 planets all revolved around the earth are two easy examples).
'Proof texting' is a dangerous business, because you need to understand the context, not least the answer to the above question.
Texts that are used to invite people into fellowship with God are at the heart of scripture. Texts that are used to beat people with probably have various other interpretations open to them.
Biblical scholars are experts in their field. I'm not one. But I trust those who are. They tend to be employed in the world's universities or as freelance scholars and not conservative evangelical stables.
The point I made earlier was that every text should be examined for its 'literal' meaning. We can always usefully ask the question "To what actual events and observable physical realities does this text correspond?"
For example, people often cite the text about the mountains that "skipped like rams" (Ps 114:4) as an easy example of a text not to be taken literally. But if we ask whether the words have any reference to the physical world, obviously they do. We have not excluded a 'literal' sense by recognizing a figure of speech.
Could we not have a bit of a discussion about that point? If not, I'm minded to shut the thread down because I do actually have to read this stuff and it gets a bit boring.
PS I am taking 2 Tim 2:14 'literally': "Warn them before God against quarrelling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen."
Haha...and of course 2 Tim 2:14 needed to be taken litertally by those for whom it was written. It was not literally written for us - so we need to approach it differently. That is not to say it is not true. But it was written for a specific context.
The bit of the Psalms you quote is a good and easy example. Lets go to something like the book of Job. Was there literally such a person called Job? Did Job have the exact conversation with God that is recorded at the end of that book? How did God speak?
Andrew, I honestly think that although Job is a great book, which I've been studying quite a lot recently, a typical blog discussion such as you propose would serve no purpose. 
How could we tell anyway? Do you know? Does anyone alive now, apart from God?
No, I think I'll pass on that one.
Oh come on John. You can't ask for a discussion about literal interpretations and then back out. I'm raising very real and serious questions about an issue you asked us to discuss!
Which Bible scholars do you go to? After all, some will be at polar opposites to others on the interpretation of scripture. And what about when we are in the dark about the history behind the reasons for writing the letters, for example? Do we have to assume certain situations or can we simply say that we take what we know, ignore what we don't know and then read it in the context we have created?
Andrew, for the record, I personally didn't want a discussion of literal interpretations - you started on Youthpasta about literal meanings, he responded, and I suggested some parameters which you might like to consider to lift the conversation out of the usual rut.
I just don't think it is likely to be a fruitful discussion, but if you want to tell folks what you think about Job and see if anyone 'bites', go ahead.
I think my questions are enough John. If Youthpasta or Darren or anyone wanting to suggest a literal approach wish to reply to them that's fine.
I believe I have already given 1 literal understanding. My question still stands, though. If we are to rely on Bible scholars then how do we know who to go to, whether they be literal or non-literal?
And I think this is very important because if we are to choose to read the Bible in the light of experts, rather than in the light of what the Bible says about itself, then we need to know which Bible scholars are right and which aren't, because some would argue as you do, Andrew, some would argue in John's favour and others would argue in many other different ways.
And I don't think that an answer involving the Spirit can work, because this would be to suggest that wherever an individual was "led" would invalidate all other ways of understanding the Bible.
I can't see your answers about the book of Job YP. Where are they?
As to which biblical scholars......best to look at several... We all have our favourites...
YP, the second part of your statement above is in itself a very slippery one. Everything the Bible says needs to be translated. It was not written in English. The OT was not written to us but to Israel. It was the revelation of God to Israel and through Israel to everyone else. It is not just the language of the Bible that needs to be translated but also the culture in which it was written. Every language whether Hebrew or English operates in a culture and unless that culture is correctly understood then the likelihood of us misinterpreting scripture increases.
The book of Job for example, which many evangelicals regard as a literal narrative is not regarded that way by Jews. In the context of the culture in which it was written then there are very strong arguments for it to be seen as a Jewish morality tale rather than a literal account. This does not in one whit diminish its divine inspiration but shows what the Bible says about itself is not so straightforward to interpret as it first appears.
I meet many evangelical Christians who refer to the ‘plain meaning of scripture’ who are really making an underlying assumption that God actually spoke the Queen’s English in ancient times. He didn't.
Wonderful post Chris. Many thanks.
But none of this answers the point I make about differing understandings of Scripture. Andrew, you say that everyone has their favourites. What if my favourites are those who take the Bible literally?
And you are right that I haven't put anything about Job, I was referring to my posts about Genesis since I read the comment to be about the general themes in this thread, not just Job.
I'd be glad of yours and John's answers to the questions about Job. I think they hold the key to quite a lot of this discussion.
Chris Bishop's post above seems to me to be extremely helpful. Can you agree to what he says there YP?
Andrew, like I've said, this is not a discussion I'm interested in on this blog at this time. If you want to post with your views of Job, go ahead and see if you can stimulate some discussion of those.
However, I do not see either enlightenment or change as a likely outcome. Hence my backing off from it.
PS, I don't see anything to disagree with in Chris Bishop's post, but there are now 53 comments on this thread almost none of which pick up anything in the original article.
If you agree with what Chris Bishop has posted then you have answered my questions about the book of Job havent you?
My views of Job are implicit in my questions, and made more explicit by Chris's comment. I am glad to see that you do not take it literally. That is enlighthening in itself!
I'm with John on that.
Although as I cycled into Chelmsford today, I see that I have minority view on interpretation,as people brought their modern critical methods to the "Cyclists Only" signs.
Really, I think Andrew's answer about Biblical scholars is a car crash. It produces a cast of Priests & keeps the Bible from the hands of ordinary people & still leaves the questions about presuppositions (scholars have theirs).
It also shows a failure to see where Evangelicals come from. Dick Lucas, former Rector of St Helen's Bishopsgate, co-founder of the Proc-Trust used to say things like, "It's not written to you silly" & "You need to go back to Corinth". Of course not being written "to" & not being written "for" are different matters. Read a commentary like Carson's & you see that Evangelicals are happy to grapple with knotty issues & other traditions. Indeed in theological training they have to. It seems from some rather bland caricatures, the same doesn't happen the other way.
Of course, perhaps THE distinctive thing about Bible interpretation for Evangelicals and does actually relate to the original post... Evangelicals do believe the the Bible is a whole unit, made up of parts. The knotty questions of how this bit fits with that-is where the hard work starts & the rewards found.
Ok, we're back online after moving house. So, can we get back to the topic now?The Han Bridge is nothing short of a devil's snare. Four choked lanes of traffic flow together into a swarming steam of mostly motorbikes with a handful of bicycles, rickshaws, cars, and trucks thrown in for good measure. I've traversed this dangerous path at least a dozen times during my first week in Danang because she stands between me and the beach. And while I'm getting the hang of the crossing, but it must be said that passing over this wicked temptress is a nasty piece of business.
However, when the sun goes down and the lights come up, she transforms into a colorful beauty. Seen from afar, gloriously reflected across the waters of the Han River, her treachery fades in my memory and I'm enchanted by the old girl's playful spirit.
I forgive you your dark side, Han Bridge. Let's be friends.Adam Ward
From: BIM: constructing the future, IMechE HQ, London, 7