# Bible as Literally True: Whose Doctrine? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 13, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-as-literally-true-whose-doctrine/239819 "2004-04-13T17:39:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Thingol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Thingol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thingol)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-as-literally-true-whose-doctrine/239819/1 "2004-04-13T17:39:34Z")
**Big Fat Caveat: This thread is NOT the place to debate whether it’s logical to believe that the Bible should be read literally. There are other threads for that.** I’ve said on another thread that I don’t believe that the Bible itself supports the notion that all of the contents of all of its books (excluding obvious fables such as the parables of Jesus, of course) should be read as the literal truth. So my question is, where does the notion come from? Who says that the Biblical account of the flood is to be believed as historical, for example? I’d like to hear from Bible believers why they have come to that conclusion (non-believers, please don’t snipe them), and also from people knowledgeable about the history of Judeo-Christian thought. I’ll state up front that I consider this idea to be a doctrine of Man, not of God, just to get that out of the way. ::hushes up, opens ears:: ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-as-literally-true-whose-doctrine/239819/2 "2004-04-13T19:11:51Z")
This is just a suggestion; you make take it or leave it. If you just want to poll people about the reasons for their religious beliefs, without debating the subject at all, I think you want IMHO, not Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2004, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-as-literally-true-whose-doctrine/239819/3 "2004-04-14T16:23:53Z")
I’m not sure if you’re looking for a specific historical origin point for literalism. I think you’ll be disappointed if you are. It seems to me to be a continuation of ancient schools of thought. A) If the bible isn’t literally true, then how do we know any of it is? So, choose to accept it all as true rather than have to consider that it’s not. B) God wouldn’t lie, and the bible says it’s God’s word, so it must be. C) This is what my ancestors believed, so it’s what I believe. D) If I don’t believe this I’ll go to hell. Basically, it comes down to fear, poor logic, and yes, faith. My WAG of course. ---
**Author:** ![FriendRob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecc23a/32.png) [@FriendRob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendRob)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2004, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-as-literally-true-whose-doctrine/239819/4 "2004-04-14T16:26:21Z")
I’m not an expert on Christian history, but I can give a general idea and maybe someone can correct me or fill in details. The idea comes from the Protestant reformation. Martin Luther decided that the Roman Catholic church had moved too far away from the Holy Scriptures, and propounded the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”: the Bible alone is enough for salvation, interpreted through the help of the Holy Spirit. You don’t need the Church’s add-ons (creeds, proclamations of the Pope, etc.) This obviously requires a high evaluation of the Bible’s accuracy. In the late 19th century, Christian “fundamentalism” arose “as a reaction to liberalizing trends in American Protestantism” according to [this web site.](http://www.catholic.com/library/Fundamentalism.asp) A big part of this movement seems to have been a reaction against Darwin and the idea that the Bible might be wrong about some things. The Roman Catholic church also [considers the Bible to be inerrant:](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm) > [@](#): > > It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) [1869] that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical “because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church”. The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. But Roman Catholic doctrine admits the traditions of the Church as equally inerrant. That is, the Bible _as interpreted by the Church_ is inerrant. This gives a bit more leeway than “sola scriptura”, and in recent times the RC church has been much more accepting of ,e.g., scientific results that contradict the Bible view, than conservative Protestantism. (I don’t know how far back this goes as RC doctrine. Was the Vatican Council declaration triggered by the growth of fundamentalism? Maybe someone else can clarify this point.) ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2004, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-as-literally-true-whose-doctrine/239819/5 "2004-04-14T16:48:26Z")
There is a difference between the bible being considered theologically inerrant and being considered literally true/factual in nature. The former was one of the original tenets of 19th/early 20th century fundamentalism. At some point it morphed into the current literal truth version. ---
**Author:** ![beajerry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@beajerry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beajerry)\ **Post date:** [April 14, 2004, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-as-literally-true-whose-doctrine/239819/6 "2004-04-14T17:09:19Z")
It’s very interesting that Fundamentalism started only in the last century. If the Bible was written by God, then he was one crafty devil or one lazy dog to compile all those Summerian, Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Babylonian myths and legends into one book. I guess all those little stories and gods (including Yahweh) were practice? I’d go with FriendRob though: Martin Luther started this whole mess. Silly rabbit. ---
**Author:** ![FriendRob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecc23a/32.png) [@FriendRob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendRob)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2004, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bible-as-literally-true-whose-doctrine/239819/7 "2004-04-17T11:33:14Z")
It’s going to far to blame it all on Luther. The basic idea of the reliability of Scriptures goes way back. For instance, Galilieo, in defending Copernicus’s cosmology, had to contend with those who complained that the Bible says “the sun stood still in the sky” during an OT battle, not that the Earth stopped turning. Funny how today’s Biblical literalists never seem to worry about that one anymore…