Biblical Literalism

[The Creepoc Infinite]

I live in Bluffton, South Carolina. I am completely surrounded by Christians who say that, without a doubt, the bible is a literal history of the universe and mankind.
They say Noah's Ark actually happened
That a talking snake really existed
That Moses' exodus from Egypt actually happened
And so on...

How can the Bible be literally true?
Ever since I first heard these stories, I assumed them to be fables, tall tales, and fairy tails. And if the things Literalists say actually happened, why don't they happen anymore? Why no more of God causing miracles left and right?

Share your thoughts below.
Try your best at proving it is literally true, just allegory, or a mix of both...

[Alyakia]

honestly it's really silly. half of it has no archeological evidence and even the people who believe in god and whos job it literally is to the study the bible won't say it's 100% literal.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

honestly it's really silly. half of it has no archeological evidence and even the people who believe in god and whos job it literally is to the study the bible won't say it's 100% literal.

I agree, but there are a lot of nuts on Facebook spouting things like "Noah's Ark really happened! Wake up and smell the Jesus! Pssh stupid scientists lol"

So if this is so widespread, I figured making a thread on was a good idea.
It'll give the real experts and opportunity to show off.

[Region Explorer]

The Old Testament is meant to be taken symbolically or, at least, mythologically. Of course, I do not refer to accepted historical books like Kings, Chronicles or Ezra.

[Conserative Morality]

If you aren't beating your children with rods, God hates you, sinner.

[Constantinopolis]

As mentioned in the Christian Discussion Thread, the vast majority of Christians across the world do not follow - and never have followed - an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible. Biblical literalism is a recent phenomenon, arising out of fundamentalist American Protestantism.

Quoth NSG's most authoritative source on such matters:

Modern biblical literalism as it's widely understood today is largely a phenomenon of late 18th- and early 19th-century Protestantism (so closer to 200-230 years). The reasons why it formed in that period are complex, but - oversimplifying considerably for the sake of an NSG thread - are closely associated with two primary phenomena: 1) the North American evangelical revivalism brought about by Second Great Awakening in the United States (the irony here is "that old-time religion" was anything but) and B) a counter-reaction in some (by no means all) religious circles to the Enlightenment.

Prior to that, it had long been understood by the overwhelming majority of Christians (assuming that Orthodox and Catholics together can be characterised as such) that much of the Old Testament - and significant parts of the New Testament (step forward the Book of Revelation) - were allegorical.

Though it's only fair to point out that early Church Fathers often disagreed over what was literal and what was allegorical. For example, somewhere before 231 AD, Origen wrote that:

Who is foolish enough to believe that, like a human gardener, God planted a garden in Eden in the East and placed in it a tree of life, visible and physical, so that by biting into its fruit one would obtain life? And that by eating from another tree, one would come to know good and evil? And when it is said that God walked in the garden in the evening and that Adam hid himself behind a tree, I cannot imagine that anyone will doubt that these details point symbolically to spiritual meanings, by using an historical narrative which did not literally happen

(Origen De Principiis 4.1.6)

St. Augustine of Hippo meanwhile wrote an entire book (in the late 4th or early 5th century) on the allegorical meaning of much of Genesis (his De Genesi ad litteram; large chunks available in Google Books). Though note that, in possible contrast to Origen, Augustine argued for the literal creation of Adam and Eve, even while arguing that the seven-day creation story was otherwise substantially allegorical.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

As mentioned in the Christian Discussion Thread, the vast majority of Christians across the world do not follow - and never have followed - an entirely literal interpretation of the Bible. Biblical literalism is a recent phenomenon, arising out of fundamentalist American Protestantism.

Quoth NSG's most authoritative source on such matters:

Modern biblical literalism as it's widely understood today is largely a phenomenon of late 18th- and early 19th-century Protestantism (so closer to 200-230 years). The reasons why it formed in that period are complex, but - oversimplifying considerably for the sake of an NSG thread - are closely associated with two primary phenomena: 1) the North American evangelical revivalism brought about by Second Great Awakening in the United States (the irony here is "that old-time religion" was anything but) and B) a counter-reaction in some (by no means all) religious circles to the Enlightenment.

Prior to that, it had long been understood by the overwhelming majority of Christians (assuming that Orthodox and Catholics together can be characterised as such) that much of the Old Testament - and significant parts of the New Testament (step forward the Book of Revelation) - were allegorical.

Though it's only fair to point out that early Church Fathers often disagreed over what was literal and what was allegorical. For example, somewhere before 231 AD, Origen wrote that:
(Origen De Principiis 4.1.6)

St. Augustine of Hippo meanwhile wrote an entire book (in the late 4th or early 5th century) on the allegorical meaning of much of Genesis (his De Genesi ad litteram; large chunks available in Google Books). Though note that, in possible contrast to Origen, Augustine argued for the literal creation of Adam and Eve, even while arguing that the seven-day creation story was otherwise substantially allegorical.

I made the thread so the topic could get more attention.
And I want to hear actual literalists back up their claims with evidence that the bible is meant to be taken literally.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

The Old Testament is meant to be taken symbolically or, at least, mythologically. Of course, I do not refer to accepted historical books like Kings, Chronicles or Ezra.

What about Leviticus?
That is a book of laws right?

How do you interpret laws? Literally.

[Constantinopolis]

You'd be surprised how difficult it can be to agree on a way to interpret laws. Just ask the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Old Testament is meant to be taken symbolically or, at least, mythologically. Of course, I do not refer to accepted historical books like Kings, Chronicles or Ezra.

What about Leviticus?
That is a book of laws right?

How do you interpret laws? Literally.

OT laws aren't supposed to apply to Christians, but it does get odd when you bring it up with Fundies because they take everything literally.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

You'd be surprised how difficult it can be to agree on a way to interpret laws. Just ask the U.S. Supreme Court.

How do you interpret something like "stone gays to death" (paraphrasing) as anything other than "stone gays to death"?

It's not like it meant to sell gay people tons of weed.

[Ifreann]

You'd be surprised how difficult it can be to agree on a way to interpret laws. Just ask the U.S. Supreme Court.

How do you interpret something like "stone gays to death" (paraphrasing) as anything other than "stone gays to death"?

It's not like it meant to sell gay people tons of weed.

...are you now arguing for Biblical literalism?

[The Creepoc Infinite]

How do you interpret something like "stone gays to death" (paraphrasing) as anything other than "stone gays to death"?

It's not like it meant to sell gay people tons of weed.

...are you now arguing for Biblical literalism?

No, but what I am trying to say is that as far as Leviticus is concerned, the bible was being literal.
I think it's a mix of both.

But I think it's around 90% allegory

[Emerald-Springs]

For the vast majority of Christian history the Bible was viewed as a text rich in symbolism and allegory, meant to be read and interpreted on multiple levels. It was only after the Reformation that certain Protestant sects adopted the doctrine of Biblical literalism.

While you happen to live in an area where this view predominates, taking the long view of Christian history, Biblical literalism has always been - and in terms of the number of Christians adhering to explicitly literalist denominations remains - a minority view. Even within the history of American Protestantism, Biblical literalism really only became center-stage in the 20th century as a reaction against the spread of theological liberalism in the northern Mainline denominations.

As a Roman Catholic, I share the concern that literalist Protestants have about liberal theologians using a non-literal approach to the Bible to explain their way out of Biblical teachings that they find unpalatable (such as those on sexuality, soteriology, etc.). However, I believe that literalism is both an unnecessary response to these heterodox views and one that actually cheapens the value of Scripture and, in a way, insults the intelligence of the Creator by implying that the texts He gave us to help understand him would be too simple to match the depth and sophistication of his Creation and fully engage the mental faculties that He gave us.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

For the vast majority of Christian history the Bible was viewed as a text rich in symbolism and allegory, meant to be read and interpreted on multiple levels. It was only after the Reformation that certain Protestant sects adopted the doctrine of Biblical literalism.

While you happen to live in an area where this view predominates, taking the long view of Christian history, Biblical literalism has always been - and in terms of the number of Christians adhering to explicitly literalist denominations remains - a minority view. Even within the history of American Protestantism, Biblical literalism really only became center-stage in the 20th century as a reaction against the spread of theological liberalism in the northern Mainline denominations.

As a Roman Catholic, I share the concern that literalist Protestants have about liberal theologians using a non-literal approach to the Bible to explain their way out of Biblical teachings that they find unpalatable (such as those on sexuality, soteriology, etc.). However, I believe that literalism is both an unnecessary response to these heterodox views and one that actually cheapens the value of Scripture and, in a way, insults the intelligence of the Creator by implying that the texts He gave us to help understand him would be too simple to match the depth and sophistication of his Creation and fully engage the mental faculties that He gave us.

Badass post, sir.


I know it's a minority, but it is a very LOUD minority.
People like Ken Ham are so pronounced in their ignorance and simple-minded ness that it is almost funny.

[Constantinopolis]

You'd be surprised how difficult it can be to agree on a way to interpret laws. Just ask the U.S. Supreme Court.

How do you interpret something like "stone gays to death" (paraphrasing) as anything other than "stone gays to death"?

It's not like it meant to sell gay people tons of weed.

1. What does "gay" mean? (in the verse you are referencing, the Bible actually refers to "[people who] lie with mankind as they do with womankind", which is really open to interpretation - some have argued that it means men who cheat on their wives with other men, for example)
2. Can anyone just start throwing stones, or is it supposed to be done after a formal trial by a specific authority? Does this authority still exist? If not, does the rule still apply in its absence? Who is supposed to apply it then?
3. Is this a universal rule for all people and all time, or just a specific command to a specific group in a certain historical context?

...and so on and so forth.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

How do you interpret something like "stone gays to death" (paraphrasing) as anything other than "stone gays to death"?

It's not like it meant to sell gay people tons of weed.

1. What does "gay" mean? (the Bible actually refers to "[people who] lie with mankind as they do with womankind", which is really open to interpretation - some have argued that it means men who cheat on their wives with other men, for example)
2. Can anyone just start throwing stones, or is it supposed to be done after a formal trial by a specific authority? Does this authority still exist? If not, does the rule still apply in its absence? Who is supposed to apply it then?
3. Is this a universal rule for all people and all time, or just a specific command to a specific group in a certain historical context?

...and so on and so forth.

I see what you mean.
Bad example then.

What about, mixing fabrics and shellfish and cutting hair?
Those three actions are said to not be done.

[Githoniel]

As a Roman Catholic, I share the concern that literalist Protestants have about liberal theologians using a non-literal approach to the Bible to explain their way out of Biblical teachings that they find unpalatable (such as those on sexuality, soteriology, etc.). However, I believe that literalism is both an unnecessary response to these heterodox views and one that actually cheapens the value of Scripture and, in a way, insults the intelligence of the Creator by implying that the texts He gave us to help understand him would be too simple to match the depth and sophistication of his Creation and fully engage the mental faculties that He gave us.

This x100. It's a delicate process to figure out what is likely to be allegorical (144 hour creation) versus what is literal (the Resurrection). Too far one way, and you get atheism, too far the other way and you get the folks who are pretty sure the earth is 6,000 years old and the dinosaurs simply didn't make it to the boat on time. I'm fairly grateful Christ founded a Church that was promised to be free from doctrinal error to guide the faithful.

[Mavorpen]

Biblical literalism is a recent phenomenon that is the result of a multitude of factors. At its core, the belief that the Church isn't necessary to understand and interpret the Bible and thus understand God is the most responsible. It's the belief that one simply needs to read the Bible itself and that the relationship with God doesn't need to go through the Church, but, rather, it's a direct and personal relationship that can be achieved through the Bible. Ironically therefore, sometimes the relationship between the person and God takes a backseat to the Bible ITSELF.

[Wallacean Alabama]

I don't actually know anyone who takes the Bible "Literally", I do know many people that take the bible "Naturally"- If it is written like a poem, they take it as a poem, if it is obviously a parable, they take it as a parable, If it written like a History - they take it as a history.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

As a Roman Catholic, I share the concern that literalist Protestants have about liberal theologians using a non-literal approach to the Bible to explain their way out of Biblical teachings that they find unpalatable (such as those on sexuality, soteriology, etc.). However, I believe that literalism is both an unnecessary response to these heterodox views and one that actually cheapens the value of Scripture and, in a way, insults the intelligence of the Creator by implying that the texts He gave us to help understand him would be too simple to match the depth and sophistication of his Creation and fully engage the mental faculties that He gave us.

This x100. It's a delicate process to figure out what is likely to be allegorical (144 hour creation) versus what is literal (the Resurrection). Too far one way, and you get atheism, too far the other way and you get the folks who are pretty sure the earth is 6,000 years old and the dinosaurs simply didn't make it to the boat on time. I'm fairly grateful Christ founded a Church that was promised to be free from doctrinal error to guide the faithful.

Doctrinal errors like literal interpretations?
And I doubt the resurrection actually happened.

[Vozergovnia]

I do not follow Biblical literalism and nor does anyone I am close with. I won't dismiss it as merely the product of zealous American Protestants since many prominent theologians have defended it but I do believe it is presently used mostly by the former to express their disgust at modernism, its role in modern society and its endorsement of ideas and scientific concepts which are considered by some to be contrary to Christian and values and in negation of God's greatness.

[Emerald-Springs]

For the vast majority of Christian history the Bible was viewed as a text rich in symbolism and allegory, meant to be read and interpreted on multiple levels. It was only after the Reformation that certain Protestant sects adopted the doctrine of Biblical literalism.

While you happen to live in an area where this view predominates, taking the long view of Christian history, Biblical literalism has always been - and in terms of the number of Christians adhering to explicitly literalist denominations remains - a minority view. Even within the history of American Protestantism, Biblical literalism really only became center-stage in the 20th century as a reaction against the spread of theological liberalism in the northern Mainline denominations.

As a Roman Catholic, I share the concern that literalist Protestants have about liberal theologians using a non-literal approach to the Bible to explain their way out of Biblical teachings that they find unpalatable (such as those on sexuality, soteriology, etc.). However, I believe that literalism is both an unnecessary response to these heterodox views and one that actually cheapens the value of Scripture and, in a way, insults the intelligence of the Creator by implying that the texts He gave us to help understand him would be too simple to match the depth and sophistication of his Creation and fully engage the mental faculties that He gave us.

Badass post, sir.


I know it's a minority, but it is a very LOUD minority.
People like Ken Ham are so pronounced in their ignorance and simple-minded ness that it is almost funny.

Thank you, sir. It is indeed a loud minority and a growing one. The message of Biblical literalism has a lot of appeal, not only to people with an ultraconservative theological agenda, but also to well-meaning Christians trying to understand their faith who (quite understandably) find the complexity of Scripture bewildering rather than compelling.

Ken Ham's popularity derives largely from the fact that he's low-hanging fruit and, frankly, a real shitty debator. Because he's terrible at what he does, he's the Creationist that the likes of Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse-Tyson want to debate, and the one who will be the most entertaining to watch. I'm not a Creationist, let alone a Young Earth one, but I am told by my Evangelical friends that Ken Ham is poorly regarded even by other Young Earth Creationists.

[The Creepoc Infinite]

Badass post, sir.


I know it's a minority, but it is a very LOUD minority.
People like Ken Ham are so pronounced in their ignorance and simple-minded ness that it is almost funny.

Thank you, sir. It is indeed a loud minority and a growing one. The message of Biblical literalism has a lot of appeal, not only to people with an ultraconservative theological agenda, but also to well-meaning Christians trying to understand their faith who (quite understandably) find the complexity of Scripture bewildering rather than compelling.

Ken Ham's popularity derives largely from the fact that he's low-hanging fruit and, frankly, a real shitty debator. Because he's terrible at what he does, he's the Creationist that the likes of Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse-Tyson want to debate, and the one who will be the most entertaining to watch. I'm not a Creationist, let alone a Young Earth one, but I am told by my Evangelical friends that Ken Ham is poorly regarded even by other Young Earth Creationists.

Ken Ham looks directly related to apes. If you look at him up close, he bares a striking resemblance.

And I've never heard of Neil Tyson wanting to debate Ken Ham.
Tyson is a physicist, not a biologist.

[Wallacean Alabama]

Why are we not discussing Quranic Literalism? or Vedic Literalism? or Torahic Literalism?