# Biblical literalism in the primary text **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2015, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065 "2015-10-29T06:27:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/21 "2015-10-29T16:00:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Look. the donkey didn’t talk in the way Mr. Ed talked. The donkey clearly talked because it was made to do so by God to send a message. So, assuming you believe in miracles, there is no reason to doubt the literal correctness of that text while continuing to accept that donkeys in general do not talk. No, no. You have to understand it the way Robert163 does: only _absolute_ literalism will do. So in Psalms 18:2 “The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower” it means that God is _literally_ a chunk of metamorphic stone, a castle, courage, a shield. And a horn. And a castle again. As someone else said in GD about Robert163: > [@A few questions about the Christian heaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-few-questions-about-the-christian-heaven/735643/220): > > The notion of some not-very-well-read internet poster dictating to several billion people the ways in which they are to regard their holy books, (in which said poster does not believe), is risible. Your insistence in dragging your error into one thread after another to declare a point that fails on the evidence is merely silly. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/22 "2015-10-29T16:13:03Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > No, no. You have to understand it the way Robert163 does: only _absolute_ literalism will do. So in Psalms 18:2 “The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower” it means that God is _literally_ a chunk of metamorphic stone, a castle, courage, a shield. And a horn. And a castle again. I will refer you to the very first paragraph of the topic I posted on: In this thread, post 252 the topic about Christian heaven, I made the point in several places about a literal reading of the bible is the only reliable interpretation, due to all the factors and mechanics in a topic so complex as the bible. In other words, if the text says that a talking donkey was talking, I take that to mean exactly what it says, not as metaphor. ( **Though, there are examples, like when Jesus says to cut off your hand if you are tempted to steal, that seems an obvious metaphor.** As I said, the bible is a very complex book). ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/23 "2015-10-29T16:23:22Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > This is the time that others far more schooled in this subject than I say it really started taking off. Before 1500 the Church actually allowed a fair degree of freedom according to Thomas Brodie and others. He says suddenly something shifted around 1500 CE, and that interpretation of the Bible begin to move as never before, from the symbolic to the literal. > > Brodie says he can’t explain fully why this happened, but there were lots of clues. He mentions the 45 year period which surrounds “the death of Denis the Carthusian (1471) and Columbus was born, as were Copernicus, Luther and Ignatius Loyola. By the time Galileo appeared, shortly after Ignatius died, the world had moved far from Denis the Carthusian.” > > Brodie mentions Ernan McMullin which sums up the shift of interpretation quite succinctly in two sentences: \*The Reform shifted interpretation from symbolic to literal. And the Catholics said: “If you go literal, we’ll outdo you.” \* > > He spends a few pages on this, so not sure how to highlight the finer points, but may try to get to it later if I get the time, or find a cite for it if there is any interest. > [@Voyager](#): > > Look. the donkey didn’t talk in the way Mr. Ed talked. The donkey clearly talked because it was made to do so by God to send a message. So, assuming you believe in miracles, there is no reason to doubt the literal correctness of that text while continuing to accept that donkeys in general do not talk. > > If you buy the ability of God to work miracles - which is something not limited to fundamentalists, I’d think - there is nothing in the Bible considered by itself to make you doubt - except the internal contradictions. You only get a problem when there is external evidence against a story, or when you try to pass off a story as not involving miracles, the way creationists do when they try to get their stuff taught in schools. > > If you say some of it is bogus and some of it is not, then you need to say what the criteria is. If it is historical support, you need to be ready to toss it all, or at least wind up with a deistic sort of god. I tried asking about this in a thread a whole back and wound up with Christianity reduced to deism. > > So, I’d say moderates and non-literalists can easily believe in a specific talking ass. There is not likely to be historical evidence against it, after all. Thank you for your comments. I am a bit distracted at the moment, tired/sleepy. I think I basically agree with your comments. Maybe I will comment further when I am more well rested. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/24 "2015-10-29T16:25:09Z")
So - if you take your given - “the bible is a very complex book” and add in your “That seems like a metaphor” and mix those two together quite liberally - you get your answer - you take certain statements/verses in the bible as “must be X” - someone else says “this appears to be a metaphor” - Others might say that the passage is accurate, but based on cultural norms that have clearly changed, yet others might say its superceded by a later passage, etc and so on. How do you decide which is the correct interpretation of the given passage or its relevance? Who are ‘you’ to say that the other person’s decision to call it a metaphor is incorrect? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/25 "2015-10-29T16:33:13Z")
> [@simster](#): > > So - if you take your given - > > “the bible is a very complex book” > > and add in your > > “That seems like a metaphor” > > and mix those two together quite liberally - you get your answer - you take certain statements/verses in the bible as “must be X” - someone else says “this appears to be a metaphor” - Others might say that the passage is accurate, but based on cultural norms that have clearly changed, yet others might say its superceded by a later passage, etc and so on. > > How do you decide which is the correct interpretation of the given passage or its relevance? > > Who are ‘you’ to say that the other person’s decision to call it a metaphor is incorrect? Who am I to say? I’m the guy who says you can’t cast demons into pigs… because there are no demons. I’m the guy who says even if even if Paul was clearly using an analogy when he spoke of spiritual armor… at the bottom of it all are ridiculous, non nonsensical, illogical concepts. Eloquent and verbose metaphors about “spiritual armor” don’t really mean anything when the source material is a fairy tale. ETA: If I am a bit heated in my response I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/26 "2015-10-29T16:40:22Z")
So…because you hate religion, and Christianity, _you_ get to decide what parts of the Bible are to be taken as metaphor and which literally? That’s so weird. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/27 "2015-10-29T16:40:42Z")
I’d like to suggest that if you already are starting out with your well being good and thoroughly poisoned you aren’t going to get very far in conservation on the topic at hand. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/28 "2015-10-29T18:07:16Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > ( **Though, there are examples, like when Jesus says to cut off your hand if you are tempted to steal, that seems an obvious metaphor.** As I said, the bible is a very complex book). Not sure it wasn’t obviously a metaphor to some. Too long ago to remember my source, but I remember reading from another who said people were known to be missing certain body parts, after reflecting upon certain biblical passages during that time. Of course, the most famous being Origen, who read Matthew 19:12 and self-castrated himself. I have my doubts he really did this, but others in the church insisted he did. Just find it ironic if true, because Origen was one to warn others of taking the bible too literally, and actually was prolific and the first (I think) to rely on symbolism and allegory heavily where many others hadn’t gone before. Augustine followed suit along similar lines. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/29 "2015-10-29T18:16:08Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Who am I to say? > > I’m the guy who says you can’t cast demons into pigs… because there are no demons. > > I’m the guy who says even if even if Paul was clearly using an analogy when he spoke of spiritual armor… at the bottom of it all are ridiculous, non nonsensical, illogical concepts. Eloquent and verbose metaphors about “spiritual armor” don’t really mean anything when the source material is a fairy tale. > > ETA: If I am a bit heated in my response I apologize. a) you can’t use ‘logic’ or ‘reason’ to defeat ‘faith’ - they believe in these things due to ‘faith’ which requires zero evidence. So, simply stating that “demons” or “gods” do not exist is not going to get you very far in that debate. (You can use logic/reason to help point out why faith is bunk or how they are subjective in their use of it, but it won’t defeat the faith based argument - this is why the whole “do you believe in santa clause” question comes up, to help point out the special pleading that goes on). b) the point I was trying to make was that in this subjective notion - your interpetation of what is metaphor or not is just as valid (or not) as the other persons - you’ve got no more standing then they do when it comes to this decision. So - while I would agree that the whole narrative is based on myth, that doesn’t mean I can’t discuss it within the confines of that myth and have various interpetations of the books/words, etc - similarly to how we might discuss Tolkien - Would you run inot a tolkien thread and say “well, Sauron’s not real so this whole discussion is pointless” ?? or would you be able to discuss those elements within the confines of the LOTR narrative? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/30 "2015-10-29T18:16:28Z")
> [@andros](#): > > So…because you hate religion, and Christianity, _you_ get to decide what parts of the Bible are to be taken as metaphor and which literally? > > That’s so weird. It does not matter how much I hate Christianity… and I admit I do hate it… it is still impossible to cast demons into pigs… because… Demons do not exist. Focusing on my bad attitude is indicator of only one factor, in my opinion: it is a lot easier to pull out the “Angry Atheist” label than it is to account for the fact that… you can not… cast demons into pigs. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/31 "2015-10-29T18:21:55Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > I’d like to suggest that if you already are starting out with your well being good and thoroughly poisoned you aren’t going to get very far in conservation on the topic at hand. Really? Look, the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. We know this now, unequivocally. Well, at least to 99.9% certainty. The used multiple boats and well calibrated sonar and radared the whole lake slowly to make sure there was no monster down there… they went slowly from one end of the lake to the other, spread out side by side, boat by boat by boat, side by side. They did not find Nessie. So, if I were to say to you, Nessie does not exist, and you responded by saying I was “poisoning the well”, how logical a response would that be on your part? In other words, I say, there is no factual proof of any of your religious claims, any that you or anyone else makes, and you respond with the poisoned well tactic… no, you are supposed to provide proof that I am wrong… with facts. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/32 "2015-10-29T18:23:47Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Would you run inot a tolkien thread and say “well, Sauron’s not real so this whole discussion is pointless” ?? or would you be able to discuss those elements within the confines of the LOTR narrative? Well, we are taken it for granted that everyone in that discussion takes it at face value that LOTR is a myth… Your analogy does not fit. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/33 "2015-10-29T18:25:38Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > Not sure it wasn’t obviously a metaphor to some. Too long ago to remember my source, but I remember reading from another who said people were known to be missing certain body parts, after reflecting upon certain biblical passages during that time. Of course, the most famous being Origen, who read Matthew 19:12 and self-castrated himself. I have my doubts he really did this, but others in the church insisted he did. Just find it ironic if true, because Origen was one to warn others of taking the bible too literally, and actually was prolific and the first (I think) to rely on symbolism and allegory heavily where many others hadn’t gone before. Augustine followed suit along similar lines. ok, interesting trivia… (honestly) but beyond that I guess I have no opinion/reaction… ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/34 "2015-10-29T18:32:12Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Well, we are taken it for granted that everyone in that discussion takes it at face value that LOTR is a myth… > > Your analogy does not fit. Its a perfectly fine analogy for being able to discuss a piece of work based on its own merits - if you’re trying to determine why a person might believe in X, you can research that based on the belief, regardless of the source of it. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/35 "2015-10-29T18:34:10Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Its a perfectly fine analogy for being able to discuss a piece of work based on its own merits - if you’re trying to determine why a person might believe in X, you can research that based on the belief, regardless of the source of it. ok, please tell me, what is a good reason for thinking you can cast demons into a pig? ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/36 "2015-10-29T18:47:07Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Really? Yes, really. Your POV is this is silly, irrational, and ridiculous and this is the only way anyone can really see it - now I want a discussion about this. > [@](#): > > you are supposed to provide proof that I am wrong… with facts. No, I’m not. And I won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/37 "2015-10-29T18:53:01Z")
> [@ISiddiqui](#): > > Your POV is this is silly, irrational, and ridiculous and this is the only way anyone can really see it It is silly and irrational to say that you cannot cast demons into pigs? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/38 "2015-10-29T18:55:29Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > It does not matter how much I hate Christianity… and I admit I do hate it… it is still impossible to cast demons into pigs… because… Demons do not exist. > > Focusing on my bad attitude is indicator of only one factor, in my opinion: it is a lot easier to pull out the “Angry Atheist” label than it is to account for the fact that… you can not… cast demons into pigs. Is this thread about literalism vs. metaphor in the Bible, or whether Christianity is factually correct in its claims? Those topics have little to do with one another, but you keep switching from one the other, as you did in the “Christian beliefs about heaven” thread. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/39 "2015-10-29T18:58:20Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > ok, please tell me, what is a good reason for thinking you can cast demons into a pig? Short answer - for the person that takes faith in what the bible says - that believes in both Gods and Demons, and that they may have reason to possess a person, and that the “son of god” would be able to do such a thing. Its a ‘faith’ based statement - its not based on ‘reason’ - there is nothing ‘reasonable’ about it. If you want to talk about reasons on the origins of that story and suggest first off that “well, I doubt they really cast out demons, what else might have happened that started this particular nugget” - then we could discuss other things that this person might have done (helped the person thru a siezure, etc) that led to the scripture in question - or we can take it as a metaphor and equate “demons” with “evil thoughts” and “pigs” with “anything that gets it out of me” - and that the person that did the casting was my counselor, etc. - keeping in mind that pIgs are ‘unclean’ animals to the audience of the book at the time. But you deciding that it must have been a literal event is no more ‘reasonable’ then the person that decides it must be some form of metaphor or even literal based on their ‘belief’ or faith. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065/40 "2015-10-29T19:01:22Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Would you run inot a tolkien thread and say “well, Sauron’s not real so this whole discussion is pointless” ?? or would you be able to discuss those elements within the confines of the LOTR narrative? I’m glad that you agree the Bible is a myth. But none or almost none of our potential Presidential candidates do. Nor do our legislators Since everyone agrees LOTR is made up, trying to invalidate it by finding contradictions is dickish. Not so for the Bible. If some clown was proposing spending billions of dollars to arm against Sauron, saying he is not real is quite appropriate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/biblical-literalism-in-the-primary-text/736065.md?page=3)