisure, social inequality, sexual behaviors and religion. Items on religion covered denominational affiliation, church attendance, religious upbringing, personal beliefs, and religious experiences."

The questions relevant to a literalist interpretation of scripture in this Survey may not be very detailed. But the fact that the denominations studied score much as expected on literal Biblical interpretation seems to validate the measure of literal versus non-literal preference.
 
Last edited:

Epoisses

New member
Bible prophecy should be taken literally unless a symbol is clearly presented. A giant dragon with seven heads and ten horns is clearly symbolic of seven spiritual powers and ten earthly powers.
 

Lon

Well-known member
"Does he post his raw data anywhere? I think generally, he is correct, but I really want to see those 'literal' vs. 'interpretive' questions. -Lon "

The article says that he used data from the General Social Survey.

"The 2008 GSS featured special modules on attitudes toward science and technology, self-employment, terrorism preparation, global economics, sports and leisure, social inequality, sexual behaviors and religion. Items on religion covered denominational affiliation, church attendance, religious upbringing, personal beliefs, and religious experiences."

The questions relevant to a literalist interpretation of scripture in this Survey may not be very detailed. But the fact that the denominations studied score much as expected on literal Biblical interpretation seems to validate the measure of literal versus non-literal preference.

Thanks see them from all years, here hover over the 'description' column to see some or all of the questions thru the years.
 

Stuu

New member
No mention of the relative average intelligence of atheists, then.

Or the relative knowledge of religions held by atheists compared to religionists?

What d'ya reckon those statistics say?!

Stuart
 

Lon

Well-known member
No mention of the relative average intelligence of atheists, then.
Intelligence is an interesting discussion. Generally, the better you do at all academic tasks, the higher they score your 'ability.'
There aren't many atheists or homeschooled kids, by example, and I'd think it wouldn't provide nearly the same representative group.
It seems the groups were between 10 and about 30 people. Some of those denominations I'd never heard of.

Or the relative knowledge of religions held by atheists compared to religionists?
America? Wouldn't be much to test. However, for conversation, what do you know of Ba'Hai? :think: I'm not well versed on Hare Krishna, just a few George Harrison and John Lennon tunes :think:
What d'ya reckon those statistics say?!

Stuart
I tend to like to see the raw data and draw my own conclusions. Not everybody has the mind for it, but I try when it interests me.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
The dispensationalists interpret the Bible as it should be interpreted. For example, those of us within the dispensational community interpret the OT in the same way that the Jews who first received those revelations understood them. Dispensationalist Charles Ryrie wrote:

"If God be the originator of language and if the chief purpose of originating it was to convey His message to humanity, then it must follow that He, being all-wise and all-loving, originated sufficient language to convey all that was in His heart to tell mankind. Furthermore, it must also follow that He would use language and expect people to understand it in its literal, normal, and plain sense. The Scriptures, then, cannot be regarded as an illustration of some special use of language so that in the interpretation of these Scriptures some deeper meaning of the words must be sought" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995], 84).​

Again, we interpret the OT in the same way which the Jews who first received that revelation understood it. Any other way makes no sense unless someone wants to argue that the LORD was purposefully misleading the Jews.
 

northwye

New member
There is metaphoric language in both testaments. Even if you focused only on New Testament metaphors, there are many different kinds of metaphoric texts in the NT, including parables. It would be a major job just to figure out the many different kinds of metaphoric texts, defined by being those in which words or phrases cannot be taken literally and agree with other texts in the Bible. But then, Christian Zionism uses a very peculiar method of interpretation, including the over-separation of texts from one another, so that connections are not made which might contain meanings that are not theologically correct for this theology.

For example, I did not realize that Paul is using "letter" in a kind of metaphoric way, since he is not using the Greek or English words in a literal way. And then I go to Hebrews 5: 12-14 and see that the writer of Hebrews is not using milk or meat in any literal sense, but the words are used metaphorically.

Many have observed that Christian Zionists really do not interpret the Bible in a consistent literal way. If they did so, they would have a system of doctrines which are even farther away from the Gospel than the doctrines of Darby, Scofield, Chafer and others.
 

Stuu

New member
America? Wouldn't be much to test. However, for conversation, what do you know of Ba'Hai? :think: I'm not well versed on Hare Krishna, just a few George Harrison and John Lennon tunes :think:
Well indeed. But it is relative knowlege!

Surveys of knowledge about different religious beliefs and practices show that atheists know more overall than theists, like this one for example.

Stuart
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Well indeed. But it is relative knowlege!

Surveys of knowledge about different religious beliefs and practices show that atheists know more overall than theists, like this one for example.

Stuart
See, this is why I like raw data: Protestants scored 2.something less than atheists, Mormons, and Jews. * Why? is a better study to me than 'what does it mean?'

I believe the latter loaded simply because it is always an 'eye of the beholder' summation. :e4e:

*I pretty much know why so am actually pleased we only missed a couple more questions than the other 3 groups.
 

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
There is metaphoric language in both testaments.

Yes, and the Jews who first received the revelations found in the OT would recognize metaphoric language.

Again, the dispensationalists interpret the OT in the way that the Jews who first received these revelations understood them. For instance, let us look how they understood this passage:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more"
(Jer.31:31-34).​

We can see that the "fathers" of those who will belong to the house of Israel and the house of Judah in the future are those who broke the LORD's covenant. It was the physical descendants of Israel who did that. Therefore, since their fathers are the physical descendants of Israel then all those of both houses will also be the physical descendants of Israel.

And all of them, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, will have their sins forgiven and be saved. Since this has never happened in the past we know for a fact that the fulfillment of this prophecy remains in the future. And the Jews who first received this prophecy understood it that way.

On the other hand, those who not interpret this verse in a literal manner deny that this will ever happen despite the fact that Paul himself talks about a time in the future when "All Israel will be saved":

"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. 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: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:25-27).​

The non-literalists end up denying what is written in the OT on this subject as well as what is written in the NT!

A double whammy!
 

northwye

New member
Every Old Testament prophecy about Jesus Christ was fulfilled literally. Jesus’ birth, ministry, death, and resurrection all occurred exactly as the Old Testament predicted. The prophecies were literal. Therefore, says dispensationalism or Christian Zionism, all prophecies in the New Testament must also be seen as being literal. The problem with this "Hermeneutic" is that in the New Testament there are many different types of non-literal texts. Christian Zionist leaders have said that their theology allows for symbols, figures of speech, and types, which have specific meanings behind the non-literal language.

But unless this allowance for non-literal language is explained by use of many examples, it is ambiguous and confusing. Scripture itself does not say that it should be interpreted in a literal way. It says the opposite.

""All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:" Matthew 13: 34 And "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets." Hosea 12: 10

Christ in his ministry often showed that the Old Testament has deeper meanings than the surface meanings of its texts. For example, He told His disciples that the Old Testament contained many prophecies about His own life that they had not understood. For example, in Luke 24: 27, "Beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." "He opened their understanding that they might comprehend the Scriptures." Luke 24:45

Christian Zionism seems to assume that the Bible is just another book, that should be read and understood like any other book..

But Christ says in Matthew 13: 10-14, "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11. He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: "He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."

"And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." Luke 8: 10

"And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:" Mark 4: 11

Christian Zionism does not, as far as I know, acknowledge that God speaks in metaphoric language so that he can then open up an individual's understanding of the meaning behind the metaphors. This is seen in Matthew 13: 10-14.

"...but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:" Mark 4: 11

"...but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand." Luke 8: 10

To whom is knowledge about spiritual things not fully given in an easily understood literal way? To those who are not born again and are in the spiritual state of the natural man and not to those who are in false doctrines.

Christ said to the Pharisees in John 8: 43-45 "Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."
46. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47. He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
 
Top