# Biblical inerrancy and literal interpretation; why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 25, 2002, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824 "2002-10-25T11:10:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/61 "2002-10-29T21:48:50Z")
Sorry for the double posting. This computer is retarded! ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2002, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/62 "2002-10-29T23:04:11Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by His4ever \* \*\*Leave it to you to come up with something, **Mangetout**!😃 Obviously the plants and vegetation did survive. [quote] \*\*Yes, but this does not automatically validate the 7 day creation story. > [@](#): > > \*\*I’d say they’d have had a much better chance if it was literal days and nights than eons of time. \*\*Days or aeons; doesn’t make a difference - a banana plant will be dead as a doornail after just a few moments in the freezing darkness without a sun. I’d say they had a better chance if the plants came along after there was sunlight and a climate. > [@](#): > > \*\*I looked it up and it does say after each day of creation "And the evening and morning were the first, second, third, etc. day. By using the term evening and morning I don’t see how this can mean anything other than literal days and nights of 24 hrs. That’s what it says, and that’s what it means. \*\*We referred to ‘Jim’ in that other thread as if he were a real person, although we all fully knew and accepted that he wasn’t; he was nothing more than a convenient device. > [@](#): > > **Evening and morning means just what it says, not eons and eons of time. That doesn’t even make a bit of sense to me.** Nowhere did I assert that the ‘days’ in Genesis referred to real time periods at all. ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/63 "2002-10-30T00:26:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Algernon \* > \*\*OK. I’m confused. I thought, biblically speaking, that the sun was created on the _first_ day. (“Let there be light.”) And plants weren’t created until the third day. > > If so, then the plant survival question is moot. > > If not, then how could there be “evenings and mornings” to mark the biblical “day”? > > A wondering mind wants to know. \*\* Genesis, chapter 1 12-And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13-And the evening and the morning were the third day. 14-And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. 15-And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16-And God made two great lights; the greater light (sun) to rule the day, and the lesser light (moon) to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17-And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. 18-And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19-And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. When God said "Let there be light at the very first, He didn’t need a source. All He had to do was speak it and it was so. As you can see, He didn’t create the sun, moon, and stars, until after the grasses, vegetations, etc. **Mangetout** , I still believe God created the world in six literal days and nights. He knows what the words mean as shown in verse 14. The same thing we mean when we talk about seasons, days, months, years. He is quite capable of keeping the plants and grasses alive until the sun was created the next day. After all, He is God. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/64 "2002-10-30T02:33:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cjhoworth \* > \*\*I’m afraid I’ve been nauseous from an anti-depressant for the past 48 hours, so this won’t be my best effort, but please bear with me. > > Biblican inerrancy, I think, must be a fairly modern concept because, up until the Protestant Reformation in the 1400’s (?), it was considered heretical for the Bible to be printed in any language but Latin or for people who weren’t priests to even read it. Admittedly, this was in a time when most people were illiterate, but to be able to “rightly divide Scripture” (thanks for the phrase, Polycarp), one had to have the special training associated with the priesthood. > > I’ll get back into the fray once my stomach settles down. > CJ \*\* Actually, this is a common misconception. There were, in fact, many Church-approved common-language translations of the Bible, and various parts thereof floating around at least as far back as the twelfth century. Then, there was Gutenburg. And everyone who could read (granted, a small minority of the population) was encouraged to study the Scriptures. What the Church had a problem with was the fact that there were some sloppy translations of the Bible floating around, in which key doctrinal points were mistranslated, and thus could lead the reader into error. (OK, let’s not go into _that_). One thing I have noticed about Biblical literalists is that they are very inconsistent in their literalism. They claim the whole Bible is literally true, except when it disagrees with the beliefs of their particular denomination. Thus, many Protestant fundamentalists, who do not believe that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ, will interpret John 6:51-57 (the Bread of Life discourse), which is obviously literal, symbolically. I consider this to be the absolute freakiest passage of Scripture, and I’ve read the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I also believe it. Literally. These same literalists tend to use versions of the Bible that are mssing seven books out of the Old Testament, because they contain passages that provide the basis of Catholic beliefs that most Protestants reject. (Purgatory comes to mind, just offhand). The Bible doesn’t agree with your “Biblically based” beliefs? Edit the Bible. We have Martin Luther to thank for this. I’m going to stop now, before this turns into a rant. ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/65 "2002-10-30T04:18:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > \*\*Well, Revelation is certainly not meant Literally. > It is meant to be understood when the Times of the End comes. > PArts of it are understandable now, 50 years ago, no one could conceive of not being allowed to buy or sell without a number on you. > Now we have Smart Cards and microchip implants. > > I think the Gospels are pretty easily understood to mean exactly what they say. \*\* The original Revalations, unedited for your veiwing pleasure! -Revelation 1:1 - -I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of -this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the -plagues which are written in this book; -Revelation 1:2 - -and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this -prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and -from the holy city, which are written in this book. -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/66 "2002-10-30T04:30:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cjhoworth \* > Then again, I take seriously that commandment about “Love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy _mind_” (emphasis mine). > CJ \*\* :smack: _cough_starvation _cough_ -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/67 "2002-10-30T06:54:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > \*\*Well, Revelation is certainly not meant Literally. > It is meant to be understood when the Times of the End comes. > PArts of it are understandable now, 50 years ago, no one could conceive of not being allowed to buy or sell without a number on you. > Now we have Smart Cards and microchip implants. > > I think the Gospels are pretty easily understood to mean exactly what they say. \*\* The Harper Collins Study Bible I have says quite clearly that _Revelation_ is a code, a reference to events and people of that time (2nd century?) existing in Rome, and a call for uprising. So it _is_ understood right now, apparently. They even give footnotes to specific people, places, etc., that explain those passages. What I wonder is what it _means_ for the Bible to be true. Say the entire NT is true. I take that to mean that Romans, Corinthians, etc., are an accurate representation of what Paul actually wrote in those letters. That’s what it means to be true, right? So a person who believed the Bible was 100% true would assert that the “yoked with unbelievers” thing in 2 Corinthians is truly _what Paul said to those people_. How do they get from that point to assuming that it is an instruction from god? If it’s true in that sense, then surely it’s true in virtue of some other thing, some other rule from which Paul deduced that principle with his reason. Surely it can’t be true, in that sense, merely because the particular letter in which it appeared happened to be one of those letters that, through fortune and chance, happened to be preserved long enough to make the established canon in 372 AD? See? Being _true_ (as in the first usage, an accurate representation of events) and being the “Word of God” are two entirely different things. Nothing prevents even a biblical inerrantist from considering author and audience. One would still be a Christian if one took only the “accurate representation” stance, because they would consider the account of Christ in the gospels an accurate representation. It need not follow even from that starting point that Paul’s various admonitions are the “Word of God.” ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/68 "2002-10-30T07:19:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Thea Logica \* > \*\* > > One thing I have noticed about Biblical literalists is that they are very inconsistent in their literalism. They claim the whole Bible is literally true, except when it disagrees with the beliefs of their particular denomination. Thus, many Protestant fundamentalists, who do not believe that the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ, will interpret John 6:51-57 (the Bread of Life discourse), which is obviously literal, symbolically. > \*\* Indeed, this is certainly one of the strangest things Protestant Evangelicals do, so wholly inconsistent with what they profess. How do they pick and choose which ones are literal and which symbolic, especially when their _sola scriptura_ admonishes them not to look to outside sources or traditional writings? > [@](#): > > \*\*These same literalists tend to use versions of the Bible that are mssing seven books out of the Old Testament, because they contain passages that provide the basis of Catholic beliefs that most Protestants reject. (Purgatory comes to mind, just offhand). The Bible doesn’t agree with your “Biblically based” beliefs? Edit the Bible. We have Martin Luther to thank for this. > > I’m going to stop now, before this turns into a rant. \*\* Oh, don’t stop! I do so enjoy seeing Martin Luther trashed. Protestant Evangelicals toss out those OT books because they were not approved as OT canon by a Jewish council sometime between AD 70 and AD 100. (Note the correlation between that AD 70 date and the destruction of the temple, this was an effort of Jewish leaders to define Jewish canon for a Jewish people they feared would become decentralized.) I’m blanking out on the link, but I know I have one tucked away somewhere. Why a decision of a Jewish council in the late first century should take precedence over the Synod of Hippo in 393 in Luther’s mind, who knows? There was no “New Testament” at all before 393, and no Christian pronouncement on the OT canon prior to that time. Whether Luther tossed out Maccabees because he wanted to rid the church of purgatory, I don’t know. One might speculate that this was a factor, since he didn’t like people paying priests for “get out of Purgatory free” prayers. ---
**Author:** ![StPaul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58f4c7/32.png) [@StPaul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StPaul)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/69 "2002-10-30T08:07:23Z")
Its the public (and private) declaration of biblical inerrancy that really matters. In my opinion, publicly declaring the belief that every word of the Bible is absolute truth is a modern day equivalent to a pilgrimage to the Holy land. Its a physical act with a personal cost to prove to the world, and to one’s self, a high level of devoutness. There is no point in arguing that this or that story doesn’t make literal sense. In fact, wilder the stories, the more that comes from professing to beleive them. Ultimately, however, I can’t help but think that the people who must go to these lengths to prove to their faith to themselves and to others, have the least faith of any of us. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/70 "2002-10-30T09:09:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by His4ever \* > **Mangetout** , I still believe God created the world in six literal days and nights. He knows what the words mean as shown in verse 14. The same thing we mean when we talk about seasons, days, months, years. He is quite capable of keeping the plants and grasses alive until the sun was created the next day. After all, He is God. \*\* See here’s the problem; in order to cling to the literal interpretation, we have to _ **add an inference that isn’t mentioned in the original text at all** _; “The plants would have died without the sun’s warmth” “Ah yes, but God must have sustained them” “There’s no way every living species could have fit on the ark, let alone survived the disruption to their life cycle” “Ah yes, but God must have sustained them” “Where did all the water come from for the flood? where did it go afterwards?” (Mutters something about a ‘vapour canopy’) “Well, storing that much water vapour above the atmosphere would have made the Earth completely uninhabitable due to the pressure, furthermore, bringing it down to ground leve would have turned it to superheated steam” “Ah yes, well, God must have intervened somehow” It’s fine, except that no mention is ever made in the text about the nature of these interventions (which you would expect, as it often goes into detail about other things) - standing back, the picture that the whole thing paints is not one of accurate descriptions of supernatural processes - the omission or overlooking of fundamentally important details seems far more likely to be the result of a rather naive, childlike attempt to account for why things are the way they are. ---
**Author:** ![gus28](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6de8d8/32.png) [@gus28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gus28)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/71 "2002-10-30T13:41:56Z")
His4ever- God can do anything He chooses in the amount of time He chooses. Judges 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron. These two just don’t seem to jive, do they? ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/72 "2002-10-30T14:27:16Z")
God breathed on the banana plants to keep them warm. As for ther Ark, maybe there weren’t that many animals, but they evolved afterwards-look at the Galapogas Islands (sic). As for Revelations and those who think it occured back then- please explain how the 2 witnesses died and were seen by the whole earth to be lifted up into the clouds, and ALSO how babylon was compltely desolate and no one ever walked there again. Also-all thee arth’s mountains falling. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/73 "2002-10-30T14:35:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by vanilla \* > \*\*God breathed on the banana plants to keep them warm. > > As for ther Ark, maybe there weren’t that many animals, but they evolved afterwards-look at the Galapogas Islands (sic).\*\* Hmmmm, more of the same though, isn’t it - we’re not really talking about literal interpretations (as in 'the Bible clearly states) anymore, but rather ‘The Bible vaguely mentions’ + ‘I thought the rest up myself’. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/74 "2002-10-30T14:39:54Z")
I meant also to ask how much evolution do you think could actually have taken place in the (supposed) 4000 years since the flood? ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/75 "2002-10-30T14:41:23Z")
I am not a Bible expert. It was just my opinions. Past history, if you ask me. ---
**Author:** ![lynn73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ebca7d/32.png) [@lynn73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynn73)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/76 "2002-10-30T15:49:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gus28 \* > \*\*His4ever- > God can do anything He chooses in the amount of time He chooses. > Judges 1:19 > And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had chariots of iron. > > These two just don’t seem to jive, do they? \*\* Perhaps it could be saying that Judah is the one who couldn’t drive them out. It could be saying the Lord was with Judah, and he (Judah) couldn’t drive them out. I find it hard to believe that the God who created the universe, this planet, and everything on it including the materials used to make iron, could not do whatever He chooses. Sometimes He chooses not to do something for His own reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/77 "2002-10-30T15:54:27Z")
I don’t think **gus28** was talking about the definiton of God so much as the description of him in the Bible being flawed by the limited cognitive capacity of the authors. ---
**Author:** ![FriendRob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecc23a/32.png) [@FriendRob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendRob)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/78 "2002-10-30T17:40:15Z")
I’m curious to know how literalists know which Bible to believe in. Why do you accept the list of NT books written down in 367 AD by Athanasius? Why not use, say, the books quoted by Clement of Alexandria in his 2nd-century writings (which would be a much larger number)? Or the books which scholarship shows to be genuinely by apostles (a much smaller list - basically half of “Paul’s” letters)? And which _versions_ of those books are literally true, seeing as the ancient manuscripts sometimes have serious disagreements? Roman Catholics, of course, can call on the Papal declarations on these matters. But AFAIK, most literalists are not Roman Catholic. Who is the authority that decided what constitutes “the Bible”? ---
**Author:** ![Mars\_Horizon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mars_horizon/32/2804_2.png) [@Mars\_Horizon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mars_Horizon)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/79 "2002-10-30T17:49:32Z")
Yes **His** , the "God who [did all these nifty supernatural things] **could** do whatever He chooses. It’s not hard to figure out. If you believe in an all powerful God then yes, He could choose not to drive out the inhabitants who had chariots of iron. If you don’t believe such an entity exists, then it seems like the guys with the more advanced tech won, much like has always happened throughout history. ---
**Author:** ![loinburger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/db5fbb/32.png) [@loinburger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/loinburger)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2002, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824/80 "2002-10-30T21:30:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by His4ever \* > Well, in my humble opinion, if all religious works were inspired by God they would have to agree with one another and they don’t. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, any number of religions have their own scriptures but their teachings don’t agree with Christianity. If the same God inspired all religious literature, it would all have to agree and be in harmony and it isn’t. **I believe the Bible is set apart and is God’s word to us.** Why the Bible, though? Why not the Koran or the Sutras or the Vedic Scriptures or the Necronomicon or whatever? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-inerrancy-and-literal-interpretation-why/133824.md?page=5)