• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do some Christians become biblical literalists?

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Consider the following:

Biblical literalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia said:
Biblical literalism (also called Biblicism or Biblical fundamentalism) is the interpretation or translation of the explicit and primary sense of words in the Bible. A literal Biblical interpretation is associated with the fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to Scripture—the historical-grammatical method—and is used extensively by conservative Christians, in contrast to the historical-critical method of liberal Christians. The essence of this approach focuses upon the author's intent as the primary meaning of the text. Literal interpretation does place emphasis upon the referential aspect of the words or terms in the text. It does not, however, mean a complete denial of literary aspects, genre, or figures of speech within the text (e.g., parable, allegory, simile, or metaphor). Also literalism does not necessarily lead to total and complete agreement upon one single interpretation for any given passage.

There are two kinds of literal interpretation, letterism and the more common historical-grammatical method. Letterism attempts to uncover the meaning of the text through a strict emphasis upon a mechanical, wooden literalism of words. This approach often obscures the literary aspects and consequently the primary meaning of the text. The historical grammatical method is a hermeneutic technique that strives to uncover the meaning of the text by taking into account not just the grammatical words, but also the syntactical aspects, the cultural and historical background, and the literary genre.

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals sometimes refer to themselves as "literalists" or Biblical literalists. Sociologists also use the term in reference to conservative Christian beliefs which include not just literalism but also inerrancy. Often the term Biblical literalism is used as a pejorative to describe or ridicule the interpretative approaches of fundamentalist or evangelical Christians.

As far as I know, the majority of biblical literalists believe one or more of the following claims:

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is young.

In addition, as far as I know, the vast majority of Christians who believe one or more of those claims are much more likely to oppose homosexuality, and/or same-sex marraige, and/or abortion, than Christians who are theistic evolutionists, and/or do not believe that a global flood occurred, and/or believe that the earth is old.

I also believe that biblical literalists are more likely than liberal Christians to believe that President Obama is a Muslim, and that President Obama's birth certificate is a forgery.

If a God inspired the Bible, which does he prefer, biblical literalism, or liberal Christian theology? I know that those two terms do not have exact defintions, but we have enough information about the meanings to have some discussions.
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Consider the following:

As far as I know, the majority of biblical literalists believe one or more of the following claims:

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is young.

In addition, as far as I know, the vast majority of Christians who believe one or more of those claims are much more likely to oppose homosexuality, and/or same-sex marraige, and/or abortion, than Christians who are theistic evolutionists, and/or do not believe that a global flood occurred, and/or believe that the earth is old.

I also believe that biblical literalists are more likely than liberal Christians to believe that President Obama is a Muslim, and that President Obama's birth certificate is a forgery.

If a God inspired the Bible, which does he prefer, biblical literalism, or liberal Christian theology? I know that those two terms do not have exact defintions, but we have enough information about the meanings to have some discussions.
What are you basing these assumptions off of? One can be a Biblical literalist, yet still be liberal. One can believe in a global flood, but still be liberal. The assumptions you are making don't really even seem to be connected. Especially when one considers that not all conservative Christians (those who are more likely to oppose homosexuality and the like), are not Biblical literalists. Just look at the Catholic Church for example.

As for what does God prefer, that is an impossible question to answer.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
What are you basing these assumptions off of? One can be a Biblical literalist, yet still be liberal. One can believe in a global flood, but still be liberal. The assumptions you are making don't really even seem to be connected. Especially when one considers that not all conservative Christians (those who are more likely to oppose homosexuality and the like), are not Biblical literalists. Just look at the Catholic Church for example.

As for what does God prefer, that is an impossible question to answer.

Ok, let's make it easier. Consider the following claims:

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is young.

What evidence convinces many Christians to accept one or more of those claims as being literally true?
 

Diederick

Active Member
- lack of proper education
- lack of protection of children from indoctrination (by their parents)
- lack of intelligence and critical thinking
- flooding of the public space by religious messages
- mental health problems
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Ok, let's make it easier. Consider the following claims:

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is young.

What evidence convinces many Christians to accept one or more of those claims as being literally true?
A simple lack of education in regards to that area. And one does not have to be a Bible literalist to even believe those ideas. It simply means they do not have enough education on the subject.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
A simple lack of education in regards to that area.

I agree with you, but the members of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) will disagree with you. As far as I know, all of their members have graduate degrees in science from accredited colleges.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member

The late Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33.)
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I believe that many people who find it difficult to deal with uncertainties, doubts, and skepticism gravitate toward literalism to avoid these vexing bugaboos. It's far easier to point to law and say "This is the way it has to be," than having to contend with one's self doubts, and any considerations others bring up. In a way it's an easy way to go through life. Many important decisions, both what to think and how to think are taken care of. In the case of the Biblical literalist all a person need do is remain silent while pointing out a chosen passage, and "That settles that! So, what's for dinner?" Of course when one commits to a literal reading of something composed in part of folklore and myth, and is filled with inaccuracies and contradictions it makes for a difficult defense when confronted by rational objections and facts. Simply consider the poor creationists who, having to defend their claims, have been forced into a corner where their only defense is distortions, quote mining, intentional misunderstandings, and outright lies. Hardly commendable conduct, but it's an ethical price they are willing to pay because of their basic inability to deal with uncertainties. They have made an enormous investment in their system of belief, and come hell or high water no one is going to rob them of their blind faith (what it essentially comes down to) no matter who says what. Hard evidence against the beliefs of the Biblical literalist is meaningless because it has to be. It MUST be.

My attitude toward others I disagree with, including Biblical literalists, is to live and let live, unless, of course, they actually want to have a dialog about our differences, OR they cross the line and presume to insert their religious agendas into the secular world.
 

mycorrhiza

Well-Known Member
I rarely see literalists following the literal interpretations at least. No cut off hands (Mark 9:43), no not judging others (Matt 7:1) and no giving away everything you own (Matt 19:21). Rather, there seems to be a whole lot of judgement and supporting capitalism in the conservative groups.

Personally, I would say that they haven't studied the Bible enough. To me, it makes more sense to interpret most of the Bible metaphorically (including the miracles of Jesus) as we otherwise end up with quite a few contradictions and cruel verses that don't go very well with the Biblical God being perfect and all-loving.

That, and probably lacking education when it comes to things like evolution. Evolution-deniers with a degree in biology and a full understanding of evolution seem quite rare. I'm not saying that there's a 100% possibility that evolution and old earth is correct, but all evidence points towards it.


Short answer: lack of education, both Biblical and secular.
 

Scott1

Well-Known Member
:sorry1:

The farther they get from the source, the higher the rate of error.

Couldn't help myself.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
An article at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation shows that in 2010, 40% of Americans believed that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," and that some of the most likely groups of people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.
That 40% is somewhat misleading. Not only Biblical literalists would subscribe to the idea that humans were created, pretty much in his present form, 10,000 years ago. Many individuals who believe in theistic evolution also accept this idea. As in, they believe that evolution does occur, but God still created humans.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I've noticed that some of the biblical literalists I know have a tendency to view every field of knowledge as having absolutely true info.
Example: Take Brian (not his real name), who is a Xian fundie. (Actually, it is his real name, but he won't read this.
He will use a particular dictionary from the 1930s to define words. He considers it absolutely correct.
It was right then, & it's right now. No changes allowed.
In this, & other areas, he's quick to latch onto something he will consider "true", & consider all conflicting info to be false.
Discussions with him are difficult, btw.
Anyway, it seems that some need certainty in the world around them, & are prone to latching onto their perspective as the single reality.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
That 40% is somewhat misleading. Not only Biblical literalists would subscribe to the idea that humans were created, pretty much in his present form, 10,000 years ago. Many individuals who believe in theistic evolution also accept this idea. As in, they believe that evolution does occur, but God still created humans.
Did you even check out the link?

Creationist view
God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. 40%

Theistic evolution
Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. 38%
Naturalistic Evolution
Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. 16%
 

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
That 40% is somewhat misleading. Not only Biblical literalists would subscribe to the idea that humans were created, pretty much in his present form, 10,000 years ago. Many individuals who believe in theistic evolution also accept this idea. As in, they believe that evolution does occur, but God still created humans.

Are you referring to the idea of, I think it's called, special creation? That god guided evolution for the most part, but specially created man?
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Did you even check out the link?

Creationist view
God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so. 40%

Theistic evolution
Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. 38%
Naturalistic Evolution
Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. 16%
I have checked out the link a number of times, as agnostic75 has posted it in a dozen threads so far. However, it simply is not the best survey. Since there is overlap here. There are a number of people who believe in Theistic evolution, yet also believe that God created human pretty much in his present form. So there is an overlap here. Also, the actual study didn't list whether one or not believed in theistic evolution, naturalistic evolution, or creationist view. That is something that the people at ReligiousTolerance.org did. The original questioning didn't list such.

Also, this survey only was in regards to human evolution. It wasn't in regard to evolution in general. So that also is going to effect the results. Looking at these results, it would be incorrect to say that 40% of Americans believe in creationism. Because the study did not show that, nor even intended to study such an idea. It was concerned only on human evolution, not evolution in general.





dyanaprajna2011- Yes, that is what I am referring to. However, specifically the Catholic view of such.
 

Deaver

A Follower of Christ
Ok, let's make it easier. Consider the following claims:

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is young.

What evidence convinces many Christians to accept one or more of those claims as being literally true?

There is a lot of evidence to support these positions; just as there is plenty of evidence to support contrary positions. It comes down to your worldview. For me I have a biblical world view based in Christianity.

I believe that biblical passages should be read literally in their common sense plain meaning unless it is obvious that it relates to a symbolic truth. Although I read the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. For example if someone said “the sun is rising” or “it is raining cats and dogs outside," we know that they did not really mean the sun is rising or that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They mean the earth has revolved to the point we can see the sun or that it is raining really hard.

Another point, if we make ourselves the final judge of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who decides which person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Ok, let's make it easier. Consider the following claims:

1. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and had no genetic predecessors.
2. A global flood occurred.
3. The earth is young.

What evidence convinces many Christians to accept one or more of those claims as being literally true?


Some people were raised by parents who taught them it was literal. Also, they probably don't know a lot about science. A lack of education has already been mentioned more than once. There are probably other reasons- including believing that if they don't take it literal, they are not true Christians- which in itself is kind of sad, if you think about it because nowhere does it say that any of it is literal at all.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
fallingblood said:
That 40% is somewhat misleading. Not only Biblical literalists would subscribe to the idea that humans were created, pretty much in his present form, 10,000 years ago. Many individuals who believe in theistic evolution also accept this idea. As in, they believe that evolution does occur, but God still created humans.

Since the U.S. is predominantly Christian, it is reasonable to assume that tens of millions of Americans believe that humans were created pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago.

If a poll question had been "Do you believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?," I believe that about 40% of the people who were polled would have said "no."
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Since the U.S. is predominantly Christian, it is reasonable to assume that tens of millions of Americans believe that humans were created pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago.

If a poll question had been "Do you believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor?," I believe that about 40% of the people who were polled would have said "no."
And? We are talking about human evolution, not evolution in general. Whether or not tens of millions of Americans believe that humans were created pretty much in their present form, about 10,000 years ago, really doesn't tell us if they are Biblical literalists, their view on evolution in general, whether or not they believe in the flood, etc. It only tells us that they believe humans were created in their present form.

They could still believe in evolution otherwise though. Case in point, Catholics.
 
Top