# Why Do Atheists Interpret the Bible Hyper-Literally **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842 "2010-09-24T02:57:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/101 "2010-09-24T19:55:03Z")
The OP is a loaded question. I won’t say it’s typical of **Curtis** ’s OPs but, if pressed for a cite, I’m sure I can find others. Yo, bra. Sounds like you’re mellowing. Atheists/skeptics, if left to themselves, might read the Bible (which version, who knows?), see a number of internal/scientific inconsistencies in it, do some picking and choosing and move on. But no. They get the “revealed Word” shoved up their collective noses by folks who call themselves fundamental Bible belting Christians who claim “literal interpretation” while ignoring or rationalizing the “difficult” passages. To answer the OP, we’re merely trying to wake them up in their own bed of irrationality. If they’d shut up, I believe we’d quickly lose interest in the conversation. HTF does a loving Creator make a hell? Even \*od can’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/102 "2010-09-24T20:02:26Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > Maybe _some_ Christians believe that it is written by God personally, I dunno. Any cites? > > I just did Googled “God wrote the Bible”. > > Wow. Did you mean: \*\*\*[Moses\*\*\* wrote the Bible](http://don'tbotherclickingthis) ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/103 "2010-09-24T20:04:15Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Therefore, if someone says that they interpret the Bible literally, that does not mean that they believe it contains no metaphors. What the hell else could they possibly mean if they say that they interpret the Bible literally? > [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > [Spectator I: I think it was “Blessed are the cheesemakers”. > Mrs. Gregory: Aha, what’s so special about the cheesemakers? > Gregory: Well, obviously it’s not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470) No wonder it sounded familiar - I watched that movie with my 13-year-old just two weeks ago. Now that he’s of a certain age, I’m introducing him to the classics. So far we’ve hit _Life of Brian_, _This is Spinal Tap_, _Airplane!_, _The Jerk_, and _The Gods Must Be Crazy_, among others. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > I just did Googled “God wrote the Bible”. > > Wow. Here’s a snarkier way to say that: [Wow.](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22God+wrote+the+Bible%22) > [@Malthus](#): > > A New Testament example: the Gospels contain _different_ versions of the crucifiction of Jesus, which differ in significant detail. They were written by different individuals. Christians have known about this since forever; it is, obviously, not taken by them as proof that the Gospel-writers were not divinely inspired because they do not all agree. I hear what you’re saying, but still, somehow, a large number of Americans view the Bible as inerrant, as “the word of God.” ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/104 "2010-09-24T20:09:41Z")
Or take the stereotypical Christian attitude toward abortion. It is sometimes in conflict with the Bible which has several passages that indicate pretty strongly that life begins with the first breath. Uh oh, there I go taking the Bible literally again… If you don’t take it literally, you can use it to support any view you want. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/105 "2010-09-24T20:17:43Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > It’s blatant nonsense, but they “interpret” statements that were clearly meant literally to mean something else because they can’t let themselves admit that it’s nothing more than a collection of primitive, ignorant, and rather malignant myths. > > > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > > But in spite of that, there’s no particular evidence that the writers of the Bible didn’t mean exactly what they wrote. > > On the other hand, Bart Ehrman points out that when you’re telling someone a story that involves talking animals, that’s a flashing-light notice to all that it’s not meant to be taken literally, and even primitive people knew that. > > On the third hand, modern America seems to have a really large number of people who say they believe every word as literally true. My impression is that these are the people who haven’t read much of the Bible, except for the disembodied verses that they see in church. In my experience, persons who say they believe every word of the Bible to be literally true are flat-out lying, both to themselves and to their interrogator. My father and one of my sisters are fond of claiming to believe in Biblical inerrancy in one breath and in the next saying, “Oh, that part doesn’t really mean what you think it does. You have to know how to interpret.” An example is their position on drinking alcohol, which they’ll claim to be incredibly sinful; they’ll fanwank that Jesus turned the water at Cana to grape juice. :rolleyes: It’s funny till they start rationalizing incidents of genocide. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/106 "2010-09-24T20:17:50Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > … Here’s a snarkier way to say that: > > [Wow.](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22God+wrote+the+Bible%22) Wow. HTF did you do that? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/107 "2010-09-24T20:18:55Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I hear what you’re saying, but still, somehow, a large number of Americans view the Bible as inerrant, as “the word of God.” Biblical literal inerrancy is an easy target; it is also a minority position, even among the deeply religious. A very few Christians believe that the Bible is without error in every respect, but most believe that the Bible “does not err” and is “God’s word” merely in that it fulfils its _function_ - delivering God’s vision and “the good news” to the world. Thus, an attack that is premised on literal biblical inerrancy isn’t going to work on the vast majority of believers, who will view it as a “straw man” type argument. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/108 "2010-09-24T20:31:24Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > [Curtis, see here for an example of what happens when people take [some stuff you - probably - discard in] the bible literally](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12951577). > > Tell me again, what’s wrong with taking shots at some of the more obviously stupid stuff in your holy book? Practically every part of it is still being taken literally by some asshole somewhere. You really thought that guy was being serious? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![J\_Cubed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@J\_Cubed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/J_Cubed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/109 "2010-09-24T20:33:55Z")
> [@adhay](#): > > > [@CurtC](#): > > > > … Here’s a snarkier way to say that: > > > > [Wow.](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22God+wrote+the+Bible%22) > > Wow. HTF did you do that? [Here…](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=let+me+google+that+for+you&l=1) On topic, I’d say that Biblical errors, contradictions, and non sequiturs easily open it up to a form of Bertrand Russell’s argument. If the Bible is inerrant, then you should take it literally, which means that pork, tattoos, mixed-material clothing, and fig trees are all right out, simply due to editorial whim. If the Bible must be interpreted according to your individual (or clergy’s) estimation of what is right and how you should act, then what the hell do you need it for? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/110 "2010-09-24T20:34:55Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Again, the issue I was arguing with was that it is a valuable critique of the Bible, and of Judeo-Christianity generally, that the text contains errors and contradictions. > > It doesn’t take a very sophisticated believer to easily dispose of that argument. The Bible may, in Christianity, contain the “Word of God”, but it was not written by infallible God - it was written by humans, under (many believe) divine inspiration. > > A New Testament example: the Gospels contain _different_ versions of the crucifiction of Jesus, which differ in significant detail. They were written by different individuals. Christians have known about this since forever; it is, obviously, not taken by them as proof that the Gospel-writers were not divinely inspired because they do not all agree. In alt.atheism there used to be an annual Easter challenge, where the conflicting stories of the empty tomb were laid out. No theist ever responded that some of the versions were incorrect, they did respond that they might be incomplete, and even that their inconsistencies made them more true. So I’ll ask the same question I asked Curtis - if you say that not all parts of the Bible are divinely inspired, how do you distinguish the divine parts from the human parts? What is your filter? Over history pieces have migrated from the inspired to the non-inspired categories with advances in science, history, and ethics. Are only the unfalsifiable parts inspired? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/111 "2010-09-24T20:35:49Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > > [@shiftless](#): > > > > I think this goes to the main point that the OP brings up. If we could just pin down a single Christian concept of what role God had in the writing of the bible then maybe most atheists would stop their hyper-literally interpretations, and maybe most Christians would too. > > > > I’m getting the impressing that you do not think the Bible was written by God (however you want to interpret that), or even inspired by God. In that case I understand why you might dislike atheists interpreting it so literally since you seem to believe it is a book written by man. How do you feel when Christians do that? > > I personally have no belief in the literal existence of any God or Gods. My interest in the Bible is purely literal, historical, and anthropological. > > My point is this: that attacking it for having flaws or contradictions misses the mark, since the vast majority of actual believers today and throughout history were not of the opinion it was, literally, written down by God, but rather that its human authors were inspired (no two agree exactly how or to what extent) by the divine. > > Thus, the presence of errors and contradictions in the text is easily explicable by believers. They will hardly break a metaphorical sweat, in responding that “errors in the text” are the natural result of having human authors, and that it is only where the authors all _agree_ that one detects the presence of the divine inspiration. > > They would, in short, not be swayed by this argument: > > > [@](#): > > > > One flaw, one contradiction should be enough to cast doubt on that assertion. That is why someone trying to cast such doubt would interpret it hyper-literally, because the claim is that it is hyper-literally the word of God. > > … because they would not accept its premise. …until it becomes convenient to quote scripture at people. And some people get quite testy when you express the opinion that the whole ressurection thing was pious fiction. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/112 "2010-09-24T20:35:53Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > You really thought that guy was being serious? :dubious: Poe’s Law. That particular guy was a troll, but there’s no shortage of people who hold those views for real. Not much of an observation, I admit. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/113 "2010-09-24T20:39:40Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > > [@shiftless](#): > > > > Didn’t God write the whole thing? If Christians are to be believed the whole book is the actual word of an all powerful, all knowing being, written down for our edification. One flaw, one contridiction should be enough to cast doubt on that assertion. That is why someone trying to cast such doubt would interpret it hyper-literally, because the claim is that it is hyper-literally the word of God. > > Does anyone actually say God wrote the whole thing? Well, yes. Haven’t you ever run into the sort who think that God wrote the Bible word for word, right down to it being in English and with red letters for the words of Jesus? > [@Malthus](#): > > They would, in short, not be swayed by this argument: > > > [@](#): > > > > One flaw, one contradiction should be enough to cast doubt on that assertion. That is why someone trying to cast such doubt would interpret it hyper-literally, because the claim is that it is hyper-literally the word of God. > > … because they would not accept its premise. Except when they want to justify writing something in the Bible into law. Then suddenly it is the literal Word of God. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/114 "2010-09-24T20:40:55Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > > Therefore, if someone says that they interpret the Bible literally, that does not mean that they believe it contains no metaphors. > > What the hell else could they possibly mean if they say that they interpret the Bible literally? They could be using the second definition of the world “literally” that’s found in any dictionary, as already explained. > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Uh? You cite one atheist on youtube you don’t like, a larger (but vaguely numbered) groupd of atheists on this board you have no problem with, and decide the world at large embraces the kind of atheism you don’t like? > > Let’s not hedge, here. It’s akin to saying you dislike Group X even though some of your best friends are members. I mentioned that one YouTube user because, as far as I know, he’s the most popular Bible-basher on the site and his videos have millions of hits, as I said. Perhaps there’s some atheist who actually gets a larger audience and addresses what Christians actually believe rather than that sort of pablum; all I can say is that I’ve never encountered one. > [@shiftless](#): > > Yeah, not much of a consensus. There are places like this: > [Can/should we interpret the Bible literally? | GotQuestions.org](http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html) > that contend that the bible is to be taken literally. That site says in the fourth paragraph that the Bible contains figures of speech, so it confirms what I explained earlier about what some Christians mean when using the word “literally”. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/115 "2010-09-24T20:43:12Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Well, yes. Haven’t you ever run into the sort who think that God wrote the Bible word for word, right down to it being in English and with red letters for the words of Jesus? No, I have not. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/116 "2010-09-24T20:47:29Z")
For my money, it’s a matter of … if you even take one impossible thing in the bible literally, you may as well take it all literally and be prepared to defend it. What’s the point of saying, “oh Jesus really meant to educate yourself and not literally gouge out your own eye,” if the next sentence out of your mouth is, “When Jesus was resurrected on the third day …” That is, if you’re going to talk to me about a parable regarding the spiritual reawakening of the yada yada yada, ok fine … let’s discuss. But don’t expect me to take Zombie Jesus at face value and give you a pass on all the other weird shit going on in that book. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/117 "2010-09-24T20:52:28Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > > [@Malthus](#): > > > > Again, the issue I was arguing with was that it is a valuable critique of the Bible, and of Judeo-Christianity generally, that the text contains errors and contradictions. > > > > It doesn’t take a very sophisticated believer to easily dispose of that argument. The Bible may, in Christianity, contain the “Word of God”, but it was not written by infallible God - it was written by humans, under (many believe) divine inspiration. > > > > A New Testament example: the Gospels contain _different_ versions of the crucifiction of Jesus, which differ in significant detail. They were written by different individuals. Christians have known about this since forever; it is, obviously, not taken by them as proof that the Gospel-writers were not divinely inspired because they do not all agree. > > In alt.atheism there used to be an annual Easter challenge, where the conflicting stories of the empty tomb were laid out. No theist ever responded that some of the versions were incorrect, they did respond that they might be incomplete, and even that their inconsistencies made them more true. > > So I’ll ask the same question I asked Curtis - if you say that not all parts of the Bible are divinely inspired, how do you distinguish the divine parts from the human parts? What is your filter? Over history pieces have migrated from the inspired to the non-inspired categories with advances in science, history, and ethics. Are only the unfalsifiable parts inspired? Again, I’m not a believer myself, so I may not be the right person to answer your challenge. But it does not appear to me to be all _that_ difficult a challenge to answer. A believer might well say that there is a divinity, who is attempting to influence humanity to the good - but who must work by inspiring human authors, who are situate in human cultures. Such authors are themselves fallible. Thus to extract the divine essence from the fallible dross requires the application of intelligent criticism of the text, based on attempting to find the spirit and not the merely letter of the laws. Rabbi Hillel was, around 100 AD I believe, tasked with attempting to summarize the whole of the Torah (a non-Jew asked him to state what the Torah was “about” while standing on one foot): > [@](#): > > "On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, “Make me a proselyte, on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.”[1] Thereupon he chased him away with the builder’s cubit that was in his hand.[2] When he came before Hillel, (he also asked Hillel to teach him the entire Torah while standing on one foot) Hillel replied, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah while the rest is commentary; go and learn it.” Rabbi Shammai may be dismayed at having bits of the Torah proven scientifically incorrect; but would Rabbi Hillel? In short, the details of the OT which are contrary to modern conceptions of science are _details_ and _commentary_, appropriate perhaps to its Iron-age setting and audience, and lacking application today; the ‘whole of the Torah’ (or for Christians, the ‘whole of the Gospels’) does not lie in the fallible _details_, but in the _message_ - the elaboration of the Golden Rule (in the case of the Torah), or the Goldejn Rule plus redemption (in the case of Christianity). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/118 "2010-09-24T20:54:25Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I mentioned that one YouTube user because, as far as I know, he’s the most popular Bible-basher on the site and his videos have millions of hits, as I said. Perhaps there’s some atheist who actually gets a larger audience and addresses what Christians actually believe rather than that sort of pablum; all I can say is that I’ve never encountered one. Well, heck, you can put a vomiting kitten on youtube and get 20 million hits. I’ll watch the linked video in total later, but I gather the gist is: “If God exists and is as powerful as you claim, as concerned with human affairs as you claim and loves humans as much as you claim, why doesn’t he…?” I’d consider it a mark of maturity to hear a six year-old ask a similar question, and the fact that adults can still ask it and not get a satisfactory answer suggests to me there _is_ no satisfactory answer. ---
**Author:** ![J\_Cubed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@J\_Cubed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/J_Cubed)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/119 "2010-09-24T20:55:57Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > Well, yes. Haven’t you ever run into the sort who think that God wrote the Bible word for word, right down to it being in English and with red letters for the words of Jesus? > > No, I have not. Lucky. They exist. And vote. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/120 "2010-09-24T20:56:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Well, yes. Haven’t you ever run into the sort who think that God wrote the Bible word for word, right down to it being in English and with red letters for the words of Jesus? To be perfectly honest, I haven’t. But I admit that this may merely be because they are thinner on the ground in the places I’ve been. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842.md?page=7)