# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![Realhoops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8dc957/32.png) [@Realhoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Realhoops)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/101 "2003-02-03T22:21:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Darwin’s Finch \* > \*\*What personal attacks were made against you? What names were you called? \*\* I don’t know about personal attacks, but perhaps **wrenchead** took offense at **Lib** ’s post above saying “ **Wrenchead**? Is that anything like **Justhink**?” I don’t have any idea what **Lib** meant by that, except perhaps to comment on **wrench-head** spelling his name as **wrenchead** like **just-think** spelled his name as **justhink** (omitting that double letter in the middle). However, given the fate of **justhink** perhaps **wrenchead** felt that **Lib** was somehow referring to the quality of his posts or something. (note… no offense is intended by the shortening of **Libertarian** to “ **Lib** ” nor do I intend to imply that **Lib** was actually trying to be disparaging toward **wrenchead**.) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/102 "2003-02-03T22:30:35Z")
Oy. I meant no offense — only humor. Sorry, Wrenchead. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/103 "2003-02-03T22:34:25Z")
I echo that welcome, **Wrenchead** , and would be pleased to discuss with another Christian why I believe as I do (which includes that God worked through evolutionary processes). Irritation with folks who consider themselves “creationist Christians” whose sole purpose is to pop in here, post a link to a website that supports their POV, and leave, may account for the less-than-enthusiastic welcome you got – people presuming you to be the latest one of those, perhaps as an uncalled-for jumping to a conclusion. It’s called “Great Debates” in this forum because that’s what it’s supposed to be – state your POV and defend it with evidence that holds up under scrutiny. If you’re willing to argue for your views on those terms, do feel welcome to join in. People who can argue _intelligently_ for the anti-evolutionary point of view are in short supply here; your contribution will be more than welcome. ---
**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:** [February 3, 2003, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/104 "2003-02-03T23:53:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WRENCHEAD \* > \*\*Anyway, your link made for interesting reading and im sure you can come up with 100 more just as i can like this one for example. > [http://www.crbiblechapel.org/CreationEvolution.htm](http://www.crbiblechapel.org/CreationEvolution.htm) \*\* From the link: > [@](#): > > Do not believe a word you are about to read until you listen to what is said, think about it, and test it. Then decide for yourself if you believe it or not. If you ever believe something simply because someone told you to believe it, you have NOT been educated, you have been indoctrinated. But if a case is presented to you, and you test it and find it to be valid, and then believe it, you have been educated. **Rarely is someone encouraged to test the Theory of Evolution and dig into its details. But you are now being encouraged to test the Creation model presented in the following pages. Test it against what the Theory of Evolution has to offer, and then you decide what to believe. You may discover that the common sense analysis of scientific data convincingly supports Creation.** Unfortunately too many people have reached a conclusion on this subject based on emotion or peer pressure, and not the scientific data. [Bolding mine] I, for one, would be wary of any site which urges one to think for oneself - by only questioning the scientific data. If one truly wishes to evaluate the arguments impartially, one must likewise be prepared to question Biblical orthodoxy. Yet I doubt you’ll find many pro-creationist websites (or books) which would urge one to do so. ---
**Author:** ![WRENCHEAD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@WRENCHEAD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WRENCHEAD)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/105 "2003-02-04T00:58:03Z")
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Evidently i misunderstood the intent of some of the previous posts. I’m all for intelligent debate and hope to enjoy many more with this group. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/106 "2003-02-04T01:00:46Z")
If you ever come back, **wrenchead** , I would like to echo what **Poly** said and reiterate that good, smart anti-evolutionist viewpoints are in short supply here, and they really are welcome. No one has a problem with an opposing view here. We are here in Great debates because we _like_ to debate. A worthy opponent is a valued commodity. I think you will also find that your Christianity _per se_, will always be respected. We stand and fall on the strengths of our posts, here. We like _intelligence_. We have several theistic evolutionists on the SDMB, including **Polycarp** , **Libertarian** and **tomndebb** , all Christians who also happen to be three of the most respected posters on these boards. Now please, put down that chip and let’s start all over again. Let me ask you this, what is your very best evidence against the veracity of evolutionary theory? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/107 "2003-02-04T01:02:05Z")
Oops, I posted without using preview. I guess you did come back. Welcome again. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/108 "2003-02-04T02:03:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WRENCHEAD \* > \*\* Anyway, your link made for interesting reading and im sure you can come up with 100 more just as i can like this one for example. > [http://www.crbiblechapel.org/CreationEvolution.htm](http://www.crbiblechapel.org/CreationEvolution.htm) \*\* I think the difference between the links is obvious, but I suppose it might not be. Let me put it to you this way, not all links are created equally. Some Creationists twist science, truth, and logic and write up websites that contain sever misinterpretations about evolution (as well as other subjects). From your site: > [@](#): > > You see, the lack of any evidence for transitional forms is one of Darwinism’s dirty little secrets, and some scientists will do just about anything to keep it a secret - even to the point of fabricating evidence. First: There are plenty of transitional fossils. Second: Fossils are not the only evidence. Third: “Darwinism” is an ad-hom attack aimed at discrediting evolution and to equate it with some sort of fanatical “belief” (IMO). Fourth: Evolution, such as all other science, is checked, rechecked and checked again-that’s how science works. It’s obsurd to think that it would be different (IMO). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/109 "2003-02-04T06:53:58Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **IzzyR** :_ > And I ask you again for some form of backup for your claim that “the notion that Scripture adhered to that factual presentation only arose shortly thereafter [the 18th century]”. That is - as mentioned before - a fantastic claim. It is blatantly false in the case of the Jewish tradition, and I strongly suspect in the Christian one as well. “Fantastic”? Why? Every society of which I am aware had myth and legend that was flatly contradictory in many elements. Are you proposing that everyone in the ancient world was so credulous that they simply accepted every story as a recitation of (contradictory) facts and never challenged those contradictions? Given a choice of believing that people accepted _Story_ as a way to give meaning to experience, regardless of its correspondence to a journalistic narrative, or believing that rational thought was some late development in human history, I would label the latter far more “fantastic” than the former. And given the choice of believing that Jewish, and, later, Christian, Scripture was written in some way wholly unlike all the other mythic literature that humanity has produced, (despite the very clear parallels among all such literature), or believing that all societies create their myths in similar human ways, I am going to choose the latter–and I am going to want to see _evidence_ that demonstrates such development was unique. As to the claim that my position is “blatantly” opposed to Jewish tradition, I will note that Philo argued that we could not truly understand Scripture if we accepted it at face value, even arguing that duplicates, extraneous-appearing words, and passages that portrayed God in a bad light should be ignored when studying Scripture so as not to miss the actual meaning. Maimonides put forth in [Guide for the Perplexed. Part I. Chapter XXXIII](http://www.ccel.org/pipeline/1-html/4-maimonides-guide/p1ch33.htm), > [@](#): > > This also is the reason why “the Torah speaks the language of man,” as we have explained, for it is the object of the Torah to serve as a guide for the instruction of the young, of women, and of the common people; and as all of them are incapable to comprehend the true sense of the words, tradition was considered sufficient to convey all truths which were to be established; and as regards ideals, only such remarks were made as would lead towards a knowledge of their existence, though not to a comprehension of their true essence. When a man attains to perfection, and arrives at a knowledge of the “Secrets of the Law,” either through the assistance of a teacher or by self-instruction, being led by the understanding of one part to the study of the other, he will belong to those who faithfully believe in the true principles, either because of conclusive proof, where proof is possible, or by forcible arguments, where argument is admissible; he will have a true notion of those things which he previously received in similes and metaphors, and he will fully understand their sense. We have frequently mentioned in this treatise the principle of our Sages “not to discuss the _Ma‘aseh Mercabah_ even in the presence of one pupil, except he be wise and intelligent; and then only the headings of the chapters are to be given to him.” We must, therefore, begin with teaching these subjects according to the capacity of the pupil, and on two conditions, first, that he be wise, i.e., that he should have successfully gone through the preliminary studies, and secondly that he be intelligent, talented, clear-headed, and of quick perception, that is, “have a mind of his own” (_mebin midda‘ato_), as our Sages termed it. So the plain speach of the Torah is only to “lead” those without understanding to greater knowledge? This is an indication that the Scriptures are literally true as written? It is true that Rashi, in the late eleventh century, argued against passages in the Midrash that seemed to go against the “plain meaning” of the text, but his very argument indicates that the Midrash had gotten to a point of using the text as a springboard for interpretation rather than a close following of the words. (And, while Rashi argued against torturing the text, the passages of his that I have read do not make a serious effort to reconcile apparent contradictions, appearing, to me, to simply treat each selection or passage as an independent statement and allowing the contradictions to stand, basically unremarked. Indeed, it was a student of Rashi who began to propose the idea that the parallel stories found throughout the Torah had been written separately, then joined together in a single narrative.) ---
**Author:** ![WRENCHEAD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@WRENCHEAD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WRENCHEAD)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/110 "2003-02-04T14:53:54Z")
First: There are plenty of transitional fossils. Second: Fossils are not the only evidence. Third: “Darwinism” is an ad-hom attack aimed at discrediting evolution and to equate it with some sort of fanatical “belief” (IMO). Fourth: Evolution, such as all other science, is checked, rechecked and checked again-that’s how science works. It’s obsurd to think that it would be different (IMO). In my opinion, what this article and others like it are saying is that modern science uses the evidence they find to prove a predetermined end. That is to say that they already believe in evolution so they interpret the findings in light of their predetermined conclusion. Biblical creation is based on the word of the Creator for those who believe in him and therefore does not only depend on conclusive evidence (although, as seen in this forum, we can debate for eons that it does, lol). ---
**Author:** ![WRENCHEAD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@WRENCHEAD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WRENCHEAD)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/111 "2003-02-04T14:55:13Z")
oops, just for clarification the first part of my post was a quote from meatros. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/112 "2003-02-04T15:18:27Z")
No, what this article and others are saying is that there is NO evidence. That ‘_scientists_’ are fabricating evidence because they are clutching at straws. Statements like that should set off some alarmbells in your head. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/113 "2003-02-04T15:28:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WRENCHEAD \* > \*\* In my opinion, what this article and others like it are saying is that modern science uses the evidence they find to prove a predetermined end. \*\* Modern science relies on the scientific method. Establish a hypothesis, try to prove it, discard what doesn’t work, then refine the hypothesis. Other scientistists test the validity of the claim a scientist puts forward. If their is bias, or the claim doesn’t fit the evidence, the the claim is discarded. Biblica > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by WRENCHEAD \* > \*\*creation is based on the word of the Creator for those who believe in him and therefore does not only depend on conclusive evidence (although, as seen in this forum, we can debate for eons that it does, lol). \*\* You have demonstrated why it’s not scientific. What you have stated is philosophy/religion, not science. The creationism you espouse is not falsifiable, therefore it can not be scientific. Philosophy/religion should not compete with science. You can’t measure creationism (a religion/philosophy) against evolution (science). ---
**Author:** ![WRENCHEAD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@WRENCHEAD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WRENCHEAD)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/114 "2003-02-04T17:15:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > Modern science relies on the scientific method. Establish a hypothesis, try to prove it, discard what doesn’t work, then refine the hypothesis. > > Other scientistists test the validity of the claim a scientist puts forward. If their is bias, or the claim doesn’t fit the evidence, the the claim is discarded. So for arguments sake, if the claim does not fit the hypothesis of say “evolution” but rather “creation” it is discarded because it doesn’t fit the supported system. This was my point to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/115 "2003-02-04T17:37:17Z")
You do have a point, **Wrenchead** – since intervention by non-natural forces is beyond the pale of what is considered appropriate study, the assumption that God jumped in and created something _ex nihilo_ is rejected out of hand. But the evidence for evolution lies in the amazing mass of fossil material which seems to clearly suggest that various critters lived at a given point in time and were replaced by various other critters differing a tad from them, and so on for millions of years, combined with observational evidence that suggests that the same processes are continuing today. If my theory suggests that kangaroos were introduced to Australia by the aborigines from somewhere else, I’d better be able to show that prior to the supposed date of introduction there were no kangaroos in Australia, that they did indeed occur prior to that date somewhere else, and that the aborigines were likely to have been at that somewhere else shortly before they entered Australia. If any one of those elements is lacking, my theory falls. If God created all creatures in a given time frame, without the possibility of significant change, then there ought not to be any creatures prior to that time, there ought to be continuing evidence of those creatures from the time of his creation to the present with no change or only minor variation in them, and there should be absolutely no transitional forms in which a creature with aspects of two or more “kinds” as defined by the Hebrew vocabulary is evidenced. Those elements do not obtain. For God to have created, purposively, though the techniques of natural selection and mutation, with his infinite and manifold Will carried out through those processes, is not contrary to either Scripture (read not with an eye to literalism but with a sense of the point the writer is trying to hammer home) or the evidence of the natural world. I therefore believe that this is what He did. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/116 "2003-02-04T17:49:14Z")
> [@](#): > > So for arguments sake, if the claim does not fit the hypothesis of say “evolution” but rather “creation” it is discarded because it doesn’t fit the supported system. This was my point to begin with. But that is not what would happen. No hypothesis is rejected because it has a philosophical tag on it, it is rejected because the facts that it seeks to interpret either do not bear that interpretation or the interpretation is not consistent with surrounding interpretations. For example, Michael Behe’s claim if irreducible complexity was probably met with a lot of head-shaking when he published it. (Behe actually follows the _general_ norms of neo-Darwinian Evolutionary thought, he simply thinks that at specific points, there must have been “inteeligent” intervention and he came up with an event that he belived demonstrated that intelligent design.) However, his work was not dismissed as “Creationist.” It was not ignored by the biological community. Instead, other scientists went out and examined his work, examined the data he had (and the data that he had not produced) and demonstrated that his conclusion was, at best, premature. If there are examples of irreducible complexity in nature, his examples did not meet the definition. So we are left with the _evidence_ supporting random mutation and selective speciation (_i.e._, Natural Selection), not irreducible complexity (_i.e._, Intellient Design or Creationism). The evidence must support the hypothesis, regardless which philosophical system one supports. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/117 "2003-02-04T17:55:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > “Fantastic”? Why? Every society of which I am aware had myth and legend that was flatly contradictory in many elements. Are you proposing that everyone in the ancient world was so credulous that they simply accepted every story as a recitation of (contradictory) facts and never challenged those contradictions? Given a choice of believing that people accepted Story as a way to give meaning to experience, regardless of its correspondence to a journalistic narrative, or believing that rational thought was some late development in human history, I would label the latter far more “fantastic” than the former. And given the choice of believing that Jewish, and, later, Christian, Scripture was written in some way wholly unlike all the other mythic literature that humanity has produced, (despite the very clear parallels among all such literature), or believing that all societies create their myths in similar human ways, I am going to choose the latter–and I am going to want to see evidence that demonstrates such development was unique. OK, so we are clear, then, that your assertion was not based on your knowledge of historical facts establishing this, but on your speculation that this is likely the case. Big difference of course, particularly as I disagree with your rationale, for reasons noted in my previous posts. > [@](#): > > As to the claim that my position is “blatantly” opposed to Jewish tradition, I will note that Philo argued that we could not truly understand Scripture if we accepted it at face value, even arguing that duplicates, extraneous-appearing words, and passages that portrayed God in a bad light should be ignored when studying Scripture so as not to miss the actual meaning. Maimonides put forth in Guide for the Perplexed. Part I. Chapter XXXIII, > … > So the plain speach of the Torah is only to “lead” those without understanding to greater knowledge? This is an indication that the Scriptures are literally true as written? I believe you are misinterpreting the words of Maimonedes. He appears to be referring to the anthropomorphic aspects of the Bible (or other references to the aspects of God), and arguing that the reason for these depictions is the inability of common people to comprehend God on a deeper philosophical level. (If you dispute this, I’ll go look it up). If you are saying that the “hand of God” does not refer to a physical hand, I’m with you. Nobody says otherwise, AFAIK. This is not the same thing as saying that the historical facts presented in the Bible were not meant to be taken as factual. I am not familiar with Philo. But the statements that you put forth from him do not appear to support your claim that he did not take the Bible literally. Sounds like all he said was that you could misinterpret the Bible if you did not properly understand it. I’d be curious to see his actual statements. In any event, I would not consider Philo to be representative of traditional Judaism. Of interesting historical note: in the early 14th century, the Jewish communities of Spain and Southern France (Provence) were roiled by a controversy over the study of philosophy. And one of the charges against the philosophers was that they has interpreted certain passages in the Torah as being non-literal (e.g. that Abraham & Sarah represented matter and form). The philosophers themselves vehemently denied that they had or would ever say such things (they said what was meant was that _in addition_ to the literal meaning there were also metaphorical). Neither side accepted that one could interpret historical facts in the Bible as being non-literal. > [@](#): > > It is true that Rashi, in the late eleventh century, argued against passages in the Midrash that seemed to go against the “plain meaning” of the text, but his very argument indicates that the Midrash had gotten to a point of using the text as a springboard for interpretation rather than a close following of the words. Another misunderstanding. Rashi did not “argue against” any passages in the Midrash. Rashi felt that _in addition_ to the interpretations to be found in Midrashim, which were allusions of the Bible, there was also the need to interpret the plain meaning as well. But he consistently makes clear that he is not coming to disagree with anything in the Midrash - only to point out the plain meaning. (He usually introduces such commentary by saying “The Torah can be interpreted in 70 ways. The Midrash should expound, but I am coming to explain the plain meaning”). This has no connection to anything being discussed here. > [@](#): > > Indeed, it was a student of Rashi who began to propose the idea that the parallel stories found throughout the Torah had been written separately, then joined together in a single narrative. Who was this, and where is it to be found? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/118 "2003-02-04T19:06:34Z")
> [@](#): > > OK, so we are clear, then, that your assertion was not based on your knowledge of historical facts establishing this, but on your speculation that this is likely the case. Big difference of course, particularly as I disagree with your rationale, for reasons noted in my previous posts. Sure, just as your perspective is shaped by your assumption that people have believed multiple contradictory expressions of history as unquestioningly, literally true for some reason. (Well, my speculation and the various anthropological, literary, and scriptural college courses that all pointed to the same thing, the texts of which I have a hard time retrieving from my mom’s attic 30 years later from 250 miles away. Do you have any actual support that people did generally believe the contradictions were _all_ true in a newspaper-reporting fashion? > [@](#): > > Who was this, and where is it to be found? [Rashi’s grandson, Jacob Tam’s pupil, Joseph Bekor Shor.](http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1029&letter=B&search=bible%20exigesis#3002) ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/119 "2003-02-04T19:22:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > Sure, just as your perspective is shaped by your assumption that people have believed multiple contradictory expressions of history as unquestioningly, literally true for some reason. (Well, my speculation and the various anthropological, literary, and scriptural college courses that all pointed to the same thing, the texts of which I have a hard time retrieving from my mom’s attic 30 years later from 250 miles away. Well when you originally made the statement, it seemed as though you were asserting a _fact in support of your position_, as opposed to a _product_ of your position, as it turned out to be. > [@](#): > > Do you have any actual support that people did generally believe the contradictions were _all_ true in a newspaper-reporting fashion? Well I’ve seen quite a lot of traditional Jewish literature dealing with the Bible, from the Talmud and Midrashim on down, and it is beyond obvious that the accounts were treated as factual. I don’t know about Christian sources, though. > [@](#): > > [Rashi’s grandson, Jacob Tam’s pupil, Joseph Bekor Shor.](http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1029&letter=B&search=bible%20exigesis#3002) Your link does not quite say what you said - there might be a difference between “the idea that the parallel stories found throughout the Torah had been written separately, then joined together in a single narrative” and “he assumed duplicate accounts in the Pentateuch”. Frankly I’m unsure what the latter might mean. But I’ll take a look at his commentary to Genesis and see if he said anything that would suggest a non-literal interpretation. Meanwhile I am extremely skeptical. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679/120 "2003-02-04T19:46:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Well when you originally made the statement, it seemed as though you were asserting a fact in support of your position, as opposed to a product of your position, as it turned out to be. Facts in support of my position were laid out with a citation to the Encyclopædia Britannica, earlier, and arbitrarily dismissed by you claiming that we were not discussing what we are, in fact, discussing. We disagree on the basic approaches to this issue, and I do not see us getting any closer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/literal-interpretation-of-the-bible/151679.md?page=7)