# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/141 "2013-07-20T15:52:40Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > Get back to me if you want that reading list. Otherwise, continue to keep hunting those billygoats. This sounds like an accusation of trolling, and you can’t do that in this forum. This is an official warning: don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/142 "2013-07-21T01:40:08Z")
> [@huck](#): > > But I never did believe the earth was only 6000 years old, nor did anyone I know. Including my great-aunts and cousins who were/are RC priests and nuns. Apparently they all had to give up their more fundamentalist beliefs before you were born. > [@](#): > > Your hypothesis–that your many liberal Christian acquaintances who are not fundamentalists are lying to save face–makes no sense to me. I don’t think everyone is lying. A number probably just believed earlier liars. That’s kind of religion in a nutshell if you ask me. > [@](#): > > Do you think I am likely to (or maybe should) feel ashamed because other members of Christian churches believed or now believe this? or because it was taught or implied by one church or another? To a degree, yes. The details would depend on your personal beliefs. I would have to ask you about them to be sure, my guess is you would see it coming, start to feel ashamed, and come up with an excuse not to share your personal beliefs. My guess is you would probably say it’s off topic, or just “too personal.” > [@](#): > > if so, do you think that mainstream geologists and paleontologists feel ashamed because some paleontologists believed stegosaurus had a brain in its butt or because of the existence of so called “creation scientists” ? No about the brain in the butt thing (there is no claim to inerrancy or divine inspiration regarding earlier scientists hypothesis), if there were then they probably should be embarrassed. I would wager real scientists would be offended if they were lumped into a group with creation scientists but they have reason to be ashamed as scientists. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/143 "2013-07-21T01:46:38Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Some large-scale miracles would inevitably have left physical traces. That’s how we know there was no flood. Creationists made up their own kind of “science”, they think it proves there was a flood. > [@](#): > > Other small-scale miracles wouldn’t necessarily leave traces. There isn’t any way to disprove the resurrection, at this time. We don’t even know for sure that we’re looking at the right cave. Meanwhile, who knows: the body might turn up some day. There isn’t any way to prove their isn’t an invisible pink dragon living in my garage either. > [@](#): > > It’s far more foolish to believe in a miracle that has been fully disproven than in one that can’t effectively be disproven. I disagree. You can’t disprove my invisible pink dragon, that Mohammed flew a horse, or Jesus created the universe and rose from the dead, but all seem examples of first order foolishness if you ask me. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/144 "2013-07-21T01:56:50Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > The hell? What exactly does that have to do with the OP? If I’m going to talk about religion with another person, I like to know what they think. > [@](#): > > How does this not answer your original question? I think you said there was a small chance Jesus survived the resurrection. I don’t think you said if you thought there was a chance he didn’t survive, but was resurrected later. > [@](#): > > Or are you a black and white thinker that does not accept the idea of degrees of belief? No I think degrees, or probabilities, of belief are great. Do you think there is a greater than 0 probability that Jesus rose from the dead and/or is incarnate with the creator of the universe? > [@](#): > > Nice catch in post #124 btw. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/145 "2013-07-21T02:06:52Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > If I’m going to talk about religion with another person, I like to know what they think. Then open up a discussion in e-mail or another forum with them. This is a discussion forum in which no one is required to set forth their beliefs just to participate. If you just have to know another poster’s beliefs, then you are on the wrong message board. If you continue to demand to know others’ beliefs, I will be compelled to think that you are simply trolling for the purpose of harassing posters. Stick to arguing the points of discussion and leave the personal “inquiries,” comments, and speculation out of the discussion. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/146 "2013-07-21T02:11:39Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > In other words, I’m right. No, but you can believe it if it makes you feel better. > [@](#): > > You are just a literalist fundamentalist, who thinks he’s a genius, and an expert on Christianity, just like they do. I think I know Christianity pretty well, but I’m clearly not a literalist fundamentalist. I think I made it clear that I’m an atheist who thinks the Bible is wrong quite often, and is written with a good number of metaphors. I just think it’s disingenuous to take every instance that it is wrong, and call it a metaphor for a greater truth. > [@](#): > > You are only interested, as are all literalist fundies, in defending your fundy formula, no matter how much Orwellian doublethink it takes. What double think did I do? > [@](#): > > _If_ you ever wish to _learn_ what the majority of Christians think about this shit, I can give you a reading list that will take you about 6 months to slog through, but if you manage it, you’ll understand it. Could you save me six months and tell me a few things I don’t understand? Maybe just the 3 most important things that come to mind? > [@](#): > > Get back to me if you want that reading list. By all means post your list too. ---
**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:** [July 21, 2013, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/147 "2013-07-21T02:18:42Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Pretty much one in the same, and I have no doubt it makes you feel better about your beliefs. Maybe it’s just a level of intelligence type thing, and you IQ somewhat determines how clear of indoctrination a person can break free. > > Oh, here’s a cite: [The intelligence–religiosity nexus: A representative study of white adolescent Americans - ScienceDirect](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608001013) You’re using Nyborg’s study? Come on, man. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/148 "2013-07-21T02:21:46Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > This is a discussion forum in which no one is required to set forth their beliefs just to participate. If you just have to know another poster’s beliefs, then you are on the wrong message board. Who said they were required? I was just asking. Regarding liberal Christianity, the views are so varied I like to know specifically what a persons views are so I don’t misunderstand them. Plus it like to know what bias they may hold. > [@](#): > > If you continue to demand to know others’ beliefs, I will be compelled to think that you are simply trolling for the purpose of harassing posters. Again, I was asking, not demanding. People ask me my beliefs on things too. I always thought that’s what a discussion forum was all about. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/149 "2013-07-21T02:23:06Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > You’re using Nyborg’s study? Come on, man. What’s wrong with it, man? ---
**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 21, 2013, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/150 "2013-07-21T02:25:27Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > You’re using Nyborg’s study? Come on, man. As an Episcopalian, I have absolutely no problem with Nyborg’s study. I wonder if our OP knows, as between atheists and Episcopalians, who came out on top in Nyborg’s study… 1. Episcopalians 2. Jews 3. Atheists 4. Agnostics ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/151 "2013-07-21T02:26:54Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > So I’m skimming though the Catechism of the Catholic Church and came across this little gem: > > So how long has the Catholic Church preached inerrancy? Read it again, you’ll see it’s not a doctrine of inerrancy. > [@](#): > > 107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” The above doesn’t imply that every statement in “the inspired books” is true. It only implies that everything it teaches is true, so long as it is part of what God wanted it to teach for our salvation. This leaves open the possibility that some statements or collections of statements in “the inspired books” are either not “teachings” or else not part of what God 'for the sake of our salvation wished to see confided in the sacred scriptures," and in either of those cases, the statements or collections of statements could turn out false consistent with this doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/152 "2013-07-21T02:28:29Z")
Above some people are saying Ussher wasn’t a literalist in the contemporary sense because he belonged to a tradition of historical research. I am not certain how this is supposed to acquit him of literalism. Is he not part of a tradition of historical research which presupposes the literal truth of the Bible? I don’t know, I’m actually asking. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/153 "2013-07-21T02:48:23Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > As an Episcopalian, I have absolutely no problem with Nyborg’s study. I wonder if our OP knows, as between atheists and Episcopalians, who came out on top in Nyborg’s study… > > 1. Episcopalians > 2. Jews > 3. Atheists > 4. Agnostics Really? Where’s that printed? ---
**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 21, 2013, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/154 "2013-07-21T02:53:36Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Above some people are saying Ussher wasn’t a literalist in the contemporary sense because he belonged to a tradition of historical research. I am not certain how this is supposed to acquit him of literalism. Is he not part of a tradition of historical research which presupposes the literal truth of the Bible? I don’t know, I’m actually asking. OK, this is a good entree for a point I had wanted to make above. Our OP has convicted liberal Christians of dispensing with Biblical statements once science has disproven them as true. But of course! What is one supposed to do when science disproves a statement? Once Kepler and Copernicus and Newton showed that observation and the universal law of gravitation proved a heliocentric model of the solar system, then ultimately everybody, Christian and otherwise alike, had to face facts. Were the people who believed in Ptolemy’s theory, before these observations could have been made, a- or anti-scientific? No, they were abiding by the theories that the most educated and the most scientific people of the time had access to. Now, some will point out, well the Church opposed these developments. This is true, but that opposition was more in the manner of the opposition to the idea of etherless (force-at-a-distance) transmission of electrical or gravitational force in the late 19th century. To them, the idea that electricity or gravity could be magically transmitted without physical contact between the two bodies being operated on by that force was the phoniest of balonies. Just how is this force transmitted without an intervening medium? But then Michaelson and Morley began to chip away at this confidence. Ultimately Einsteinian special relativity explained why the ether was not conceptually necessary. But discarding the ether, for a while shortly thereafter, certainly met resistance. And usually by the established physicists of the era who saw their own science being undermined. But this is secondary to my point. Our OP seems to imagine that everyone lines up and picks a side. If you choose Christianity, and Science later disproves some line in the Bible, well, you’re stuck with the side you chose. Of course, there is no basis for this all-or-other nothing approach. One can believe in the theological precepts of Christianity, none of which make essential reference to any scientific assertions, and in Science. When Science built up its compelling case for evolutionary biology, smart people, Christians and non-Christians alike, quite understandably revised their views. This isn’t catching anybody in hypocrisy; it’s observing people acknowledging scientific discoveries. There are some fundamentalists who assert any Christian deserving of the name must accept the Bible as literally true. Despite fundamentalism being a minority position in Christendom, our OP has given them pride of place in defining the sine qua nons of counting as Christian. He has not explained why the fundamentalists are entitled to this deference. Anyway, Ussher. In the era he lived in, the Bible was understood to be a reliable record of what happened, like any history written by Herodatus or Thucydides or Plutarch. They didn’t have the same scientific and historical apparatus we have. There was no problem of Science vs. Biblical Literalism, because there was very little Science, as we know it today. This is why literalism is a modern phenomenon: It is literalism even in the face of counterveiling science. But there was no counterveiling science until the end of the Enlightenment/beginning of the Industrial Revolution, a time period well after Bishop Ussher’s day. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/155 "2013-07-21T02:55:44Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Read it again, you’ll see it’s not a doctrine of inerrancy. I read it a couple times. When something says “without error” I think that’s what it means. > [@](#): > > The above doesn’t imply that every statement in “the inspired books” is true. It only implies that everything it teaches is true, so long as it is part of what God wanted it to teach for our salvation. Well, isn’t that slippery. > [@](#): > > This leaves open the possibility that some statements or collections of statements in “the inspired books” are either not “teachings” or else not part of what God 'for the sake of our salvation wished to see confided in the sacred scriptures," and in either of those cases, the statements or collections of statements could turn out false consistent with this doctrine. How could that be if God authored the Bible? > [@CCC](#): > > 105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” > “For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” ---
**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 21, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/156 "2013-07-21T02:57:39Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Really? Where’s that printed? [Your friendly neighborhood _Grauniad_](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2008/dec/19/religion-iq-atheism) > [@](#): > > A large-scale analysis of the religious allegiance and measured IQ of a representative sample of 3,742 American adolescents found a clear trend: the more fundamentalist denominations had the more stupid believers, so that the bottom four places were occupied, from the bottom, by Pentecostalists, Baptists, Holiness churches and “Personal Philosophy”, which I presume means a new-age-ish syncretism, while the top four places, again in ascending order, were taken by agnostics, atheists, Jews, and Episcopalians (Anglicans). **So, atheists are smarter than agnostics, Jews are smarter than atheists, and Anglicans the smartest of the lot ..** If you follow the article’s link as “large-scale analysis,” you will find it goes right to the Nyborg study, which the Guardian article’s author indicates he purchased (it’s like $35) and reproduced. If you don’t believe him, feel free to buy your own copy. Sorry to harsh your buzz, but my religion is smarter than your atheism. It’s science, bro. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/157 "2013-07-21T02:57:39Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Above some people are saying Ussher wasn’t a literalist in the contemporary sense because he belonged to a tradition of historical research. I am not certain how this is supposed to acquit him of literalism. Is he not part of a tradition of historical research which presupposes the literal truth of the Bible? I don’t know, I’m actually asking. I would distinguish between those who believed the bible did present history–in the context of the way that history was used prior to the Enlightenment–and those who hold to the more recent claim that every event is literally true. History, not just theological stories, but all history, tended to be exhortative rather than documentative up until the Enlightenment. This does not mean that no one ever tried to set forth a factual historical record, but that such efforts stood side by side with other histories that made no such efforts. Vergil’s Aeneid was a “true history” of Rome, setting forth the reasons for the persistent enmity between Rome and Greece and Rome and Carthage. It was not used by later Romans to claim ownership of particular patches of Etruscan land. Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote a history of the Kings of Britain that placed Arthur in the role of an “English” king subduing all of continental Europe. Its point was to establish that Britain could claim independence from other rulers in other times, but no Briton ever referred to it to lay claim to Burgundy or Lombardy. In a similar way, the various genealogies and stories of conquests and battles that appeared in the bible were seen as historical references, without actually claiming that every event in the bible occurred in the same way as it was depicted. The separate Creation myths stood side by side for millennia without anyone actually making a serious effort (before the nineteenth century) to reconcile them because they were seen as stories explaining God’s actions, not documentaries detailing the events as they occurred. It was only after the rise of Literalism that various people tried to “explain away” the ways that the two Creations narratives were in contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/158 "2013-07-21T03:13:02Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > But of course! What is one supposed to do when science disproves a statement? Stop believing it, and you should probably consider the source suspect with regards to other claims, particularly “extraordinary claims” from said source. > [@](#): > > Once Kepler and Copernicus and Newton showed that observation and the universal law of gravitation proved a heliocentric model of the solar system, then ultimately everybody, Christian and otherwise alike, had to face facts. I think those facts were put on the Catholic churches banned list for a couple hundred years before they faced them. > [@](#): > > Were the people who believed in Ptolemy’s theory, before these observations could have been made, a- or anti-scientific? No, they were abiding by the theories that the most educated and the most scientific people of the time had access to. I heard the Greeks knew the earth orbited the sun, but in the dark ages that appears to have been forgotten. > [@](#): > > But this is secondary to my point. Our OP seems to imagine that everyone lines up and picks a side. If you choose Christianity, and Science later disproves some line in the Bible, well, you’re stuck with the side you chose. I just think you are forced (if logical) to give up on inerrancy. Once you acknowledge the source is errant, trusting it solely when it talks of extraordinary claims, just seems foolish. > [@](#): > > This is why literalism is a modern phenomenon… You can say that, but it’s not. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/159 "2013-07-21T03:21:25Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > If you follow the article’s link as “large-scale analysis,” you will find it goes right to the Nyborg study, which the Guardian article’s author indicates he purchased (it’s like $35) and reproduced. If you don’t believe him, feel free to buy your own copy. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2013, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746/160 "2013-07-21T03:27:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It was only after the rise of Literalism that various people tried to “explain away” the ways that the two Creations narratives were in contradiction. Didn’t you mean to say the rise of science? I imagine people noticed contradictions earlier, but my guess is you didn’t want to speak of them too loudly else you might get burned alive or something. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-biblical-literalism-really-a-recent-phenomenon/663746.md?page=9)