# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/81 "2013-07-19T00:39:51Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > I think that’s the big flaw in the whole Christianity plot. It’s all about God trying to save us from Himself. If I recall correctly, the Gnostics believed that the Demiurge (the deity responsible for creating the material world) was evil, and they never actually forgave it for tying their spirits to flesh. Or something like that. It has been a long time since I was in a bull session with a Gnostic. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/82 "2013-07-19T01:36:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > That hiding the more incredible claims in the Bible under the heading “METAPHOR” raises more questions than it answers? Don’t agree. (And, for the record, I’m a fairly hard-edged atheist.) Classifying them as metaphors allows us – atheists included! – to accept them for their moral value, without getting hung up on the foolish details. I can admire the morals in Aesop’s fables, without ever bothering myself to fuss about talking animals. Obviously, the animals didn’t talk. Doesn’t matter. The morals are the real value of the story. Same with, say, the Biblical story of the origin of sin. Adam and Eve and a piece of fruit? Hogwash. But that doesn’t really matter. The fact is that humans are the only animals who commit sins; we’re the only animal (other than, perhaps, some of the other social animals) who understand right and wrong, who have rules of behavior which we proceed to break rather often, and who have an instinctual conscience which punishes us for breaking those rules. The origin myth isn’t important: the fact that we are a moral species which often fails to live up to our own moral standards is the key. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/83 "2013-07-19T02:02:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So, the more incredible the story, the better chance it’s a metaphor? ## If the story conflicts with established facts, then you may have weakened the literal interpretation, but the spiritual ones remain. I quote the Catholic Catechism again: According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church. Anyway, a lot of this lawyerly interpretation of the Bible follows more from Guggenheim than anything else. Here’s another point. The 4 gospels conflict in pretty fundamental ways. And there is precious little in them that tries to explain away these discrepancies. Now I suppose it’s possible that the ancients were morons and didn’t notice. But my take is that they simply didn’t consider these conflicts to be important. In other words they were interested more in spiritual insight than fan wanking, not that there’s anything wrong with the latter. The idea that the Bible should be treated as a wholly literal creation is profoundly ahistoric: it’s not that sort of text. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/84 "2013-07-19T02:08:12Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Classifying them as metaphors allows us – atheists included! – to accept them for their moral value, without getting hung up on the foolish details. It’s very kind of the liberal Christians to classify all them miracles as metaphors so us atheists won’t get confused by them.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/85 "2013-07-19T02:19:50Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > If the story conflicts with established facts, then you may have weakened the literal interpretation, but the spiritual ones remain. For example established facts like dead people not being able to come back to life? > [@](#): > > Here’s another point. The 4 gospels conflict in pretty fundamental ways. And there is precious little in them that tries to explain away these discrepancies. Now I suppose it’s possible that the ancients were morons and didn’t notice. That gets my vote. > [@](#): > > The idea that the Bible should be treated as a wholly literal creation is profoundly ahistoric: it’s not that sort of text. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/86 "2013-07-19T02:38:59Z")
I’m not sure what you are arguing Kable. I’m saying that if you were compiling a collection of texts meant to be taken literally, you would have edited them to make them at least roughly consistent. There’s little evidence of such efforts: nobody bothered. Heck, the presentation of the last days of Jesus differs markedly in all 4 gospels. Given the framework of the RCC cited above, this simply isn’t an issue. The problem only arises if you take a lawyerly approach to scripture and _that_ only came into fashion relatively recently. I mean the idea that fundamentalism is a modern development isn’t an especially novel argument. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/87 "2013-07-19T02:45:38Z")
MfM, see that question mark above? I was asking you a question about facts, like dead people staying dead. ---
**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 19, 2013, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/88 "2013-07-19T02:54:28Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > I’m not sure what you are arguing Kable. You’ve undoubtedly heard the term “strawman,” no? It seems **Kable** ’s point is no different from so many others who’ve gone before who have not failed that fundamentalist literalism is a particularly easy target to attack. But unfortunately, literalist fundamentalists have always been a very small fraction of Christendom. I suppose we could ask what **Kable** is driving at by this remark: > [@](#): > > It’s very kind of the liberal Christians to classify all them miracles as metaphors so us atheists won’t get confused by them. Does he believe that the liberal Christians are being disingenuous? That they don’t really believe what they purport to believe? That higher criticism is just a diabolical intellectual pose adopted to snooker atheists into showing up at Mass one Sunday and then, “SURPRISE! You must believe that every word printed in the Bible is a literal report of actual events as they occurred!” Is this, **Kable** , your view? If it is not, please do explain this peculiar remark. ---
**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 19, 2013, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/89 "2013-07-19T02:56:05Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > MfM, see that question mark above? I was asking you a question about facts, like dead people staying dead. An old chestnut. You’re not half as novel as you like to suppose. _See generally,_ [Do Christians who believe in a non-literal Bible; do they believe in Jesus' resurrection? - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=692561) and in particular my response at [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16342619&postcount=26](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16342619&postcount=26) Please do try to keep up. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/90 "2013-07-19T03:15:29Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > But unfortunately, literalist fundamentalists have always been a very small fraction of Christendom. Hey that myth deserves it’s own thread. Anyway you are wrong, again. > **[In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins](https://news.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx)** > > The 46% of Americans who today believe that God created humans in their present form is essentially the same as it has been over the past 30 years. Highly religious Americans and Republicans are most likely to hold this view. > **[American Beliefs: Evolution vs. Bible's Explanation of Human Origins](https://news.gallup.com/poll/21811/American-Beliefs-Evolution-vs-Bibles-Explanation-Human-Origins.aspx)** > > About half of Americans reject an evolutionary explanation for the origin of humans and believe that God created humans at one time "as is." Those with lower levels of education, those who attend church regularly, those who are 65 and older, and... > **[In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally](https://news.gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-Bible-Literally.aspx)** > > Three in 10 Americans view the Bible as the literal word of God, similar to what Gallup has measured in the past two decades but down from the 1970s and 1980s. Close to half, 49%, view the Bible as the inspired word of God, but do not believe... > [@](#): > > Does he believe that the liberal Christians are being disingenuous? Hypocritical at least. > [@](#): > > That they don’t really believe what they purport to believe? I think you believe what you say. I think you are hypocritical when you think your views are more rational than the fundamentalists. > [@](#): > > That higher criticism is just a diabolical intellectual pose adopted to snooker atheists into showing up at Mass one Sunday and then, "SURPRISE! I think “higher criticism” is either used to snow the faithful, but if genuine leads to a loss of faith like it did with Bart Ehrman. > [@](#): > > You must believe that every word printed in the Bible is a literal report of actual events as they occurred!" On the contrary I doubt most all of it. 100% of the miracles. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/91 "2013-07-19T03:19:12Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > An old chestnut. You’re not half as novel as you like to suppose. _See generally,_ [Do Christians who believe in a non-literal Bible; do they believe in Jesus' resurrection? - In My Humble Opinion - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=692561) and in particular my response at [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16342619&postcount=26](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16342619&postcount=26) > > Please do try to keep up. I don’t get your response. Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead or no? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/92 "2013-07-19T04:03:46Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > It’s very kind of the liberal Christians to classify all them miracles as metaphors so us atheists won’t get confused by them.:rolleyes: ??? Care to say something meaningful here? I would say it is wise of liberal Christians to classify miracles as metaphors, so that intelligent people won’t get confused by them. Since we know there was never a Great Flood, it only makes Biblical Literalists look like dolts when they insist there actually was one. ---
**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 19, 2013, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/93 "2013-07-19T04:07:02Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Hey that myth deserves it’s own thread. Anyway you are wrong, again. > > [http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx](http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx) > > [http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/American-Beliefs-Evolution-vs-Bibles-Explanation-Human-Origins.aspx](http://www.gallup.com/poll/21811/American-Beliefs-Evolution-vs-Bibles-Explanation-Human-Origins.aspx) > > [In U.S., 3 in 10 Say They Take the Bible Literally](http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/Say-Bible-Literally.aspx) Pew Forum Report, page 31 ([http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-1.pdf](http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-chapter-1.pdf)) Of the total U.S. population, 1/3 believe their given holy book is the literal word of God. 55% believe it either to be not literal or written by humans. Of evangelicals, about 60% believe it to be literal. About 1/3 believe it to be not literal or written by humans (25% and 7% respectively). Of mainline Protestants, about 1/5 take it literally; nearly 2/3 think it is not literal or written by humans. Roman Catholics: 23% literalists, 63% not/written by humans. Atheists: 3% believe it to be the literal word of God (no joke). For each of these classes, there is a spread of about 1-4% who believe that the appropriate holy book is the word of God, but neither literally nor not-literally. As to religious exclusivity, another typical marker of fundamentalism/literalism, 70% of Americans generally say many religions can lead to salvation/“lead to eternal life.” 83% of mainline Protestants; 79% of Roman Catholics; and 57% of evangelicals. > [@](#): > > Hypocritical at least. > I think you believe what you say. I think you are hypocritical when you think your views are more rational than the fundamentalists. > I think “higher criticism” is either used to snow the faithful, but if genuine leads to a loss of faith like it did with Bart Ehrman. Since you’re so rational, do you care to make plain the hypocrisy? That is, where I hold myself to a different standard than I hold others? How is it used to “snow the faithful”? As you’ve no doubt noticed, nobody is forcing any adult Americans to go to church. Maybe the faithful believe it too, just like the more prominent proponents. And doesn’t this seem a little inconsistent with your statement “I think you believe what you say”? Are you sure you’ve thought this all through? Is that what Bart Ehrman thinks about the people he went to seminary with and rubbed shoulders with for so many years? I rather doubt he does, but perhaps you know different. ---
**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 19, 2013, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/94 "2013-07-19T04:10:56Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > I don’t get your response. Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead or no? What’s that got to do with anything? It certainly isn’t going to settle whether Biblical literalism is a recent phenomenon. In any event, I decline to be some sort of stand-in for all of Christianity, or even liberal Christianity, in all its diversity. I don’t think questions about my personal Christological beliefs are very relevant in a discussion about broad schools of Christian theological thought. At best, you’d prove a point about one very ordinary, nothing-special person. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/95 "2013-07-19T04:14:40Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Since we know there was never a Great Flood, it only makes Biblical Literalists look like dolts when they insist there actually was one. Sure and we **should** all know there never was a resurrection of Jesus, it only makes liberal Christians who cherry pick that one miracle look like dolts when they insist their actually was one. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/96 "2013-07-19T04:30:06Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > MfM, see that question mark above? I was asking you a question about facts, like dead people staying dead. Well I figured your first reply wasn’t especially topical, but since you insist… It isn’t unusual for people to rise from the dead from a 1st century perspective. Setting aside followers of [Von Danican](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Danican), most people understand that the ancients lacked a modern understanding of respiration and the like: the distinction between “Coma” and “Dead” hadn’t been elucidated. Heck, even in Victorian times fears of waking up in a coffin were very real. For other examples of rising from the dead (1st c. definitions), see Ramey CA, Ramey DN, Hayward JS. Dive response of children in relation to cold-water near drowning. J Appl Physiol 2001;62(2):665-8. I’m pretty sure that most Christians believe that Jesus survives as a spiritual being though, not a flesh and blood one. Though transubstantiation has something in common with the reflections of George Romero, the overlap is inexact. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/97 "2013-07-19T04:31:06Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Of the total U.S. population, 1/3 believe their given holy book is the literal word of God. 55% believe it either to be not literal or written by humans. That all sounds about right. What does not sound right was your earlier comment “literalist fundamentalists have always been a very small fraction of Christendom” > [@](#): > > Since you’re so rational, do you care to make plain the hypocrisy? That is, where I hold myself to a different standard than I hold others? I’m not that familiar with you as a poster but you only need to look at that other Christian thread on this page to see other liberal Christians jumping all over **reef shark** for his fundamentalist beliefs. > [@](#): > > How is it used to “snow the faithful”? Read a book by higher critic like by Mike Licona and you’ll see. [quote] As you’ve no doubt noticed, nobody is forcing any adult Americans to go to church. [/quote Unfortunately plenty are forcing child Americans to go to church. What was that Jesuit maxim? "Give me a boy until 7… > [@](#): > > Maybe the faithful believe it too, just like the more prominent proponents. And doesn’t this seem a little inconsistent with your statement “I think you believe what you say”? Are you sure you’ve thought this all through? I don’t follow you here. > [@](#): > > Is that what Bart Ehrman thinks about the people he went to seminary with and rubbed shoulders with for so many years? I rather doubt he does, but perhaps you know different. I couldn’t tell you what he thinks of others. I do know he said the more he studied the Bible the less he believed it. The same worked for me. Maybe you just haven’t read it yet? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/98 "2013-07-19T04:33:06Z")
I think there are a few different things going on. Biblical inerrancy–the idea that every single word in the Bible is literally true, and that if you see a contradiction, you’re not understanding the literal truth–is a fairly recent parlor game, from what I understand. Biblical metaphorancy–the idea that most of the stuff in the Bible is intended to be understood metaphorically, and that it didn’t really happen that way–is also, from my understanding, a fairly recent idea. Long ago, most folks kind of accepted the stories in the Bible as default reality. They didn’t think real deeply about them, but if you asked, they’d probably say that yeah, Noah really did build an ark. Bible stories, along with a lot of other stories, were told–but the storytellers’ motives were largely symbolic. Jonah got told a lot more than Zeke begatting Jeb, that sort of thing, because Zeke and Jeb lacked symbolic resonance. So, yes: the stories were understood to be true, and they were told for their metaphorical punch. And some scholars said that the metaphorical understanding was more important, and no scholars (to the best of my knowledge) claimed that every single word was to be understood as literally true. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/99 "2013-07-19T04:34:19Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > What’s that got to do with anything? It certainly isn’t going to settle whether Biblical literalism is a recent phenomenon. Are you afraid to answer the question? Seems you avoided it in the other thread too. I’ve noticed a tendency of liberal Christians to be less than forthright. Why is that? > [@](#): > > In any event, I decline to be some sort of stand-in for all of Christianity, or even liberal Christianity, in all its diversity. I don’t think questions about my personal Christological beliefs are very relevant in a discussion about broad schools of Christian theological thought. At best, you’d prove a point about one very ordinary, nothing-special person. That’s fine. So do you personally believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/100 "2013-07-19T04:38:34Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > It isn’t unusual for people to rise from the dead from a 1st century perspective. Setting aside followers of [Von Danican](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Danican), most people understand that the ancients lacked a modern understanding of respiration and the like: the distinction between “Coma” and “Dead” hadn’t been elucidated. Heck, even in Victorian times fears of waking up in a coffin were very real. For other examples of rising from the dead (1st c. definitions), see Ramey CA, Ramey DN, Hayward JS. Dive response of children in relation to cold-water near drowning. J Appl Physiol 2001;62(2):665-8. OK, so is that what you believe? That people were mistaken about Jesus’ death and it only seemed like he came back alive? > [@](#): > > I’m pretty sure that most Christians believe that Jesus survives as a spiritual being though, not a flesh and blood one. OK, so maybe you think it was a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one? All that dialog between Jesus and Thomas was metaphorical for a deeper truth? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746.md?page=6)