# Is Biblical literalism really a recent phenomenon? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2013, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746 "2013-07-17T13:16:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/181 "2013-07-22T18:02:55Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > No, I was just supposing that a good number of Christians start with the premise that the Bible is authoritative, it’s modern liberal Christians have said this was just a recent phenomenon. Maybe you missed the thread title. You seem the one confusing authority with literalness. > [@](#): > > Only because history and science proving the Bible wrong is newish. Christians were taking the Bible at face value long before that. I really don’t get your point here. The Bible has some stories. People generally believed them, because there was no reason not to. The phenomenon of believing in the literal truth of the bible in contradiction to the scientific consensus is what most people have in mind when they talk about biblical literalism. > [@](#): > > That’s great, but a number of them guys were young earth creationists who stressed the literal meaning of scripture quite frequently. But only because there was no science to say otherwise. Many agreed that a “day” in Genesis may have been any length of time and there may have been gaps, and it wasn’t terribly important whether it was 7 24 hour days or not. You seem to have a grudge that they didn’t propose a 5 billion year old earth when nobody in the first century had any conceivable idea the earth was that old. > [@](#): > > Have you heard of medical science and what it has to say about mammals coming back to life after being drained of blood for 3 days? Have you heard of physics and how the surface tension of water can not support a man walking upon it? Try to follow along; I mentioned Jesus’ divinity not his miracles. If rising from the dead or walking on water were scientifically possible, they’d be pretty crappy miracles wouldn’t they. > [@](#): > > Keep telling yourself that. I don’t have to; you’re the one creating some kind of artificial tension between science and religion. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/182 "2013-07-22T19:00:55Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > But the quote doesn’t come from the journal. I’ll see if I can get one of my girls to get me a copy on Monday. Can I get a status update on this, please? Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/183 "2013-07-22T20:02:42Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > That’s all great, people started out with a literalist interpretation of Genesis then moved to a metaphorical one as science showed the literal words were wrong. My problem is when liberal Christians start revising their history and say the literalist interpretations are a new thing. Based on their replies to my posts in this thread, I think you’re failing to mark a distinction others are making, between a literal interpretation, and a literal_ist_ interpretation. That someone interprets the bible literally doesn’t make them a _literalist_. What makes them a literalist is if they will insist the literal interpretation is the only appropriate one, even in the face of decisive evidence that the literal interpretation yields falsehoods. On the other hand, if someone interpreted it literally til they were shown the evidence that this yields falsehoods, and then changed their interpretation, this means that they were never a _literalist_ in the first place. They read it literally, but they were not literalists. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/184 "2013-07-22T21:10:31Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Prevailing? I was just looking to show that it existed a long time ago and is not a NEW phenomenon. And you are wrong. There are different ways to look at any mythology, but the aspect of “Literalism” in which writings are considered objective facts from which one can draw explicit conclusions about specific events is actually newer than the notion of history that arose during the Enlightenment. Your Ark story is evidence of this: no one wandered around counting animals and calculating living space prior to the Enlightenment. It was never considered relevant. > [@Kable](#): > > Them’s all nice details Tom, but do nothing to change the fact that Galileo was threatened with torture for the heresy of thinking and saying that the earth orbited the sun. Well, aside from the fact that he was never threatened with torture. > [@Kable](#): > > Oh, Galileo’s conviction was overturned after 400 years? Well then, that makes it OK I guess. No. It means that the trials were conducted by specific groups within the church, not the Church-As-Monolith, and that no one considered them all that important to re-examine for most of that time. And prohibitions against condoms, (which are not universally condemned by everyone in the church), do not arise from some line in Scripture that is taken “literally.” So you are multiply wrong, again. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2013, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/185 "2013-07-22T22:15:30Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Many agreed that a “day” in Genesis may have been any length of time and there may have been gaps, and it wasn’t terribly important whether it was 7 24 hour days or not. What does that do to the Sabbath if it wasn’t meant for a 24 hr period? Something as petty as building a fire that day was a capital offense. Not sure if they enforced this law or not. Did they? I honestly don’t know. I think it was important for them to understand what was meant by a day. It’s been over 30 years since I read my bible from front to back, but I do remember many times the bible saying how God rested on that day, and so shall his followers rest on that day too. There were other problems with it as well. And to edit my previous post, last line meant to read “more liberal camp” not “moral.” Damn the typos! ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/186 "2013-07-24T12:09:42Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > You seem the one confusing authority with literalness. No, but in practice there is a good deal of overlap in a lot of these terms, which are pretty vague in the first place. > [@](#): > > I really don’t get your point here. The Bible has some stories. People generally believed them, because there was no reason not to. I suppose there have always been good reasons to doubt all the miracle stories. > [@](#): > > The phenomenon of believing in the literal truth of the bible in contradiction to the scientific consensus is what most people have in mind when they talk about biblical literalism. Sometimes, like with all the miracle stories. > [@](#): > > But only because there was no science to say otherwise. Many agreed that a “day” in Genesis may have been any length of time and there may have been gaps, and it wasn’t terribly important whether it was 7 24 hour days or not. You seem to have a grudge that they didn’t propose a 5 billion year old earth when nobody in the first century had any conceivable idea the earth was that old. Right, without true divine inspiration, nobody at that time had any conceivable idea how old the earth was. > [@](#): > > Try to follow along; I mentioned Jesus’ divinity not his miracles. If Christ is not risen, your faith is vain. > [@](#): > > I don’t have to; you’re the one creating some kind of artificial tension between science and religion. So what are your thoughts on this? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12xJ5iJWb3c](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12xJ5iJWb3c) ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/187 "2013-07-24T12:38:17Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Can I get a status update on this, please? > > Thanks in advance. Yeah, I got the paper and it’s pretty interesting. For one thing they classified Catholics as “dogmatics” as opposed to liberal Christians, and having spent some time reading through the Catholic Catechism I think this is the right thing to do. As the abstract indicated their were 4 classifications of religion, Atheists, Agnostics, Liberals and Dogmatics and that was the order of IQ from highest to lowest by group. Atheist vs religious was 111.08 vs 105.95, Agnostics were 109.13, liberals 107.26, and dogmatics 105.19. All separated out by particular religion and IQ it went as follows: Episcopal/Anglican: 113.43 Jewish: 112.43 Atheist: 111.08 Agnostic: 109.13 Methodist: 108.33 Presbyterian: 107.74 Lutheran: 107.51 Protestant (other): 107.42 Disciples of Christ: 106.90 Roman Catholic: 106.66 Other: 106.43 Mormon: 106.16 Un. Church of Christ: 106.14 Bible Church: 106.09 Muslem: 104.87 Personal Philosophy: 103.56 Holiness: 103.56 Baptist: 102.13 Pentecostal: 101.89 They quoted another study that showed Jews and Episcopalians had the most education and Baptists and Roman Catholics the least, and this "seemed to be due to different values placed on education. Based on other studies I have read I would have figured Jews to be at the top but it surprised me that the Church of England would be up there, as I would have expected them to be largely the same as Catholics. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/188 "2013-07-24T12:44:48Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > That someone interprets the bible literally doesn’t make them a _literalist_. What makes them a literalist is if they will insist the literal interpretation is the only appropriate one, even in the face of decisive evidence that the literal interpretation yields falsehoods. By that definition, even a fundamentalist isn’t a literalist. It all jus comes down to what they determine to be a falsehood. > [@](#): > > On the other hand, if someone interpreted it literally til they were shown the evidence that this yields falsehoods, and then changed their interpretation, this means that they were never a _literalist_ in the first place. They read it literally, but they were not literalists. Maybe try your own experiment with the power of prayer, or moving things with faith, or snake handling. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/189 "2013-07-24T12:57:31Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > And you are wrong. There are different ways to look at any mythology, but the aspect of “Literalism” in which writings are considered objective facts from which one can draw explicit conclusions about specific events is actually newer than the notion of history that arose during the Enlightenment. Your Ark story is evidence of this: no one wandered around counting animals and calculating living space prior to the Enlightenment. It was never considered relevant. But it is considered relevant that a cracker really does turn into the body of Jesus? > [@](#): > > Well, aside from the fact that he was never threatened with torture. He wasn’t? Bertrand Russell says he was here, about 9 minutes in: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P8vqqEd2kw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P8vqqEd2kw) > [@](#): > > No. It means that the trials were conducted by specific groups within the church, not the Church-As-Monolith… The Pope was involved wasn’t he? > [@](#): > > And prohibitions against condoms, (which are not universally condemned by everyone in the church), do not arise from some line in Scripture that is taken “literally.” So you are multiply wrong, again. Sure it is. I have the Catholic Catechism right here and prohibitions against all forms of birth control (except that monthly timing thing), fornication, masterbation, and homosexuality follow from the 7th commandment, which seems to have been taken quite literally. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/190 "2013-07-24T12:59:21Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > What does that do to the Sabbath if it wasn’t meant for a 24 hr period? Something as petty as building a fire that day was a capital offense. Not sure if they enforced this law or not. Did they? According to the Bible they did at least once. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/191 "2013-07-24T14:16:23Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > By that definition, even a fundamentalist isn’t a literalist. It all jus comes down to what they determine to be a falsehood. I don’t understand your meaning. A fundamentalist is a literalist if he will insist: “the bible is true, in its literal sense, no matter what evidence there may seem to be to the contrary.” (And they will of course typically think the evidence is only “contrary” if you haven’t thought about it hard enough.) I was not raised by literalists in this sense, but their brothers, sisters and parents certainly fit the definition. Dinosaur bones? That’s either God or the devil tempting us to disbelieve the bible. That kind of thing. That’s biblical literal_ism_. The explicit affirmation that all evidence must be interpreted in the light of the truth of the literal reading of the scriptures. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/192 "2013-07-24T14:17:28Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Maybe try your own experiment with the power of prayer, or moving things with faith, or snake handling. I don’t know what the force of this comment is supposed to be, unless you’re assuming I’m a literalist. I’m not. I’m a wishy washy liberal protestant universalist. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/193 "2013-07-24T14:19:21Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > it surprised me that the Church of England would be up there, as I would have expected them to be largely the same as Catholics. Do you not know that the Episcopal church and much of the Anglican church is for such things as gay marriage, availability of abortion, and other things on that side of the political spectrum? It is rare that a biblical literalist would support social causes like that. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/194 "2013-07-24T14:28:44Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I don’t understand your meaning. A fundamentalist is a literalist if he will insist: “the bible is true, in its literal sense, no matter what evidence there may seem to be to the contrary.” (And they will of course typically think the evidence is only “contrary” if you haven’t thought about it hard enough.) I’ve never met a fundamentalist who really thinks they should give up their possessions. They’re pretty soft on divorce and remarriage, drinking poison, snake handling, etc. > [@](#): > > I was not raised by literalists in this sense, but their brothers, sisters and parents certainly fit the definition. Dinosaur bones? That’s either God or the devil tempting us to disbelieve the bible. That kind of thing. That’s biblical literal_ism_. I know some young earth creationists but none that really think dinosaur bones are fake. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/195 "2013-07-24T14:30:55Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I don’t know what the force of this comment is supposed to be, unless you’re assuming I’m a literalist. I’m not. I’m a wishy washy liberal protestant universalist. OK, well I was wondering what your thoughts are regarding what Jesus’ comments on prayer. It’s something you can submit to scientific testing. Just another metaphor? What suggests divinity? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/196 "2013-07-24T14:39:00Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Do you not know that the Episcopal church and much of the Anglican church is for such things as gay marriage, availability of abortion, and other things on that side of the political spectrum? Yeah, Henry the 8th wanted to divorce, the Catholics wouldn’t let him, so he started his own church. Apparently the rest that followed was just a slippery slope. > [@](#): > > It is rare that a biblical literalist would support social causes like that. Yeah, that’s part of why I think Catholics fall more under the literalist heading. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/197 "2013-07-24T14:46:59Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > I’ve never met a fundamentalist who really thinks they should give up their possessions. They’re pretty soft on divorce and remarriage, drinking poison, snake handling, etc. Notice I put the claim in quotation marks and attributed to a literalist as the doctrine they would affirm. As to whether they would live by that doctrine’s implications, I did not to make any particular claim. But they’ll _say_ what I said they’ll say. It’s the doctrine they affirm, and it’s the doctrine under discussion in this thread. > [@](#): > > I know some young earth creationists but none that really think dinosaur bones are fake. Well, surprise. I have known several. (Well, now that I sit here and count it out, I’ve known two.) ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/198 "2013-07-24T14:59:18Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Notice I put the claim in quotation marks and attributed to a literalist as the doctrine they would affirm. As to whether they would live by that doctrine’s implications, I did not to make any particular claim. But they’ll _say_ what I said they’ll say. It’s the doctrine they affirm, and it’s the doctrine under discussion in this thread. I don’t even know if it’s a doctrine they will affirm, they more just lean in that direction. They almost all admit there are some stories that are allegorical, or say it applied only to a given time period, it’s more of a sliding scale. > [@](#): > > Well, surprise. I have known several. (Well, now that I sit here and count it out, I’ve known two.) 2 more than me. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/199 "2013-07-24T15:06:52Z")
Kable, from Kimmy\_Gibber’s link it showed that Nyborg’s study was based on “3,742 American adolescents”, is that correct? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2013, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/200 "2013-07-24T15:08:02Z")
> [@razncain](#): > > Kable, from Kimmy\_Gibber’s link it showed that Nyborg’s study was based on “3,742 American adolescents”, is that correct? Correct. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746.md?page=11)