Talk:Biblical literalism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon bible.svg

This Bible related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Wicked problems[edit]

Has anyone come across an apologist explaining how the Bible can contain no errors in light of the existence of the "Wicked Bible," an edition of the KJV from 1631 that includes the commandment "Thou shalt commit adultery?" I'd love to watch the mental gymnastics involved in ignoring that one. Jwebb13 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy, the devil did it, and god allowed it to test the faith of his true believers. Why? Ineffability, that's why! Being religious is so easy! (talk)

Interjection from a believer[edit]

The current definition of 'expert' differs greatly from even the recent past. The role of parents, teachers and church elders has never been denied as valuable in passing on accumulated understanding and experience which can help the young believer to understand what he is reading. These are not 'experts' in the modern sense of the word. 'Experts' nowadays are merely those who have been educated into the mindset of the time and have a formal qualification to prove it, quite apart from any personal experience of the matter at hand, and who thereby believe themselves to be above such experience and able to judge it. Literalists are those who claim to have had first hand experience of the Holy Spirit and therefore have access to his illumination on these matters. As fallible humans they don't always get it right, discussion, debate and dark times have always been a part of the church experience, but obvious untruths never stand for long in the light of the Spirit or of the reality that he created, hence the incredible resilience of the Christian faith. On the other hand, those who approach the scriptures without faith as if to place themselves in judgement upon God or to mock him, no matter how well educated, cannot expect to then be given access to his treasures. In the end, those without God (whether by their own choice or his) are in the dark with regard to his mind or heart or purposes, and have no hope of accurately interpreting his recorded communications with us. As Jesus said 'no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again ...I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.' — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Dealing with Biblical literalists[edit]

Possibly as a Funspace article:

Ask questions such as:

  • Do you read/watch crime fiction? Well the Ten Commandments state 'Do not kill' - and you have done so figuratively (along the lines of lusting after someone means you have committed adultery in your heart).
  • Do you read/watch lifestyle of the rich and famous programs? Then you have broken the 'Thou shalt not covet...' commandment.
  • Do you eat pig-meat, shellfish and other biblically banned foodstuffs?
  • Do you wear clothes of mixed fibres?'

What other questions could be asked? (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Literalism = "inerrant."?[edit]

Is it true to equate literal and inerrant? I know that many literalists believe the original text was inerrant. However, modern text can contain editing errors.— Unsigned, by: / talk

Do you mean "Is it correct do do it?" or "Is it true some people do it?" or "is it really the same thing?"Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Isn't your page biased[edit]

Quote: "Circular reasoning is an argument in which a person begins with the point that he or she is trying to prove. Well-meaning Christians who seek to prove the Bible is God’s Word have often used this fallacy. For example, a person might say, “The Bible is true because it says it comes from God.” While the argument is true, it is not a valid logical argument, because it uses the conclusion to prove its conclusion.

In contrast, to say something is self-authenticating is to say it is true without offering additional proof. A good example is a notarized document. A notarized document can be submitted as proof in a court of law because it has already been authenticated as true in another context. Some claim the Bible is self-authenticating in the same sense, because it has been proven by other means, such as external history or archaeology. While this is true to some extent, it is not true in the same sense as a notarized document.

To show that the Bible is self-authenticating, we can look at some ways the Bible can be demonstrated to be true through external means. There are two means of logical reasoning, deductive and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning uses the premises of an argument to prove the conclusion is certainly and undeniably true, such as 2+2=4. Inductive reasoning instead compiles evidence to show the likelihood of a conclusion’s truth. This is the better option for argumentation about the accuracy of Scripture.

To provide inductive evidence for the trustworthiness of the Bible, you can offer many lines of evidence to increase the likelihood that it is true. This can include external history that supports the Bible’s events, archaeology, early manuscripts, the quality of agreement between manuscripts, and other lines of evidence. These means can provide ample support to show the Bible is trustworthy and accurate; yet the view that the Bible is inerrant is based on a theological argument.

Biblically speaking, Scripture claims the Bible is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16–17). If it is breathed by God, and God is perfect, Scripture must be perfect (Psalm 19). Another way to say this is that God is true (Romans 3:4) and God breathed out Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16–17); therefore, the Scriptures are true. Many have argued from these and other passages that the Bible is self-authenticating, that it proves itself true within its own words. However, this is a deduction based on Scripture itself and is unacceptable to anyone who does not already agree with the accuracy of the Bible."


Recommended Resource: I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek

God bless -- (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Jhonny

Yeah no. If that were true then it could apply to literally any document that claims to be true. Also Frank Turek is a shit source since all he does is declare himself right and then use fallacious arguements to try to prove his claim after the fact. It's almost as if he's full of crap and he knows it... He also either doesn't understand jack shit about the opposing side (non-believers in general) or is too dishonest to admit he's strawmaning them. TL;DR special pleading attempt for for circular reasoning for Biblical literalism #879 has failed. Please come back when you have something better than "because I say so." ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no doubt that some things in the bible are true. Jerusalem is mentioned in the bible and Jerusalem exists.
There is no doubt that some things in the bible are not true. The world was not created in seven days - notwithstanding the claims of biblical literalists; and the earth is not flat - notwithstanding the claims of biblical flat earthers.
So if the bible is a mixture of fact and fiction how can it be self authenticating?Hubert (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)