# Literal Interpretation of the Bible **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679 "2003-01-30T18:53:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![yoyo3500](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/5daacb/32.png) [@yoyo3500](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyo3500)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/21 "2003-01-30T22:37:26Z")
Of course “irreducible complexity” doesn’t “destroy” any thinking. One can academicize oneself out of logic by means of logic! The point that Evolution religious fanatics miss is the amazing degree of coincidence in evolution, how all of life hangs by a hair’s breath. (if the earth weren’t just this shape, with this path around the sun, with this temperature, with this particular satellite…) One can discover a mousetrap and think it evolved, or it was created. Obviously, a mousetrap is not “alive” like an organism such as a bird or human or bacteria, so it won’t evolve. We know that it was “created” because we have a direct teaching that we rely upon that a person invented it and that people, even today, construct them. A mistake in logic is to assume that, since we can discover complex items today, such as a mousetrap or a computer, and we know for certain that it was created, therefore everything that is complex must have been created. However, to find something that is complex and assume that it wasn’t created, that it evolved, without knowing the source, also cannot be done completely based on faith, since there is no logic. However, one can surmize that one can, however, make a good educated guess, that if something, was created, you should be able to recognize it. This is an idea that Evolutionists must rely upon since there are no witnesses to the Big Bang. Where Evolutionists become followers of a religion is the point in which the Evolutionists decide that the earth and everything within it had undergone change gradually (relatively speaking), i.e. through evolution. And that’s the only way it happened. To disagree is be a heretic, or a even an antiqated pagan or follower of a false religion. Thus, the Evolutionist is close-minded and won’t even hear of such ideas like “Creation”, or a “divinely-guided evolution”, or anything that cannot be disproven, yet is not what they have always practiced in belief. But on with the Evolutionist Jihad! ---
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/22 "2003-01-30T22:37:54Z")
Why oh why don’t the American public schools do a better job of teaching science basics? Such as what is meant by the term “scientific theory,” how the scientific method works, why it’s important, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Opus1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/858c86/32.png) [@Opus1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opus1)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/23 "2003-01-30T22:44:51Z")
Yoyo has the most appropriate user name since Chumpsky. Funny how he changes his diatribe every time he’s refuted. First half a leg was impossible; then half of a fifth finger; now we’re on to some general epistimological ranting and solipsistic nonsense about how no one witnessed the Big Bang (which has nothing to do with evolution anyway), how evolution is a religion, the anthropic principle, and the age-old argument from design. Yawn. I guess I have to do a thread like this once in a while to remind me why I generally don’t do GD anymore. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/24 "2003-01-30T22:45:49Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by yoyo3500 \* > \*\* > Opus, you seem so sure what “pre-legs” looked like and what they were used for! Surely you must have seen them or know concrete, factual evidence that prooves what they were! Or perhaps you are so certain that evolution is fact and not theory, even more certain than Darwin himself._\* Well, I’ve seen mudskippers scooting along, so I’ve got an idea of how it could have happened. ---
**Author:** ![yoyo3500](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/5daacb/32.png) [@yoyo3500](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyo3500)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/25 "2003-01-30T22:52:16Z")
Opus, you so easily dismiss these ideas with insults, but I still don’t think you have thought without hubris. I haven’t been refuted, only shown horse-sense. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/26 "2003-01-30T22:57:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yoyo3500 \* > **Of course “irreducible complexity” doesn’t “destroy” any thinking. One can academicize oneself out of logic by means of logic!** What?? How did you get that? I meant his link trounces Behe and ID. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yoyo3500 \* > **The point that Evolution religious fanatics miss is the amazing degree of coincidence in evolution, how all of life hangs by a hair’s breath. (if the earth weren’t just this shape, with this path around the sun, with this temperature, with this particular satellite…)** Jeez, this little rhetorical ad-hom is quite annoying. I bet you were all read in the face when you said that. Evolution=religion, it is to laugh! I think you can do better than that, why don’t you call us darwinists. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yoyo3500 \* > **One can discover a mousetrap and think it evolved, or it was created. Obviously, a mousetrap is not “alive” like an organism such as a bird or human or bacteria, so it won’t evolve. We know that it was “created” because we have a direct teaching that we rely upon that a person invented it and that people, even today, construct them. A mistake in logic is to assume that, since we can discover complex items today, such as a mousetrap or a computer, and we know for certain that it was created, therefore everything that is complex must have been created. However, to find something that is complex and assume that it wasn’t created, that it evolved, without knowing the source, also cannot be done completely based on faith, since there is no logic. However, one can surmize that one can, however, make a good educated guess, that if something, was created, you should be able to recognize it. This is an idea that Evolutionists must rely upon since there are no witnesses to the Big Bang. Where Evolutionists become followers of a religion is the point in which the Evolutionists decide that the earth and everything within it had undergone change gradually (relatively speaking), i.e. through evolution. And that’s the only way it happened. To disagree is be a heretic, or a even an antiqated pagan or follower of a false religion.** And the mousetrap analogy comes out. Pay attention to the following links and you will see why you are so severly wrong: It has pictures to make understanding easier: [http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html](http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html) > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yoyo3500 \* > \*\*Thus, the Evolutionist is close-minded and won’t even hear of such ideas like “Creation”, or a “divinely-guided evolution”, or anything that cannot be disproven, yet is not what they have always practiced in belief. > But on with the Evolutionist Jihad! \*\* Oh please, grow up a little. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/27 "2003-01-30T22:58:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yoyo3500 \* > \*\*Opus, you so easily dismiss these ideas with insults, but I still don’t think you have thought without hubris. I haven’t been refuted, only shown horse-sense. \*\* Insults? Hey, take the plank out of your eye there! ---
**Author:** ![yoyo3500](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/5daacb/32.png) [@yoyo3500](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyo3500)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/28 "2003-01-30T23:02:11Z")
A link to the mousetrap idea was already provided. You are not a Darwinist because Darwin didn’t believe in Evolutionism with the same zeal as Evolutionists do. Again, I am not refuted, merely the recipient of insults. This shows some insecurity… ---
**Author:** ![FranticMad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c68b51/32.png) [@FranticMad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FranticMad)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/29 "2003-01-30T23:07:52Z")
I can guarantee you that everyone posting here has sort of half-organ. It’s called the appendix. Then there is the tailbone, the coccyx. Even yoyo3500 has a tailbone, I’d bet. Creationists argue that it serves a function today, and therefore cannot have been a tail in ancient times (muscles connect to it, giving the body structural support). Peculiar logic. But I think the tailbone’s moder usefulness shows that the vestigial tail has been adapted for the modern human body. Hence, on the way to evolving fingers and losing tails, the body can make use of the intermediate forms as it changes. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/30 "2003-01-30T23:08:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yoyo3500 \* > \*\*A link to the mousetrap idea was already provided. > > You are not a Darwinist because Darwin didn’t believe in Evolutionism with the same zeal as Evolutionists do. > > Again, I am not refuted, merely the recipient of insults. This shows some insecurity… \*\* Nice ad-homs! Seriously, equating science with religion is just silly. There is no “evolutionism” except in the minds of creationists, because they believe a big bad spooky conspiracy is afloat in science, that seeks to promote a bankrupt evolution. You know, in order to get the most from links, you have to read them. The link demolishes the mousetrap idea. Also, don’t you try to take the moral high ground, you are throwing poop with the rest of us! Equating science (evolution) with religion is illogical. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/31 "2003-01-30T23:12:45Z")
**yoyo3500** , first of all, let me assure you I am a Bible-believing Christian, if not a literalist. Second, have you heard of a creature called the[walking catfish](http://mbgnet.mobot.org/fresh/wetlands/animals/catfish.html)? While I suspect it came along a lot later than amphibians, it may come close to your description of a “creature that was evolving legs, but they weren’t quite legs yet, but the creature had to drag them around anyway.” Actually, for this creature it’s legs/fins serve a useful function in getting it from one food source to another. [This site](http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec18.html) has an example of how natural selection leads to evolution which has happened within the past 200 years. To summarize it, at the start of the Industrial Revolution in Manchester, England, there was a particular species of moth which was usually light colored to blend in with the bark of birch trees. As the Industrial Revolution got started, pollutants (mostly coal dust, I suspect) settled on the trees turning their bark dark-colored. Light-colored moths lighting on dark colored trees tended to get eaten, so by 1898, 95% of these moths were dark colored. Evolution in action. By the way, I understand that now that pollution in Manchester has decreased, light colored moths are again the majority. Evolution is full of false starts and dead ends. I no more believed it happened in one steady flow than I believe I wrote this post without back-spacing or even deleting a few phrases. Oh, and as for it being “only a theory”, in that sense, so’s gravity. Respectfully, CJ ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/32 "2003-01-30T23:16:22Z")
**cjhoworth** -Good post, but I did want to emphasize that even though Gravity is a theory, a lot of people think it’s an infallible law. To which I say: Why was Einstein such a big deal then? ---
**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:** [January 30, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/33 "2003-01-30T23:25:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yoyo3500 \* > \*\*You are not a Darwinist because Darwin didn’t believe in Evolutionism with the same zeal as Evolutionists do. > > Again, I am not refuted, merely the recipient of insults. This shows some insecurity… \*\* I dunno. Darwin was a pretty strong proponent of his theory, as was Wallace (poor Wallace, everyone forgets about him) And, with all due respect, it seems like people did respond to the arguments you made. Some posters, including myself, pointed out fish like the mudskipper and walking catfish to show the use of protolegs, Opus discussed the relative ease in which extra digits can form, and Meatros posted links pointing out problems with the irreducable complexity theory. Your free to disagree with any of us, of course, but please don’t say you are “merely the recipient of insults”. That isn’t true, and it trivializes those posters who actually are debating with you in a reasonable manner. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/34 "2003-01-30T23:28:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Captain Amazing \* > \*\*I dunno. Darwin was a pretty strong proponent of his theory, as was Wallace (poor Wallace, everyone forgets about him) \*\* Well, in all fairness, second place sucks.😃 ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/35 "2003-01-30T23:28:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yoyo3500 \* > **You are not a Darwinist because Darwin didn’t believe in Evolutionism with the same zeal as Evolutionists do.** I would wager that you have no idea what Darwin believed, beyond what you’ve read off of some creationist website. \*\* > [@](#): > > What did a fifth finger look like before it was actually a finger? Was it a cyst that evolved? Was it an extra lump of flesh? Did a fifth finger slowly split off from the fourth finger over generations and become a fifth finger? Perhaps there were once five claws that became five fingers simulatenously? What did the interstitial claw/finger look like and what purpose did it serve? But why where there five claws, and not four? How did the fifth claw evolve?\*\* See [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=128932) for a brief discussion on fingers. Note that even the five-fingered ancestral condition is a _reduction_ from the even more primitive condition of 7 or 8. New fingers haven’t evolved since; they’ve only ever been lost. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/36 "2003-01-30T23:36:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yoyo3500 \* > **Opus, you seem so sure what “pre-legs” looked like and what they were used for! Surely you must have seen them or know concrete, factual evidence that prooves what they were** Surely you were around when God created the heavens and the earth! Surely you can vouch for the accuracy of historical documents by having lived during all those periods in time, and witnessed the events therein firsthand! The study of evolution is a historical science, rather like forensics (the criminal science-type, not the debate-type). In order for your implication that “evolution cannot be true because no one was around to see it happen” to be logically consistent (aside from the point that it _has_ been witnessed in action), you would have to reject **all** accounts that you have not witnessed first-hand. I suspect, however, that you do not. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/37 "2003-01-30T23:44:32Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **IzzyR** :_ > In contrast with the previous posters I would say that it is the non-literalists who can’t face reality. Confronted with the fact that they don’t believe the Bible as taken literally, and not wishing to reject it outright, they reinterpret it into something that they find more acceptable. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **mrcrow** :_ > i think the original biblical narratives were taken literally and passed on as such > transliteration may have affected the issue > but as said its the truths and the spirit of what was recorded which we really can get to grips with despite our cynisicm Given the nature of the development of Historiography, in which the very notion of recording history as a factual exercise only became prevalent in the eighteenth century and the notion that Scripture adhered to that factual presentation only arose shortly thereafter, I would need to see some evidence that anyone actually believed that Scripture was a literal record even one thousand years ago, much less at the time it was written. From the Encyclopædia Britannica, _Historiography_: > [@](#): > > Modern historians aim to reconstruct a record of human activities and to achieve a more profound understanding of them. This conception of their task is quite recent, dating from the development in the late 18th and early 19th centuries of scientific history, cultivated largely by professional historians. It springs from an outlook that is very new in human experience: the assumption that the study of history is a natural, inevitable human activity. Before the late 18th century, historiography did not stand at the centre of any civilization. History was almost never an important part of regular education, and it never claimed to provide an interpretation of human life as a whole. This was more appropriately the function of religion, of philosophy, even perhaps of poetry and other imaginative literature. While Herodotus and Thucydides (each writing after the period of the bulk of the Jewish canon was completed) began a new trend of citing earlier works to support their stories, they and their successors continued to write in a manner intended for exhortation and inspiration. We know that Philo Judaeus of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo (in the Jewish and Christian traditions, respectively) each noted the underlying _themes_ of the Biblical stories, as against a too-literal acceptance of the _events_ of the stories. Given this background, I would say that it is incumbent on those who claim a literal interpretation of Scripture to demonstrate that it was actually written for the purpose of a literal record. ---
**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:** [January 30, 2003, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/38 "2003-01-30T23:45:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > \*\*Well, in all fairness, second place sucks.😃 \*\* 🙂 Yeah, but that’s not really fair to Wallace either. 🙂 I think he actually wrote about his theory before Darwin did. And didn’t Wallace and Darwin agree to share credit for the theory? I think it’s more likely that people forget about him because he came from a lower-class family and was REALLY into spiritualism. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/39 "2003-01-30T23:47:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RealityChuck \* > \*\*Let’s get one thing straight – when a scientist calls something a theory, he means it’s a fact. \*\* You people are unbelievable. First off I am not a Creationist. I firmly believe in Evolution and I hate it when I see schools teaching creationism…leave that to your religion to take care of. > [@](#): > > Main Entry: the·o·ry > Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E > Function: noun > Inflected Form(s): plural -ries > Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein > Date: 1592 > 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another > Main Entry: evo·lu·tion > Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&- > Function: noun > Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere > Date: 1622 > 4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a **theory** that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations > (Bolding mine) > SOURCE: > [Merriam-Webster](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) I don’t know what universe you live in but in my universe 2+2=4 is a fact. Evolution is a _theory_. Period. End of story. As the definition above indicates evolution theory is _derived_ from facts. I have a bone a million years old…fact. I have another similar but slightly different bone that is 500,000 years old…fact. I think the two are related to the same animal that somehow changed somewhat in the intervening 500,000 years…theory. Maybe an alien put it there to mess with biologists heads…who knows (I am NOT saying that is the case…just tossing it out for fun). Some theories are better than others so saying that a theory of evolution is like a theory of gravity is like saying an apple is like an orange. Both fruits but the similarities don’t go much further. Each theory stands on its own…how good or bad other theories are is irrelevant (unless the theory in question incorporates other theories). I think evolution is a good theory and one a wholeheartedly buy into as I think it explains a lot. However, it is not 100% complete, it does have some unexplained holes and so it remains a theory. Any biologist will tell you as much. Still don’t believe me? Here’s some suggested reading then: [THE CURRENT ROLE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL THOUGHT Part I](http://www.evolutionary.org/culture.txt) [Explore the theory of evolution.](http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html) [Evolutionary Theory](http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EVOLUT.html) [Evolutionary Theory](http://cogweb.ucla.edu/EP/Evolution.html) [HISTORY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY](http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist01.htm) [The Structure of Evolutionary Theory](http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GOUSTR.html) Hopefully that’ll do… ---
**Author:** ![FireWitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@FireWitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FireWitch)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2003, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/40 "2003-01-30T23:52:01Z")
In this debate, I can offer only my opinion, which is… Both creationist AND evolutionary theories are correct. Despite the half-assed, as well as the convincing, arguements on both sides of the aisle, I think that one is a by-product of the other. Creation happened, and because of that, evolution began. Who, What, When we were created, this is an unanswerable question, since; 1. No one witnessed a thing in either case. 2. Since humans are fallible, it can therefore be assumed that their methodology in the attempts to determine which is “right” and which is “wrong” is fallible too. 3. The Bible is the book of man, (see number 2) and therefore subject to much righteous scrutiny. In summary, I think in this case, both groups are right, and that most of this debate is pointless. ( that belief, however, will in no way stop me from participating) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679.md?page=3)