# Bush says Bible is not literally true **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2008, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744 "2008-12-11T18:30:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/61 "2008-12-11T21:29:34Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > One further note. In this day and age I have a hard time believing that anyone, educated beyond high school believes in 6 day creation. I can understand however that there are many who believe that to **actively** oppose the belief is simply anti-biblical, uneccessary and should be avoided. My [previous cite](http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2007/10/taking_bible_st.html)showed that 60% of Americans: believe God created the universe in six days. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/62 "2008-12-11T21:30:04Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > You were wrong. Now you know better. So persecuted Christians the world over _do_ take comfort in Lobohan’s interest? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/63 "2008-12-11T21:43:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I expect people to think about their beliefs, not hold them unexamined. So yeah, I’d say that someone who obeys 2% of the rules listed in a magic book he thinks is the only communication from God is if not a hypocrite, at the least not thinking very hard about it. That is assuming that the correct interpretation is obvious. > [@](#): > > Yes, and some Evangelicals are Literalists. So when I said _really evangelical_, I meant of the especially devout wingnuts who think that the Bible is the court record of creation. Yeah I never thought that. He’s too much east coast liberal elite for that. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/64 "2008-12-11T21:46:28Z")
**Lobohan** If God created the lights in the sky on the third day to separate night from day, how long were the first two days? [QUOTE=Genesis] 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/65 "2008-12-11T21:51:58Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > And if Sudan, North Korea, or Cuba were super powers in any way comparable to the U.S. you might have a point. You get a token point for China, but that’s stretching things. > > Christianity dominates the nation with the most powerful economic and military forces on the planet. So? It isn’t as if we go about the world forcibly converting Muslims and atheists with our military or our business executives. However weak these nations might be, they do a bang-up job suppressing the rights of their people. Look for where religious repression is tightest, and these countries pop up along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/66 "2008-12-11T21:55:30Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Quite true, especially the parthenogenesis/evolution confusion (which Bush has in spades, as per **Bayard** ’s quote above). Well, there’s enough confusion to go around. Some people say “parthenogenesis” when “abiogenesis” would make more sense in context, yanno. Mind, as long as they don’t go around criticising other people’s intellectual rigour, it’s all gravy AFAIAC. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/67 "2008-12-11T21:56:59Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I wonder whether anyone in this thread cares that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and most other Senate Democrats have paid similar lip service. They voted for an amendment to th NCLB Act (proposed by Rick Santorum, no less) supporting the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Are they also undercover biblical literalists? I’d say they’re schmucks, and I’d ask you to come up with reasons to suppose the’yre literalists that go beyond _one vote_. I cited several reasons it’s fair to question whether or not Bush was a Biblical literalist - it wasn’t one vote. You’re failing to see the forest for the trees here. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/68 "2008-12-11T22:06:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **Lobohan** If God created the lights in the sky on the third day to separate night from day, how long were the first two days? If you were a literalist I would assume you’d have to say it was 24 hour days, since God isn’t in the business of randomly lying to you and presumably he could have said “an age” or a great time. Reading it like it was written certainly suggests that it’s a 24 hour day. Note that it says that God created the world in six days, not “two great and unimaginable gulfs of time and four standard days.” Of course the real problem is the rest of that ignorant passage. > [@Stinking](#): > > 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; So the sky is a physical dome? > [@](#): > > and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, God supports astrology. > [@](#): > > 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; Well actually God made one light and created a reflective object to shine by its light sometimes. But an ignorant, bronze age, lice infested sheep herder from a desert couldn’t be expected to know that, right? > [@](#): > > he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 I’m not sure what you think my opinion of Genesis will prove. Are you suggesting that literalists have the wrong idea because it’s told in metaphor? Are you suggesting that Genesis is a factual account because the first two days could have been 4 billion years long? Are you just flailing around secretly knowing that your life long belief system is built on lies and wishful thinking? I’m guessing not the last one. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/69 "2008-12-11T22:13:00Z")
> [@Anaamika](#): > > I rarely get involved in these discussions, but WHY do you do this? They asked you a question about Dub, not about Obama. It’s a rhetorical device to expose a false premise. According to the OP, Bush is pandering to the fundamentalists because the OP believes that he has never stated before that he is not a Bible literalist. Fine - as far as I know, Obama has never stated before that **he** is not a Bible literalist. So, apparently Obama is pandering to the fundamentalists, or, neither Bush nor Obama is pandering to the fundamentalists. Got it? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/70 "2008-12-11T22:17:01Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Has anyone asked Obama if he believes the Bible is literally true, or is he pandering to the fundamentalists too? > > Regards, > Shodan Of course he’s pandering. They all do. The baby jesus is the first member of any president’s cabinet. However, I think we’ll see a lot less of it with Obama. He’s just not that hard core. Not in the way presidents think they need to be. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/71 "2008-12-11T22:17:42Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’d say they’re schmucks, and I’d ask you to come up with reasons to suppose the’yre literalists that go beyond _one vote_. I cited several reasons it’s fair to question whether or not Bush was a Biblical literalist - it wasn’t one vote. You’re failing to see the forest for the trees here. > [@Kennedy](#): > > The March 14 Commentary piece, “Illiberal education in Ohio schools,” written by my colleague Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, erroneously suggested that I support the teaching of “intelligent design” as an alternative to biological evolution. That simply is not true. > > Rather, I believe that public school science classes should focus on teaching students how to understand and critically analyze genuine scientific theories. Unlike biological evolution, “intelligent design” is not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation’s public school science classes. > > EDWARD M. KENNEDY > Senator Santorum’s language didn’t survive into the bill. Presumably the bill had language that could be construed as pro-creationism. I’d like ITC to post the actual text if he wouldn’t mind. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/72 "2008-12-11T22:19:05Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Well, there’s enough confusion to go around. Some people say “parthenogenesis” when “abiogenesis” would make more sense in context, yanno. Mind, as long as they don’t go around criticising other people’s intellectual rigour, it’s all gravy AFAIAC. :smack: That was my “original sin”, \*\* Euphonious Polemic\*\* just followed my malapropism. I guess I watch too much “House”. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/73 "2008-12-11T22:34:09Z")
**Lobohan** It is clear that your point is to make fun of hypothetical biblical literalists and not to have an actual discussion. I’ll leave you to it. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/74 "2008-12-11T22:35:46Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > :smack: That was my “original sin”, \*\* Euphonious Polemic\*\* just followed my malapropism. I guess I watch too much “House”. Plus, I’d just had a conversation with a colleague about parthenogenic stick insects, so it was stuck in my mind… Ya, that’s the ticket. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/75 "2008-12-11T23:14:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **Lobohan** It is clear that your point is to make fun of hypothetical biblical literalists and not to have an actual discussion. I’ll leave you to it. I’m in it for a discussion, but I’d need to know what you’re asking. Posting a snippit of a creation fable has nothing to do with this discussion so far as I can tell. Whichever. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/76 "2008-12-11T23:17:48Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m in it for a discussion, but I’d need to know what you’re asking. Posting a snippit of a creation fable has nothing to do with this discussion so far as I can tell. > > Whichever. 😃 My point is that it cannot be taken literally, that it is obviously a parable, because it is separated into days before Earth literally had days. So there is nothing hypocritical about accepting the Bible non-literally as it simply cannot be read literally, as demonstrated by the very first chapter. The book of Genesis rather than being a tale for dullards is actually a brilliant method for condensing complex themes into bite sized chunks that bronze age herders can understand. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/77 "2008-12-11T23:19:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Santorum’s language didn’t survive into the bill. Presumably the bill had language that could be construed as pro-creationism. I’d like ITC to post the actual text if he wouldn’t mind. The amendment that made it into the Senate bill said: > [@](#): > > It is the sense of the Senate that– > > (1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and > > (2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject. The Senate passed the amendment 91-8…the senators who voted against it were Chaffee, Cochran, Collins, DeWine, Enzi, Hagel, Stevens, and Thompson. It was removed during the conference, and the following was added to the Confrrence report: > [@](#): > > “The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.” ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/78 "2008-12-11T23:27:34Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I wonder whether anyone in this thread cares that Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and most other Senate Democrats have paid similar lip service. They voted for an amendment to th NCLB Act (proposed by Rick Santorum, no less) supporting the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public schools. Are they also undercover biblical literalists? I am sure most people in this thread would say tu quoque. For myself, they would lose my vote against any candidate who took the opposing viewpoint. This kind of crap is very high on my priority list when in comes to elections, not at the top, but close. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No Bush, no flood, no Park Service literature. > > I googled those terms and all that came up was [this](http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801), which does not say what you claim it says. Firstly, it only says that the gift shop had to include a book that endorsed a young earth; no mention of Noah’s flood. Also no mention of President Bush. The article is rather sloppy; it’s unclear what “its” refers to in the first sentence, so we don’t know who ordered it, but there’s certainly no verification of the claim that Bush was involved. That article mentions the flood, but it is not clear from this article (or from others I looked at) what Mr. Vail’s book specifically says about the origin of the canyon. I also cannot find any evidence that the President had any hand in making this book available at the NPS store. So your are right, I withdraw my contention. When this first reared its head in '03, I seem to remember that the executive played a role in the decision, but I can find no supporting documentation. That said, the attacks on science under this administration have been common in every department of government. NASA, CDC, NSF, NPS, NIH, etc… have all seen targeted funding cuts or had their public communications censored by the Bush administration. These attacks are not really indicative that President Bush is a biblical literalist, but more of a general nutjob… Whatever. Personally I think that President Bush’s statement is one of the more intelligent thing he has said in the last several years. People who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God are a little off in my book. There is too much evidence of corruption between different translations, too many contradictions, etc… for the Bible to be 100% true whether or not you are a person of faith. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/79 "2008-12-11T23:31:07Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > The book of Genesis rather than being a tale for dullards is actually a brilliant method for condensing complex themes into bite sized chunks that bronze age herders can understand. I somehow fail to see the implied distinction. A tale for dullards can certainly be well-composed. Heck, there was a similar sentiment expressed in Harman Wouk’s _The Caine Mutiny_, in which a Naval officer comments that the Navy itself is a brilliant system designed by geniuses to be run by idiots, i.e. all the necessary information to operating a naval vessel have been broken down into infallible easy-to-follow steps (bite-sized chunks, if you will) and another officer, young and inexperienced, should suppress all desire to find shortcuts or improvements because they will inevitably be wrong. My personal experience with the Army tends to suport this. Besides, I don’t find the Genesis story to be all that impressive. God wanted it done - it got done. It’s not nearly as rich or layered as cosmology, astronomy, geology, abiogenesis and evolution nor do I get any indication the writer(s) of Genesis had any inkling of these sciences and was trying to simplify them for his audience. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2008, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744/80 "2008-12-11T23:32:42Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > My point is that it cannot be taken literally, that it is obviously a parable, because it is separated into days before Earth literally had days. So there is nothing hypocritical about accepting the Bible non-literally as it simply cannot be read literally, as demonstrated by the very first chapter. > > The book of Genesis rather than being a tale for dullards is actually a brilliant method for condensing complex themes into bite sized chunks that bronze age herders can understand. We’re tangenting, but how about this: “In the beginning God created the universe. Then the stars in the sky. Then the Sun, and from the Sun he pulled the Earth and from the Earth the Moon. From the Sun and the air he made the waters and from the waters he brought life.” That’s simpler than the one “God” wrote and it’s actually kind of correct. Instead he lied and created purposely disguised the order of creation. In fact, if Genesis actually said what I just said there, about hydrogen and oxygen making water I’d be in church right now. Instead he said something exactly like a primitive person would come up with. Why believe it’s divinely inspired if it brings no divine insights? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-says-bible-is-not-literally-true/476744.md?page=5)